Do you remember when Wal-Mart lost his first tooth? Or when Microsoft learned to ride a bike? How about the excited looks on Exxon and IBM’s faces Christmas morning as they raced down the stairs to open presents from Uncle Chevron and Aunt General Motors? Were you there when Morgan Stanley took PepsiCo to the prom?

Of course not.

Corporations aren’t people.

They are not born.

Short of bankruptcy or buy-outs, they also do not die.

But the Supreme Court of the United States seems to think they are living beings; as such, they granted corporations the ability to give as much as they please to politicians for their campaigns in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

As Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in his dissent of the 5-4 decision, “The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.”

These multi-billion dollar entities have been handed an unspeakable amount of power. Arguably, they already had it, but now it’s completely legal and completely unfair.

Justice Stevens continued later to write, “The legal structure of corporations allows them to amass and deploy financial resources on a scale few natural persons can match.”

Say what you will about only liberals and pot-smoking hippies getting mad while the GOP literally throws themselves a grand ol’ party in celebration. I’m not about to wave red or blue flags on this one. Everyone on both sides should be offended by the precedent that has been put in place.

Those who decide your rights and the future of your city, county, state and country can unashamedly be purchased to fit the agendas of big business. Voices will be silenced right and left as a corporate media Barbie assures you that everything’s a-OK.

Supreme Court-approved bribery – strike one.

Back in 2007, this John Roberts-led crew of justices also decided to toss out the Fair Pay Act of 1963 and the Civil Rights Act of 1964 in Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. When Lilly Ledbetter discovered she was being paid less than the men around her doing the same work, she brought her case to court. Under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the statute of limitations for filing suit is 180 days from uncovering wage discrimination. The Supreme Court denied her claim in a 5-4 decision, saying that the statute of limitations should be 180 days from negotiating pay or otherwise the first paycheck.

So to ensure that one is paid just as much as everyone else, should a new employee go around to all his co-workers on his first day and ask how much everyone makes? Probably not the best impression to make with colleagues, especially when wage rates are often kept confidential.

Further food for thought: In 2007, when this case was decided, the U.S. Census Bureau reported that the mean annual salary for men (of all races) was $50,110 versus the mean earnings of women (of all races) being $32,899.

After the case, Congress immediately drew up the Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, which was signed into law in January of 2009 by President Obama. Superseding the Supreme Court’s decision, the act restored the terms of the 1964 Civil Rights Act.

Weakening gender and racial rights that many fought so very hard for – that’s strike two, Justice Roberts.

Supreme Court justices, like Cabinet members, are officials who are not elected. The general population doesn’t put them in these life-term seats – presidents do. Even when strike three rolls along, there’s no umpire that can call this misguided batter out. Then again Justice Roberts seems to think he’s qualified to be the ump, as he so stated in his 2005 statement before the Senate Judiciary Committee.

“Judges are like umpires,” he said. “Umpires don’t make the rules; they apply them.”

But the Supreme Court does set precedents, which in essence become the rules and guidelines for future decisions to be made in every United States court from here on out.

The only hope is that once again Congress will step in and reverse the precedent – a corporation-backed Congress, I might add.

It’s an absolute shame that the highest court in the land must be called into question.

When Obama’s nominee Sonia Sotomayor was up for becoming a justice, she was frequently accused of being an “activist justice.” With Roberts carving new precedents and looking to overturn Fourteenth Amendment-protected Roe v. Wade, one could hardly say she’s alone.

Ironically the amendment is also the one which superseded another bad Supreme Court call, Dred Scott v. Sanford, as MSNBC anchor Keith Olbermann has been quick to point out.

“Unless this near mortal blow is somehow undone within 10 years,” Olbermann said in his special comment regarding the Jan. 21 decision, “every politician in this country will be a prostitute.”

Though I do feel that Olbermann’s comments are exaggerated, I fear he might not be far from the truth.

SINCE THE restoration of democracy in 1986, the Philippines has undergone two turbulent transitions of power: During the first People Power Revolution and during Edsa II in 2001, when President Joseph Estrada stepped down and then Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo took over in a “constitutional” coup backed by the Supreme Court and the Armed Forces.

After nine years of tumultuous presidency, Ms Arroyo is stepping down on June 30, also amid controversy, this time over the successor to Chief Justice Reynato Puno, who is due to retire on May 17.

There is irony in the situation: Puno was the author of the landmark Supreme Court decision that held Estrada had resigned the presidency, following the collapse of his administration, under the now famous doctrine called the “totality test.”

