Warren: "Soon you'll have a Supreme Court that is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business."


supreme court justices corporate

Senator Elizabeth Warren is worried about our very corporate Supreme Court. She's worried that they will rule in favor of Hobby Lobby, just as they decided in favor of Citizens United. And that decision has been a disaster.

To quote one of my favorite analysts, Dahlia Lithwick at Slate, SCOTUS will rule on "whether the religious rights of a for-profit corporate entity allow it to refuse to provide for employees insurance that would include certain forms of birth control. In so doing, the court may now be forced to reckon with the question of whether the same corporate personhood that includes the right to free speech also encompasses rights to religious conscience. In other words, Corporate Personhood is back! And this time, it’s got God on its side."

Case by case, this Supreme Court is, indeed, out to legalize corporate personhood.  Conservative extremists have spent decades shaking their political pom poms to cheer zygote personhood.  What next, hypocrisy personhood? But when it comes to actual people personhood, American citizen personhood, voting rights personhood, women's and gay rights personhood, they scurry off to Faux ChristianLand where Fox News [sic] feeds them their next "my belief system trumps reality" talking points.

And now these same zealots are (incredibly) being given credibility by the highest court in the U.S.A.

The following email from Senator Warren landed in my inbox today. As is made painfully obvious by K.C. Boyd's weekly "Upchucks" guest posts here at TPC, the separation of church and state is narrowing daily. This growing trend is serious and is endangering our dwindling democracy. We need to organize our voices and protest immediately, loudly, clearly, and constantly.

Bolding is mine:


Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover its employees' birth control on company insurance plans. In fact, they're so outraged about women having access to birth control that they've taken the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

I cannot believe that we live in a world where we would even consider letting some big corporation deny the women who work for it access to the basic medical tests, treatments or prescriptions that they need based on vague moral objections.

But here's the scary thing: With the judges we've got on the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby might actually win.

The current Supreme Court has headed in a very scary direction.

Recently, three well-respected legal scholars examined almost 20,000 Supreme Court cases from the last 65 years. They found that the five conservative justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court are in the top 10 most pro-corporate justices in more than half a century.

And Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts? They were number one and number two.

Take a look at the win rate of the national Chamber of Commerce cases before the Supreme Court. According to the Constitutional Accountability Center, the Chamber was winning 43% of the cases in participated in during the later years of the Burger Court, but that shifted to a 56% win-rate under the Rehnquist Court, and then a 70% win-rate with the Roberts Court.

Follow these pro-corporate trends to their logical conclusion, and pretty soon you'll have a Supreme Court that is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business.

Birth control is at risk in today's case, but we also need to worry about a lot more.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court unleashed a wave of corporate spending to game the political system and drown the voices of middle class families.

And right now, the Supreme Court is considering McCutcheon v. FEC, a case that could mean the end of campaign contribution limits – allowing the big guys to buy even more influence in Washington.

Republicans may prefer a rigged court that gives their corporate friends and their armies of lawyers and lobbyists every advantage. But that's not the job of judges. Judges don't sit on the bench to hand out favors to their political friends.

On days like today, it matters who is sitting on the Supreme Court. It matters that we have a President who appoints fair and impartial judges to our courts, and it matters that we have a Senate who approves them.

We're in this fight because we believe that we don't run this country for corporations – we run it for people.

Thank you for being a part of this,


scotus supreme court koch smaller

  • Aside from the absurd idea that we change a headline just because you don't like it, Bill, you apparently don't understand what function quotation marks perform: they quote.

    The statement about SCOTUS being a (here we are again - quotation marks!) "wholly owned subsidiary of big business" is from Senator Warren's email.

    If you don't feel that's true, you should take it up with Senator Warren.

    But here's another quote from Senator Warren's email (note the quotation marks again) ""Follow these pro-corporate trends to their logical conclusion, and pretty soon you'll have a Supreme Court" ".

    She is not saying that the Supreme Court *is* a subsidiary of big business but that the present trend of SCOTUS decisions leads one (Senator Warren, me, millions of other people) to the logical conclusion that the Supreme Count will *soon* be a wholly owned subsidiary of Big Business.

    Please note the word "soon" as in 'will soon be'.

    At no point does she say it *is*.

    If you don't agree that it's a logical conclusion, that's your choice.

    I do.

  • Oh Bill, you keep me so amused with your stream of "scurrilous" comments at TPC. I'm done asking, "Seriously?" in response. I'm at the point where I'm literally stifling laughter.

    Your demand-- demand, I tells ya!-- to "change your scurrilous headline" had me in stitches.

    What you believe and what Sen. Warren and I believe differ. What is truly "scurrilous" is the corporate mindset of several justices on this court. Save your outrage for their atrocious rulings. Warren's words should be the least of your worries.

  • Your headline says "wholly owned subsidiary," but your article says nothing about about any cash transfer or purchase, or even hints at it. I do not like the ideology of this court, but I believe that it is ideology and not that it has been bought and paid for. Change your scurrilous headline.

  • RepublicanSwine

    It's all about "Personhood" and it's constitutional privileges and rights until these Corporations are caught breaking the law. Then they hide behind the Corporate Shield of "Separate Entity" and dodge all the Responsibility that comes with "Personhood"