“Maybe, just maybe, the legislative and judicial systems have been corrupted, by, dare I say it, corporations?”
—Ethics Alarms commenter and OWS warrior Jeff Field, in his comment regarding the weekend post, The Marianne Gingrich Ethics Train Wreck
I don’t know how Jeff reaches the conclusion that the judicial system has been corrupted by corporations. Judges, unlike legislators, do not grow rich as a result of their inside knowledge and corporate connections. Judges, unlike revolving-door Congressional staffers and lawyers, do not generally come from corporate backgrounds. The fact that a judicial decision benefits the interests of some corporations, and many do not, does not mean that the decision was not just or was influenced by more than persuasive legal arguments. Those who believe that begin with the biased and untenable position that any decision that benefits a corporation must be, by definition, wrong.
So let me put that dubious assertion aside as the result of excessive reformer’s zeal and crusader’s license, and deal with the general proposition that corporations corrupt the legislative system, and society generally. Well, sure they do, but the statement is misleading, and, I would argue, meaningless because it places disproportional importance on the corrupting influence of this one, admittedly important, societal force.
Yes, corporations can be corrupting influences. So can government, and the lure of public office. The news media is a corrupting influence on the legislature, and upon society generally. Religion corrupts; as does popular culture, with its celebration of empty celebrity, glamor and wealth. Non-profits and charities are corrupted by their tunnel vision of specific worthy objectives to the neglect of others; the civil rights movement corrupts, as does feminism and all other advocacy efforts, which often, if not usually, succumb to an “ends justify the means” ethic, which is unethical. Indeed, freedom corrupts, as does dependence. Cynicism corrupts, and corrupts with a vengeance. Ignorance corrupts; so does the belief, however well-supported, that one knows it all. Ideological certitude and inflexibility corrupts.
Education, and the cost of it, corrupts. Sports, both professional and collegiate, corrupt people, students, and institutions. Science corrupts; technology corrupts. Heaven knows, the internet corrupts. Leisure and success; triumph and defeat; wealth and poverty, love and hate, desperation, patriotism; kindness, loyalty, sex, lust; intellectual superiority, beauty, physical prowess, passion. Talent corrupts. Kindness and sympathy too.
Self-righteousness. Fear. Worry. Envy. Stupidity. Zealotry.
And, as we all know, power and the love of money.
All of these and more corrupt human beings and the institutions, organizations and governments that they make up. If individuals are corruptible, something will corrupt them, as sure as the sun rises and the quinces ripen. To focus upon any one of the limitless and abundant sources of corruption and to say, “This, above all, is the cause of our problems” is naive and unfair. By all means, we must seek ways to limit the opportunities for corruption and the damage it can do, but we must also recognize that the ability to corrupt does not mean that something or someone does not or cannot contribute much good to society as well. Heroes can corrupt, as we saw in the tragedy of Joe Paterno, but we need heroes. Leaders can corrupt, and often do, but we still need leaders.
Ultimately, the best way to stop people and things from corrupting us is to understand what corruption is and how easy it is to be corrupted. Our inoculation is ethics, understanding right and wrong and how to recognize both, and learning to recognize when we are biased, conflicted, or being guided by non-ethical or unethical motivations. Shifting the blame for corruption away from ourselves is comforting, but intimately counter-productive. We have the power to resist corruption, just as it is within out power to select public servants who are not likely to be corrupted. It is our responsibility to do so.
Ethics Alarms 
My understanding of right and wrong boils down to four words.
That’s swell, but unless there’s a way to make sure God smites wrongdoers, and he hasn’t been good about that, this isn’t a lot of help.,
There is no way to make sure God smites evildoers, for He does as He pleases and He answers to no one.
Exactly. Which l;eaves us back where we started…having to figure out right and wrong ourselves.
One example of judicial corruption was Judge Vaughn Walker.
In hearing the complaint against the governor, attorney general,
and registrar-recorder of vital statistics, he defied binding
precedent. See Ex Parte Young (holding that the defendant being
enjoined “must have some connection with the enforcement of the
[allegedly unconstitutional] act.”) 209 U.S. 123 at 157, and Los
Angeles County Bar Association v. Eu (holding that the enjoined
defendants’ “connection must be fairly direct; a generalized duty to
enforce state law or general supervisory power over the persons
responsible for enforcing the challenged provision will not subject an
official to suit.”) , 979 F.2d 697 at 704 (9th Cir. 1992). The act
that allegedly denied the civil rights of the plaintiffs was the
denial of the marriage licenses, and that act was only done by the
defendant county clerks. Therefore, in this case, only the clerks were
proper defendants. (The governor and attorney general could have
intervened of course, but since they did not want to defend the law,
they did not have to. This does beg the question of why they did not
move for dismissal based on Young and L.A. County Bar Assoc., although
Walker should have dismissed them from the case anyway) See also
Bishop v. Oklahoma, No. 06-5188N.D. Okla. (D.C. No. 04-CV-848-TCK)
(dismissing Oklahoma governor and attorney general as defendants in a
constitutional challenge against Question 711) (10th Cir. 2009)
(unpublished)
In trying to determine the subjective intent of voters, he defied
binding precedent. See Southern Alameda Spanish Speaking Organization
v. City of Union City, 424 F.2d 291 at 295 (9th Cir. 1970) (rejecting the claim
that “the question of motivation for the referendum (apart from a
consideration of its effect) is an appropriate one for judicial
inquiry” and holding that “[i]f the true motive is to be ascertained not
through speculation but through a probing of the private attitudes of
the voters, the inquiry would entail an intolerable invasion of the
privacy that must protect an exercise of the franchise”) See also
Equality Foundation of Greater Cincinnati, Inc. v. City of Cincinnati,
128 F.3d 289 at 294 n. 4 (6th Cir. 1997)
He authorized an incredibly intrusive discovery, and was overruled
by the Ninth Circuit via an extraordinary writ of mandamus. See Perry
v. Schwarzenegger, 591 F.3d 1126 (2009)
He defied rules and statute in trying to have the trial broadcast,
and the Supreme Court issued an emergency stay, noting that “[t]he
District Court attempted to change its rules at the eleventh hour to
treat this case differently than other trials in the district. Not
only did it ignore the federal statute that establishes the procedures
by which its rules may be amended, its express purpose was to
broadcast a high-profile trial that would include witness testimony
about a contentious issue. If courts are to require that others follow
regular procedures, courts must do so as well.” See Hollingsworth v.
