The legacy of US Attorney General Eric Holder

Tom Carter, WSWS.ORG

Eric Holder: Easily one of the most compromised and ineffective Attorney Generals in history.

Eric Holder: Easily one of the most compromised and ineffective Attorney Generals in history.

 

[O]n Thursday, US Attorney General Eric Holder announced that he would resign from his post in the Obama administration after six years in office. His departure was greeted with a chorus of praise in the establishment media, in which he was acclaimed as a “defender of civil rights.”

Announcing Holder’s resignation, Obama said, “Through it all he’s shown a deep and abiding fidelity to one of our cherished ideals as a people, and that is equal justice under the law.” At a joint press conference to announce the resignation, Obama and Holder made repeated reference to the country’s founding documents, civil rights, equal justice and so forth.

The New York Times editorial board, which was likely notified in advance, immediately issued a statement praising “Eric Holder’s Legacy.” The newspaper wrote: “As the first African-American to serve as the nation’s top law enforcement official, Mr. Holder broke ground the moment he took office… Mr. Holder has continued to stake out strong and laudable legal positions on many of the most contested issues of our time.”

While conceding that Holder’s legacy was “marred” by the targeted killing of civilians, the failure to prosecute Wall Street criminals and other “failures to act,” the Times waxed lyrical about Holder’s accomplishments in the field of same-sex marriage, voting rights and criminal justice.

Similar praise for Holder echoed throughout the Democratic Party establishment and its supporters in the “civil rights” milieu. Al Sharpton declared, “No attorney general has demonstrated a civil rights record that is similar to Eric Holder’s.”

Calling Holder a “defender of civil rights” is like calling a rampaging bull a “defender of fine china.” During his six-year term, Holder, as the head of the Obama administration’s Department of Justice, has presided over the most comprehensive and aggressive trampling of democratic rights in US history, as well as the buildup of the infrastructure of a police state.

Holder’s real legacy includes, without making a complete list: providing pseudo-legal sanction for assassination of US citizens, military commissions, and incommunicado detention; shielding war criminals, corporate criminals, and Bush-era officials from prosecution; persecuting whistleblowers and journalists; targeting protesters and antiwar activists under antiterror laws; asserting unlimited executive powers; justifying government secrecy; deporting immigrants en masse; abetting the expansion of illegal domestic spying; slashing wages and benefits for workers; and infiltrating authoritarian and fascistic legal doctrines into American jurisprudence.


Calling Holder a “defender of civil rights” is like calling a rampaging bull a “defender of fine china.”


 

Holder’s first significant act in office was to make clear that the Bush-era criminals, including those that had conspired to carry out illegal torture and surveillance, would not be investigated or prosecuted under President Obama’s mantra of “looking forward not backward.” Holder declared in 2009 that “it would be unfair to prosecute dedicated men and women working to protect America for conduct that was sanctioned in advance by the Justice Department.”

In addition to shielding Bush-era war criminals, Holder also worked to provide de facto immunity to all the individuals and institutions that crashed the economy in 2008. Instead, the corrupt flow of “bailout” funds from the public treasury into the hands of select banks and individual billionaires continued unabated. To date, under Holder’s watch, not a single prominent figure has been prosecuted.

Justifying the decision to let banks get off scot-free in Congressional testimony in 2013, Holder said that he was “concerned that the size of some of these institutions becomes so large that…if we do prosecute—if we do bring a criminal charge—it will have a negative impact on the national economy, perhaps even the world economy.”

Holder will perhaps be best remembered for his role as the chief legal theorist in developing the pseudo-legal justifications for presidential dictatorship, particularly in relationship to the assassination of American citizens without due process. Holder memorably and menacingly asserted on March 4, 2013 that the president “has the power to authorize lethal force, such as a drone strike, against a US citizen on US soil, and without a trial.” That is, American citizens can be assassinated within the United States on the say-so of the president.

In 2010-11, as the US government expanded its “targeted killing program,” Holder was the go-to man for cobbling together half-serious arguments to justify what was, in fact, expressly prohibited by the US Constitution. In crafting these theories, Holder and his staff took as their starting point the authoritarian doctrines introduced under the Bush administration, and then expanded them dramatically.

