John Roberts is ignorant of history

This comes to us via Doug over at Balloon Juice, and it's absolutely worth your time. Justin Fox of Harvard Business Review recently sat down with Brian Murphy, a history professor at Baruch College, to talk about the Founding Fathers' record and writings in regard to corporate personhood:

A couple months ago the Supreme Court ruled that restricting corporate political spending amounted to restricting free speech. In this view, corporations are pretty much equivalent to people. Would that have seemed reasonable to the Founding Fathers?

In a word, no.

I read this opinion carefully — I'm trained as a historian, not a lawyer. Chief Justice Roberts lays out an ideologically pure view of corporations as associations of citizens — leveling differences between companies, schools and other groups. So in his view Boeing is no different from Harvard, which is no different from the NAACP, or Citizens United, or my local neighborhood civic association. It's lovely prose, but as a matter of history the majority is simply wrong.

Let me put it this way: the Founders did not confuse Boston's Sons of Liberty with the British East India Company. They could distinguish among different varieties of association — and they understood that corporate personhood was a legal fiction that was limited to a courtroom. It wasn't literal. Corporations could not vote or hold office. They held property, and to enable a shifting group of shareholders to hold that property over time and to sue and be sued in court, they were granted this fictive personhood in a limited legal context.

Early Americans had a far more comprehensive and nuanced understanding of corporations than the Court gives them credit for. They were much more comfortable with retaining pre-Revolutionary city or school charters than with creating new corporations that would concentrate economic and political power in potentially unaccountable institutions. When you read Madison in particular, you see that he wasn't blindly hostile to banks during his fight with Alexander Hamilton over the Bank of the United States. Instead, he's worried about the unchecked power of accumulations of capital that come with creating a class of bankers.

So even as this generation of Americans became comfortable with the idea of using the corporate form as a way to set priorities and mobilize capital, they did their best to make sure that those institutions were subordinate to elected officials and representative government. They saw corporations as corrupting influences on both the economy at large and on government — that's why they described the East India Company as imperium in imperio, a sort of "state within a state." This wasn't an outcome they were looking to replicate.

So much for "original intent." But then, I don't think anyone to the left of Pat Buchanan had any illusions that John Roberts was anything other than a hard-right ideologue who doesn't give a flying fuck about what's in the Constitution or what the Founding Fathers' intent was. His agenda is Of the Corporations, For the Corporations, By the Corporations.

Chief WATB of the Supreme Court

The Holocaust dead, the people of Haiti, and the unemployed of America have nothing on poor, put-upon John Roberts, a.k.a. Percy Dovetonsils, who had to endure the tortures of the damned at the hands of that upstart in the White House last month:

U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts said Tuesday the scene at President Obama's State of the Union address was "very troubling" and the annual speech has "degenerated to a political pep rally."

Obama chided the court, with the justices seated before him in their black robes, for its decision on a campaign finance case.

Responding to a University of Alabama law student's question, Roberts said anyone was free to criticize the court, and some have an obligation to do so because of their positions.

"So I have no problems with that," he said. "On the other hand, there is the issue of the setting, the circumstances and the decorum.

"The image of having the members of one branch of government standing up, literally surrounding the Supreme Court, cheering and hollering while the court — according the requirements of protocol — has to sit there expressionless, I think is very troubling."

Breaking from tradition, Obama criticized the court's decision that allows corporations and unions to freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

"With all due deference to the separation of powers the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections," Obama said in January.

Justice Samuel Alito was the only justice to respond at the time, shaking his head and mouthing the words "not true" as Obama continued.

Roberts told the students he wonders whether justices should attend the speeches.

"I'm not sure why we're there," said Roberts, a Republican nominee who joined the court in 2005.

Even the hacktacular Nina Totenberg, who has been known to often carry water for the wingnuttiest of the wingnuts, said on NPR tonight that Roberts is full of shit, citing Teddy Roosevelt and Saint Ronnie himself, both of whom chastised the Supreme Court at State of the Union addresses.

Jonathan Weiler thinks Roberts' snit fit says something about his relationship to and views on authoritarianism, while DougJ pretty much expresses my sentiment about this whiny, elitist, corrupt sack of shit.

Remember that rumor a few weeks ago about John Roberts quitting? Maybe he should. Heat, kitchen, etc.