Perry, 130 S.Ct. 705 at 715 (2010)
He failed to timely disclose relevant facts that would call his
impartiality to question.
He grossly distorted the record on key points.
He ignored writings from eminent legal scholars like Sir William
Blackstone, one of the most well-respected legal scholars in Anglo-
American law, because he did not testify. He of course ignored the
multitude of cases that defendant-intervenors cited supporting their
argument, e.g. Baker v. Nelson, 191 N.W.2d 185 at 187 (Minn. Sup. Ct.
1971), Singer v. Hara, 11 Wn.App. 247 at 522 P.2d 1187 (Wash. Ct. of
Appeal 1974),
Standhardt v. Superior Court 206 Ariz. 276 at 278,
77 P.3d 451 at 453. (Ariz. Ct. of Appeal 2004), Citizens for Equal
Protection v. Bruning , 455 F.3d 859 (8th Cir. Ct. of Appeal 2006)
He issued an injunction ceasing enforcement of Proposition 8 with
respect to everyone, defying binding precedent that injunctive relief
in an individual case must only be limited in providing the prevailing
parties relief from the precise injuries that granted them standing. See Doran v. Salem Inn, 422 U.S. 922 (1975) (noting
that “neither declaratory nor injunctive relief can directly interfere
with enforcement of contested statutes or ordinances except with
respect to the particular federal plaintiffs”), Monsanto Co.
v.Geertson Seed Farms, 130 S. Ct. 2743 at 2760 (2010) (narrowing
injunction in a facial challenge to federal agency action in part
because the plaintiffs “do not represent a class, so they could not
seek to enjoin such an order on the ground that it might cause harm to
other parties”) Zepeda v. INS, 753 F.2d 719 at 726 (9th Cir. 1983)
(holding that a court may not determine the rights of non-litigants),
Meinhold v. U.S. Department of Defense (overturning injunction except
to the extent it provided plaintiff relief), 34 F.3d 1469 at 1480 (9th
Cir. 1994) See also Virginia Society for Human Life v. FEC, (narrowing
nationwide injunction to the plaintiff in facial constitutional
challenge) 263 F.3d 379 at 394 (4th Cir. 2001), Los Angeles Haven
Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius, 638 F.3d 644 at 664 (9th Cir. 2011) (same)
And finally, he refused to stay his ruling, forcing the Ninth
Circuit to do so.
I didn’t say there ware no such things as corrupt judges. I said that corporations don’t generally corrupt judges. Walker’s case, corrupt or not, is not germane.
Michael’s last post illustrates what I took away from Jack’s original one: Corruption, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. Michael sees Judge Walker as “corrupt”, but I’m willing to bet that the party at the other table sees him as a wise and learned dispenser of justice. Many who railed against the “corrupt corporations” during the Occupy-somewhere days may not realize how much the evil earnings of the corporations add to their IRA or 401k, not to mention the tents with REI logos on them….
If it were me, I would leave God out of the issue. Not only are smitings few and far between, but with two large groups, both of whom we are told follow the same God, have very different ways of dealing with those who do not share their particular version of that following. It gets even more complicated from there.
Yes, others saw him as a wise and learned dispenser of justice, even if it meant applying a different standard for Judge Walker than Justice Scalia .
I did cite plenty of facts to support my conclusion. Judge Walker was subject to an extraordinary writ of mandamus. As any lawyer will tell you, such writs against judges in pending cases are not handed out like candy at Halloween- most of the time, the appellate court will refuse to even consider the motion for the writ. The Supreme Court plainly stated that Walker “ignore[d] …federal statute”. There are at least three procedural issues where Walker defied plainly binding precedent. And he refused to stay his ruling.
Can you think of a situation where it is justified for a judge to defy binding precedent? Or ignore federal statute?
Your argument makes sense, Jack, but, at the same time, you’re fogging the issue by talking pie-in-the-sky ethics reform while I’m talking corporate corruption as it exists today. See Chris Hedges’s argument against the corporate state.
… http://www.truth-out.org/chris-hedges-corporate-state-will-be-broken/1327331237
“Voting will not alter the corporate systems of power. Voting is an act of political theater. Voting in the United States is as futile and sterile as in the elections I covered as a reporter in dictatorships like Syria, Iran and Iraq. There were always opposition candidates offered up by these dictatorships. Give the people the illusion of choice. Throw up the pretense of debate. Let the power elite hold public celebrations to exalt the triumph of popular will. We can vote for Romney or Obama, but Goldman Sachs and ExxonMobil and Bank of America and the defense contractors always win. There is little difference between our electoral charade and the ones endured by the Syrians and Iranians. Do we really believe that Obama has, or ever had, any intention to change the culture in Washington?”
I’m not smart enough, or informed enough, or literate enough to match your above exposition, Jack. On first reading, I thought, “Wow, Jack makes a lot of sense here.” But after some reflection it seems I’m witness to just another dog and pony show.