Holder’s name, for example, will forever be linked in American jurisprudence with his claim that “‘Due process’ and ‘judicial process’ are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security. The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.” This theory renders the Fifth Amendment’s guarantee of due process—“No person. .. shall be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due process of law”—into a meaningless nullity. According to Holder, a secret meeting between the president and his intelligence chiefs satisfies “due process.” (See: “Military tribunals and assassination”)

Holder’s six years in office witnessed exposures of widespread government criminality by figures such as Julian Assange, Bradley (Chelsea) Manning and Edward Snowden. The Obama administration responded to these exposures not by prosecuting the criminals who were exposed, but by persecuting those who had told the public the truth. Under Holder, the US government prosecuted more whistleblowers under the Espionage Act than all previous administrations combined. Today, Manning is in prison, Assange is still trapped in the Ecuadorian embassy in London and Snowden has been forced into exile in Russia.

When Director of National Security James R. Clapper was caught committing perjury before Congress in 2013 about the extent of domestic surveillance, however, Holder did not prosecute.

This year, a major constitutional scandal erupted over revelations that the Central Intelligence Agency had conspired to cover up its record of torture, and that it had actually spied on the very congressional committee charged with overseeing it. The matter was referred to Holder, who announced that nobody would be prosecuted. (See: “The CIA spying scandal and the disintegration of American democracy”)

During the recent military-police crackdown on protests in Ferguson, Holder personally intervened to help bring the situation back under control, touting his identity as a “black man.” This has been touted by the Times and other publications as one of his great “civil rights” accomplishments. (See: “Attorney General Holder backs police-military siege in visit to Ferguson, Missouri”)

Holder’s other significant “accomplishments” include a record numbers of deportations of immigrants; helping to prevent significant consequences for BP after it caused a massive ecological disaster in the Gulf of Mexico; assisting in the restructuring of the auto industry by slashing wages for workers; shielding GM in the wake of its ignition defect scandal; delivering slaps on the wrist to other corporate criminals or letting them off scot-free; personally approving search warrants for journalists; asserting the president’s power to launch wars of aggression without Congressional approval in Libya and Syria; working to codify military commissions as permanent features of the American judicial system; and intervening repeatedly in the Supreme Court to take the side of big business, the police and the intelligence agencies. The Department of Justice under Holder also intervened to facilitate the bankruptcy of Detroit.

To the extent that Holder presided over token measures, for example, to address America’s outrageously large prison population, the results have been meager at best. According to the International Centre for Prison Studies, the United States still has the highest percentage of prisoners in the world. America’s prisons are filthy, dangerous and overcrowded, with murders, beatings and every form of degradation a matter of routine.

One’s mouth hangs open when reading descriptions of Holder as a “defender of civil rights.” But in the final analysis, the praise for Holder issuing from certain quarters speaks volumes about the attitudes of the upper-middle-class and pseudo-left layers who provide the social base for identity politics. For these layers, issues such as war, the destruction of democratic rights and the drive to dictatorship take a back seat to their own far narrower concerns. If Holder announces that he favors same-sex marriage, for example, then these layers are more than willing to forgive him for the rest.

In his actions, he has been a faithful representative of the Obama administration, a government of, by and for the corporate and financial aristocracy and the military-intelligence apparatus. He should be remembered as the most right-wing attorney general in US history thus far, a crusader for dictatorship and an enemy of the working class. For his role in the numerous conspiracies to subvert democratic rights, including with respect to the illegal assassinations of civilians, he deserves to be arrested, indicted and prosecuted.


 

SELECT COMMENT

Mirek 

C`mon, he deserves praise, as a most faithful servant of the ruling class ever since the Dulles brothers! WSWS complains that now Obama Administration has the power to assassinate American citizens without due process, but he, Holder, should be lauded for making the process thoroughly democratic: now everybody in the world can be killed on a wink from the President, in total equality! And how about his, arguably, greatest achievement: same sex marriage: this is directed principally at the upper/middle classes, and protects the parties property rights, not quite a revolution.

Too early for a statue to be erected in his honour, one has to be deceased for that, pity!




