US Inc.

A case involving 11South Africans who are suing some of the United State’s largest companies over human rights abuses got underway a week ago with very little attention by the great PR firm known the mainstream media. What is so profound about this case is less the case itself than the reason it was allowed to move forward. As it turns out the Supreme Court itself was unable to make a decision because too many of the justices, or their family members, retain stocks in many of the companies that have been cited in the lawsuit. Here is a closer look at is behind the case and how the blurring of Federal and corporate interests can very well cripple our legal system

In May of this year the United States Supreme court tied for one of the first time in recent history because too many judges would be in conflict interest. The case in question was brought by some 11 black South Africans living under the apartheid Government from 1948 to 1994. The victims in the suit are seeking $400 billion dollars in damages from 50 US corporations who were financially in bed with the former apartheid landownership structure which had enslaved the locals in their own country. Those filing the case are using the “‘Alien Tort Claims Act’, a U.S. law enacted in 1789… meant to protect U.S. ships from pirates and U.S. diplomats from attack overseas”, according to David Stout of the International Herald Tribune. A lower court judge ruled in favor of those who filed the suit after lawyer Paul Hoffman wrote that any ruling by the supreme court would be seen as the aiding and abetting the defendants. As to be expected lawyers representing the companies tried to put forth the argument that Hoffman, as Richey Warren of the Christian Science Monitor put it, “was trying to hide behind procedural maneuvers.”

The companies named as defendants include, Citi-Group, Exxon-Mobile, General Electric, International Business Machines, IBM Bank of America, Barclay’s Bank, Bristol-Meyers Squibb, BP, ChevronTexaco, Citigroup, Coca-Cola, Daimler, and Deutch Bank. Four of the court’s nine justices had to excuse themselves from making any decision on the case. Justices John Roberts JR, Stephen Breyer and Samuel Alito JR all owned stock in these companies. Justice Kennedy’s son Gregory still holds several stocks in some of the companies named in the suit. By any ruler, this situation shows quite clearly, and alarmingly, how easily the court is crippled when facing what has become the “money changers.” Moreover, it brings into question the importance of public opinion, and laws for that matter since those in charge are essentially in bed with those who commit the most stark crimes against humanity and the environment.

By not being able to make a decision on the case, the Supreme court has to allow the suit to move forward. While this is good news on the surface, it does expose how intertwined the US’s own structure is with that of corporate interests and how these interests in turn can cripple the government. What we are seeing in this case in the literal crippling of our justice system because those in Washington who accept corporate backing or have stakes in those companies must now challenge the very same money changers that supply funds to every politician’s campaign come election time. As a result it has become unquestioned practice even for judges to find themselves in bed with the same entities they themselves are technically supposed to govern.

Welcome to US Inc.

Until next time.

http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/05/12/business/court.php

http://www.globalpolicy.org/intljustice/atca/2008/0513apartheid.htm