Facism and court decisions (was The New N at zi$m)

Nathan Newman nathan at newman.org
Sun Feb 17 03:50:26 PST 2002


----- Original Message ----- From: "Charles Jannuzi" <jannuzi at edu00.f-edu.fukui-u.ac.jp>


>Fascist or not, what if their regime is already in place? Clinton was
>impeached on pretty weak grounds. Then the mainstream media said things
>like: Gore will lose the popular vote but might get elected because of the
>electoral college. What happened instead? Bush got elected thanks to the
>Supreme Court.

Come on, leftwingers play this rhetoric that there is political difference between the parties, because they are both just extensions of corporate power, but then what should then be seen as a bit of intermural nastiness within the corporate class gets elevated to the level of fascist takeover.

You can't have your ideological cake and eat it too.

Stolen Chicago elections were never a sign of incipient facism, but of a very different kind of democratic corruption. Bush v. Gore was that kind of corruption taken to a level that, because it involved the Supreme Court, implicates the legitimacy of the whole system, but does not give evidence of fascism in any reasonable definition. Stealing a close election through manipulation of the rules and courts is not the same as banning opposition parties and jailing and killing their leaders.

The frigging Naderites claimed that controlling the Supreme Court doesn't matter and then when it does politically, they scream fascism. The courts are just one more political institution that if you allow the Right to control because you'd rather "vote your conscience", then don't whine about its decisions.

We liked the Court when it overruled democratic decisions on segregation and abortion -- it was the Right screaming authoritarianism and fascism over those decisions -- so don't elevate bad decisions to some historically wrongheaded analogy.

Because of Nader, we are having to fend off court nominees like Pickering who wrote law review articles on how to tighten laws preventing different-race marriages and Sutton who wants to overturn every antidiscrimination law in the name of states rights. The Nader voters didn't think such nominees would matter, so why moan about which corporate-picked President is making such decisions?

-- Nathan Newman



More information about the lbo-talk mailing list