The Terrible Tenure of Eric Holder

Good riddance!
Going, Going, Gone, But Let’s Not Forget Him


U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder listens to a question at a hearing of the Senate Judiciary Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington

DAVE LINDORFF

[E]ric Holder has announced that he is leaving his post of Attorney General, which he has sullied and degraded for six years.

A corporate lawyer with the Wall Street law firm Covington & Burling, Holder will be remembered for his timid defense of civil rights, his overseeing. and even encouragement of the massive militarization of the nation’s police forces, his anti-First Amendment efforts to pursue not just whistleblowers but the journalists who use them, threatening both with jail and in fact jailing a number of them (particularly in the case of whistleblower extraordinaire Edward Snowden, and Wikileaks journalist Julian Assange, both of whom reportedly face US treason charges), and his weak enforcement of environmental protection laws.

But Holder, who came into his position as the nation’s top law enforcement officer in early 2009 at the start of the Obama administration and at the height of the financial crisis, will be best remembered for his overt announcement that there would be no attempt to prosecute the criminals at the top of the nation’s biggest so-called “too-big-to-fail” banks, whose brazen crimes of theft, deceit, fraud and perjury during the Bush/Cheney years and beyond sank not just the US but the global economy into a crisis which is still with us.

Holder not only did not make any effort to put Wall Street’s banking titans behind bars for their epic crimes; he did not even make them step down from their exalted and absurdly highly compensated executive positions when his office reached negotiated settlements with the banks in civil cases involving those crimes — civil cases that in almost all cases allowed the banks to settle without even having to admit their guilt. (His ludicrous excuse: punishing these criminal executive might jeopardize the banks’ stocks and hurt “innocent” shareholders!) Nor was this legal benevolence limited to purely financial crimes. Banks like Citicorp and HSBC, which were found to have knowingly laundered millions — even billions — of dollars in drug money for drug cartels, were also allowed by Holder to escape with petty fines, and no prosecution of a single bank executive.

It is being suggested that Holder may opt to go back to his old post as a partner at Covington & Burling, which would be the final, though hardly surprising, insult to the American people, providing a particularly galling example of Washington’s revolving door between government regulators and enforcers and the industries that they were supposed to be regulating or keeping honest.


 

Eric Holder is leaving his post of Attorney General, which he has sullied and degraded for six years.


 

God, how far we have fallen from the days when Ramsey Clark was attorney general, and left to become a leading critic of Washington’s imperial government at home and abroad!

At this point the Obama Administration is little more than a place holder until the next presidential election in 2016. President Obama, who campaigned as a fire-breathing liberal who would restore constitutional government, end the Bush/Cheney wars, re-open the government so that transparency instead of secrecy would be the default position, and take decisive action against climate change, has abandoned [betrayed] all those false promises.

The illegal and unconstitutional wars continue in Iraq and Afghanistan, and are now being expanded into Africa and Syria and, at least by proxy, but most dangerously, to Ukraine. Civil liberties are under attack at least as severely as they were back in the McCarthy period, with whistleblowers being jailed, with the president asserting the unfettered right to order the killing without trial of American citizens, and with a spying system in place run by the National Security Agency that is monitoring and storing, by its own admission, virtually all electronic communications of the American people. The government is also as closed and secret in its operation as it has been since 1974, when it was broadened following the Watergate and Cointelpro scandals, and is certainly less transparent and open than it was even under Bush/Cheney. The Obama administration has also done little to nothing about tackling carbon emissions despite the president’s lies to the contrary in his address to the UN.

In all of this extraordinary list of treachery and cowardice, Holder has played his sycophantic role as a defender of corporate America, of white privilege, and of Washington power. He has been both the John Ashcroft and the Alberto Gonzalez of the Obama administration. (Actually, that comparison is unfair to John Ashcroft, who at least was a man of conviction — repellent as some of those convictions may have been. In Holder’s case, we have a man not of principle, but who is simply a corporate lawyer, ready to do his clients’ bidding, however sordid and corrupt.)

Given the depths of unpopularity to which President Obama has sunk after six years of selling out his own electoral base and catering to the interests of the rich and powerful, the military establishment and neo-con right-wing of the Washington policy elite, it is safe to say that Holder’s replacement, still unknown, will be no better, though given Holder’s tenure it’s also hard to imagine his successor being much worse either.