A new light on an old disease

When was the last time you heard anyone talk about epilepsy? I thought so. But now that Justice John Roberts has had a second major seizure, he fits the criteria for epilepsy and a determination must be made as to whether he requires medication:

“I would recommend taking medication,” Dr. Barkley said. “The intervals tend to get shorter and shorter, and people tend to have recurrent seizures.”

He explained: “The brain learns from practice. The more you practice, the better you get, whether you’re playing the piano or having seizures. The more you have, the more you’re going to have. Most neurologists feel that the best way to intervene is to get the seizures under control as quickly as possible.”

Dr. Robert S. Fisher, director of the epilepsy center at Stanford University and a past president of the American Epilepsy Society, said: “In my view, it would be reasonable not to treat. It sounds like he went 14 years between seizures, and that’s a lot of pills to take to prevent the next seizure 14 years from now. The new ones are better than the old ones in terms of side effects, but they all have potential side effects and risks.”

Doctors say a complete medical workup is needed to find out if the two reported seizures were really the only ones that have occurred, because people with epilepsy can have mild seizures that they are not aware of. Neurologists often ask family members whether patients have certain symptoms, like daydreaming or blanking out for brief intervals, and not snapping out of it when others try to speak to them. Other symptoms may include dizziness, sensations in the stomach, feelings of déjà vu or noticing odd smells or tastes in the mouth — experiences that the patient may not recognize as seizures.

Often, Dr. Barkley said, a patient will report having had one seizure, but when asked about these other symptoms will say, “Oh, yes, that happens all the time.”

If such symptoms are frequent, it may sway the decision in favor of treatment.

Dr. Cynthia L. Harden, a professor of neurology at NewYork-Presbyterian Hospital/Weill Cornell Medical Center, said it would be important to perform brain-wave studies to look for abnormal electrical activity in the brain, to get an idea of where the seizures may be starting and how frequent they are.

Dr. Harden said such studies during sleep were especially useful, and could help in making the decision about treatment. In people with epilepsy, Dr. Harden said, sleep deprivation can be a potent cause of seizures. The chief justice has had a busy schedule recently, including a two-week trip to Europe during which he attended conferences and taught.

Unless he can be shown to have had multiple milder seizures, this would be a tough call. On the one hand, you don't want to take medication unless absolutely necessary, but if the next seizure takes place, say, behind the wheel of a car, the consequences could be catastrophic for himself and others.

One would hope that as with any disease afflicting someone high-profile, Roberts allows his experience to enable shining a brighter light on a disease that is not uncommon, but is rarely discussed. One would also hope that the next time a case involving health care comes before him, he reflects on the excellent care he receives from the United States government, and on whether all Americans should be able to obtain the level of care he is receiving.

Methinks perhaps they reassure too much

The coverage last night of Chief Justice John Roberts' hospitalization for what is being described as a "benign idiopathic seizure" questioned the almost instantaneous reassurance that "he has fully recovered from the incident." Any time there is a brain incident like this, quick and facile diagnoses, absent a history of epilepsy, are usually not standard practice.

Because we are not a "hate site", contrary to what most wingnuts may believe, we hope for Roberts to make a full recovery. He is, after all, a relatively young man with young children. Unlike the mouthbreathers on the right, our compassion isn't contingent on liking what he does or his ideology.

Roberts had a similar incident in 1993 and has not had a recurrence since. Interestingly, a Google search on "benign idiopathic seizure" reveals nothing that occurs in adulthood. There is, however, an idiopathic generalized epilepsy of adult onset, which has a genetic component.

If in fact Roberts does have a form of adult onset epilepsy, this is still not a cause for excessive concern and should not result in talk of his resignation, particularly if Arlen Specter is truthful that the Senate Judiciary Committee knew of the 1993 incident and didn't find it important. Epilepsy is treatable with medication, and one would hope that we have progressed beyond the stigma that the syndrome used to carry with it.

If the Roberts incident causes the composition of the Supreme Court to finally become a presidential campaign issue, particularly with a third of Americans now believing that the Court is "too conservative", up from 19% in 2005, that would not be the worst thing in the world. Rudy Giuliani has already said he would appoing "strict constructionist" justices, which is code for "extremely reactionary" in the mold of Samuel Alito. The Roberts court has made clear that it favors corporations over citizens and government control over individual rights. Concerns about the Court extend far beyond Roe. Assuming that Roberts is not seriously ill, shining a spotlight on this Court is a positive development.