Under the doctrine, which legitimized the takeover of Ms Arroyo, Estrada should be considered resigned although he did not, in fact, sign a letter of resignation before he abandoned Malacañang.

Puno has penned several decisions critical of the current administration, and Ms Arroyo and he are no longer on friendly terms as she moves to consolidate her control of the high court before her own term ends.

Total control

Of the 15 members of the Supreme Court, 14 justices were appointed by Ms Arroyo. Puno was appointed to the court by President Fidel Ramos but he owes his appointment as Chief Justice to Ms Arroyo.

No Philippine president has packed the court as completely as Ms Arroyo has, giving rise to anxieties that she has eroded its independence at a time when she is preparing to step down.

Not even the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos achieved total control of the Supreme Court despite his dictatorial powers under 14 years of martial rule.

Ms Arroyo’s seeming push to get rid of Puno before his retirement and on the eve of the May national elections has sparked a heated controversy in both political and legal circles, and promises to shower her exit with a scalding political fallout.

Fiery exit

Ms Arroyo is barred by the Constitution from running for another term. She has, in fact, slid down to run for a congressional seat in her home turf of Pampanga.

This has raised questions on why she is provoking a confrontation with the court on an issue that does not directly affect her chances of winning in the congressional election.

Ms Arroyo is winding down her presidency while setting political precedents, such as by running for Congress and moving to have her own man to head the Supreme Court despite an explicit constitutional ban on making “midnight appointments” before her successor is elected.

The push ensures that she will have as fiery an exit as that of Marcos in 1986 and of Estrada in 2001, in a stark contrast to the smooth transfer of power by President Corazon Aquino to Ramos in 1992, and by Ramos to Estrada in 1998.

Origin of the ban

The controversy over Puno’s tenure takes us back to Dec. 31, 1961, when President Diosdado Macapagal—Ms Arroyo’s father—voided 350 appointments by outgoing President Carlos P. Garcia, including that of Finance Secretary Dominador Aytona, who was appointed Central Bank governor on Dec. 30.

Macapagal promptly replaced Aytona with Andres Castillo.

It was a turbulent turnover marked by the arrival of Castillo at the bank with an armored car and a force of Constabulary Rangers to oust Aytona, amid shouts of “police state” and “Ranger justice.”

The Supreme Court upheld Macapagal’s action. This was the origin of a legislation that came to be called the “ban midnight appointments” doctrine.

Macapagal gave four reasons for voiding Garcia’s appointments. One was that Garcia should have refrained from filling vacancies to give the new President an “opportunity to consider names in the light of his new policies, which were approved by the electorate in the last election.”

Violation of Constitution

The current controversy was triggered by a proposal by Quezon City Rep. Matias Defensor, a member of the Judicial and Bar Council, advising the JBC to commence its process in nominating candidates for Chief Justice, to “allow the President to avoid any vacancy” in the court.

The initiative provoked a storm of protests from legal circles which denounced it as a “brazen violation” of the Constitution.

They cited the constitutional ban on midnight appointments under Article VII, Section 15 which reads:

“Two months immediately before the next presidential elections and up to the end of his term, a President or acting President shall not make appointments, except temporary appointments to executive positions when continued vacancies therein will prejudice public service or endanger public safety.”

Arrogance of power

The legal experts contended that this prohibition applied to Supreme Court justices.

They said Puno may have the option to retire from his position before his mandatory retirement, but “until such time that he actually retires, the President has no power to appoint the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”

In a statement, past national presidents of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines condemned the move to appoint a Chief Justice prematurely “as obviously intended to circumvent the constitutional prohibition against midnight appointments … This is sheer arrogance of power.”

Ms Arroyo is not about to back down to ward off a confrontation. She insists that as long as she remains President until June 30, she will continue to exercise the presidential powers of appointment.

Inevitable showdown

The showdown with Puno appears inevitable. Puno is unlikely to bow to pressure to step down before May 17.

Inside the court, at least two justices have expressed interest in being considered for nomination to the position of Chief Justice by the JBC but laid down the condition that the short list of nominees be submitted only to the next President.

They are Antonio Carpio, next in line to Puno in seniority, and Conchita Carpio-Morales. Both are Arroyo appointees.

Carpio was Ms Arroyo’s first appointee after taking over from Estrada. Carpio has become her fiercest critic in his decisions.