So good riddance to Holder. But it will be worth while, and indeed important, to watch carefully this departing Obama official’s behavior back in the private sector, from under which rock he emerged to be attorney general six years ago.

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).




Cell Phone Guide For US Protesters, Updated 2014 Edition

GNP.SITIN.10.102809.RR

Anti-insurance co. protesters arrested at CIGNA office (tcnnorth.wordpress.com)

[W]ith major protests in the news again, we decided it’s time to update our cell phone guide for protestors. A lot has changed since we last published this report in 2011, for better and for worse. On the one hand, we’ve learned more about the massive volume of law enforcement requests for cell phone—ranging from location information to actual content—and widespread use of dedicated cell phone surveillance technologies. On the other hand, strong Supreme Court opinions have eliminated any ambiguity about the unconstitutionality of warrantless searches of phones incident to arrest, and a growing national consensus says location data, too, is private.

Protesters want to be able to communicate, to document the protests, and to share photos and video with the world. So they’ll be carrying phones, and they’ll face a complex set of considerations about the privacy of the data those phones hold. We hope this guide can help answer some questions about how to best protect that data, and what rights protesters have in the face of police demands.

Before The Protest

Think carefully about what’s on your phone. When we last visited this question, law enforcement in many states were arguing that they could search the contents of a phone incident to arrest without a warrant. Today, thanks to the unanimous Supreme Court decision in Riley v. California, that’s no longer the case. Still, if you can avoid carrying sensitive data, you don’t have to worry about it getting pulled off the phone. That can include photos, your address book, application data, and more. If you don’t need it for the protest, consider removing it for the duration.

If you have access to a temporary phone with only the essentials, that might be a better option. Modern smartphones record all sorts of data, and there may be overlooked sources of sensitive information.

Password protect your phone. Password protection can guard your phone from casual searches, but it can still be circumvented by law enforcement or other sophisticated adversaries.

Start using encrypted communications channels. Text messages, as a rule, can be read and stored by your phone company or by surveillance equipment in the area. If you and your friends can get comfortable with encrypted communications channels in advance, that can keep prying eyes off your texts while they’re in transit.

Direct messages through social media may be encrypted while in transit, but can be subject to subpoenas from law enforcement. You may wish to explore end-to-end encrypted options, likeWhisper Systems’s TextSecure,1 Guardian Project’s mobile IM software ChatSecure, or the mobile version of Cryptocat, which only store the contents of your communications in an encrypted, unreadable form.

End-to-end encryption does not protect your meta-data. In other words, using end-to-end encrypted communications will keep law enforcement from being able to read the contents of your messages, but they will still be able to see who you’re talking to and when you’re talking to them.

At The Protest

Keep control of your phone. You may wish to keep the phone on you at all times, or hand it over to a trusted friend if you are engaging in action that you think might lead to your arrest. In any case, you can set the lock screen to turn on quickly, so that if you do lose control of your phone, nobody else gets access easily.

Take pictures and video of the scene. As the ACLU says in a recent Know Your Rights guide, “Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right.” Unfortunately, that doesn’t stop law enforcement officers from occasionally demanding that protesters stop doing exactly that.

If you’re planning to document the protest, you should read the whole guide ahead of time. There are special considerations for videotaping, too, so make sure to brush up on that if you plan to be recording video.

Finally, you may wish to explore options that upload directly to another server. Livestreaming sites, and even social media services, can make sure photos and videos get online before law enforcement officers have a chance to delete them.

Help, I’m being arrested!

An environmental activist sings and cheers as she and others are detained as they hold a rally in opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline on the sidewalk in front of the White House at the White House in Washington March 2, 2014. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

An environmental activist sings and cheers as she and others are detained as they hold a rally in opposition to the Keystone XL Pipeline on the sidewalk in front of the White House, March 2, 2014. REUTERS/Jonathan Ernst

You have a right to remain silent—about your phone and anything else. If questioned by police, you can politely but firmly decline to answer and ask to speak to your attorney.

If the police ask to see your phone, tell them you do not consent to the search of your device. Again, since the Supreme Court’s decision in Riley, there is little question that officers need a warrant to access the contents of your phone incident to arrest, though they may be able to seize the phone and get a warrant later.

As we said in the last guide, if the police ask for the password to your electronic device you can politely refuse to provide it and ask to speak to your lawyer. Every arrest situation is different, and you will need an attorney to help you sort through your particular circumstance. Note that just because the police cannot compel you to give up your password, that doesn’t mean that they can’t pressure you. The police may detain you and you may go to jail rather than being immediately released if they think you’re refusing to be cooperative. You will need to decide whether to comply.

OK, now how do I get my phone back?

If your phone or electronic device was seized, and is not promptly returned when you are released, you can file a motion with the court to have your property returned. If the police believe that evidence of a crime is on your electronic device, including in your photos or videos, the police can keep it as evidence. They may also attempt to make you forfeit your electronic device, but you can challenge that in court.

Increasingly, we keep our most sensitive communications and personal information on our cell phones. We carry in our pockets these devices that can tremendously enhance our ability to exercise our First Amendment rights, but which also carry serious privacy risks. We hope that with these tips in mind, you can take the necessary precautions with your digital technology.

Last updated August 2014.

  • 1.Currently Android-only, but with iPhone support on the way




Occupy Protester Trashed by NY’s Leading Paper

Already Abused by Cop, DA and Court

050514mcmillan5sh

by DAVE LINDORFF

[W]hen a journalist in a news article refers to a woman as “strident,” you know what you’re reading is a hit piece, not a dispassionate report, and that’s what the New York Times offered up to readers in today’s piece about a court appearance yesterday by Occupy Wall Street activist Cecily McMillan.

The Times reporter, Monique O. Madan, as a professional journalist, surely knows that the meaning of “strident” is, as the Oxford English Dictionary says, “loud, harsh and grating” and that it implies the slanted presentation of a point of view in an “unpleasantly forceful way.” If she somehow didn’t know this, her editors certainly do, and yet they were okay with her disparaging and loaded word choice.

Supposedly Madan was writing a news report on McMillan’s appearance in a Manhattan criminal court on a misdemeanor charge of “obstructing governmental administration.” This related to an incident in 2013 in which she allegedly advised two people being ordered to show their identification to a Transit Police officer in the Union Square subway station that they did not have to comply.

Madan referred to McMillan as a “cause célèbre” because of her earlier arrest at a March 2012 rally in lower Manhattan’s Zuccotti Park commemorating the months-long Occupy Wall Street action that had begun six months earlier in September, 2011. McMillan, in that earlier arrest, had been charged with second degree felony assault of a police officer and, following a trial earlier this year, was convicted and sentenced to three months in jail at Rikers Island plus five year’s probation.

Not mentioned by the reporter was the reality that McMillan’s fame and notoriety is deserved (she received thousands of letters of support from around the world, and even a supportive jailhouse visit by two recently freed members of the celebrated Russian protest rock group Pussy Riot). Not only was McMillan grotesquely overcharged by Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, Jr. She was also treated by both prosecutor and judge throughout the trial as though she were a dangerous menace, not even being granted bail after the verdict was rendered and she was awaiting her sentence hearing (a courtesy routinely granted to first offenders and to the powerful and well-to-do). The reporter might also have noted that, once convicted, McMillan’s incredibly short felony sentence (the charge carried a maximum term of seven years!) and her subsequent release from jail after serving just under two months’ time at Rikers, probably rank among the shortest punishments for someone convicted of “felony assault” of a cop in the history of US jurisprudence.

Unless one believes that Judge Ronald Zwiebel caved under the pressure of all those letters of support and the daily rallies outside the courthouse (I doubt it), the conclusion has to be that the judge’s sentencing decision reflected an admission that McMillan in fact never posed any threat to either society or to the police. The point of her prosecution then was not about protecting the police, but rather about sending a message to all New Yorkers about the high personal cost of political protest — and that message was sent by simply saddling her with a permanent felony record. Regarding the incident in question, it was evident from video images and from testimony at the trial that she had been grappled and groped from behind by the officer, who grabbed her right breast so hard that it caused clearly visible bruising. It was also clear that the cop’s action caused McMillan to involuntarily throw back her arms, elbowing the officer in an eye (that is to say, she didn’t even know who had grabbed her when she involuntarily struck out in self-defense). Even the jurors who convicted her expressed shock that she was jailed for this “offense,” with nine of the twelve, once they learned that she would be facing jail time as a result of their decision, writing the judge to ask that she not be jailed.

The Times article leaves readers thinking that McMillan is some kind of a cop-hating whacko, with reporter Madan relying entirely on the comments of the arresting officer in the complaint filed in the latest misdemeanor case.

At no point in her article does Madan bother to give McMillan’s side of the case. She evidently didn’t even ask McMillan or her attorney for their position on the charge, or on the allegations made by the officer in the complaint (of if she did, she didn’t include their answers). There’s no sign of any “no comment” reported in what is about as one-sided a piece of journalism as one could write.

I’ve taught journalism classes, and this is an article that would have received at best a D from me.

Given that McMillan, now out of Rikers confinement — at least pending the outcome of this latest case — has been using her high visibility and her recent experience to condemn the violence and abuse that she observed and personally experienced while locked up, it’s ironic that the Times would trash her on its pages in this manner on the very day that it was also running an editorial condemning an epidemic of prison guard violence in the city’s jails.

In that editorial, headlined “Violence in New York City Jails,” the paper describes a culture of violence against prisoners by jail guards, who particularly abuse the mentally ill, a group that constitutes nearly half of the city’s incarcerated inmate population. Citing the investigative work of its own reporters, the paper says jail authorities have covered up the problem for years, that guards often remove inmates to remote locations without video monitors in order to conduct their beatings, and concludes:

“…the problem of brutality may be too deeply entrenched for the city itself to cure. If rapid improvements cannot be made, the Justice Department, which is already investigating the treatment of juveniles at Rikers, should step in to remedy what is clearly a barbaric situation.”

This is exactly what McMillan, who rejected on principle a plea bargain offer from the DA at her first trial which would have kept her out of jail in return for accepting a felony conviction, has been saying she saw going on during her two months’ incarceration on Rikers Island. Surely her courage in speaking out about conditions there, even as she faces the possibility of being sent back to Rikers at her coming trial, clearly deserved a paragraph or two in Madan’s and the Times’ hatchet job.

Dave Lindorff is a founding member of ThisCantBeHappening!, an online newspaper collective, and is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press).

 




The US Supreme Court and religion

Demonstrators protesting the Court's abject decision.

What we see today is the unequivocal result of massive ignorance on the part of the american public, and the utter corruption of the us political class.

[T]he US Supreme Court last week handed down two decisions upholding the “religious liberty” of corporations and other institutions. These rulings, deeply reactionary on multiple levels, signal a more aggressive repudiation of the country’s democratic and secular traditions.

On June 30, in a case entitled Burwell v. Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court decided that the Affordable Care Act (also known as Obamacare) violated the “religious liberty” of Hobby Lobby, a “Christian corporation,” because under the law the company’s female employees would receive insurance coverage for birth control. A few days later, the Supreme Court in Wheaton College v. Burwell held that being required to fill out a one-page government form violated the “religious liberty” of the Christian college, which should be able to opt out of the health care law’s contraception mandate simply by sending a letter.

The two decisions, taken together, are a direct assault on the Establishment Clause, which appears at the very beginning of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, and is consequently the very first democratic principle laid down in the Bill of Rights—the first ten constitutional amendments, collectively ratified in 1791.

The First Amendment begins: “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion.” As Thomas Jefferson famously wrote, the purpose of the Establishment Clause was to build “a wall of separation between Church and State.”

This clear and far-sighted clause, profoundly radical in its time, reflects the best traditions of the Enlightenment, the intellectual movement that articulated the democratic outlook of the bourgeoisie when it was a young and revolutionary class in struggle against the old feudal aristocracy. By unequivocally laying down a secular foundation for the new republic, the American revolutionaries were responding to centuries of religious wars that had plagued Europe. They were seeking to encourage free thought at the expense of ignorance and superstition and to bury forever the doctrine of the “divine right of kings.” They sought to found the republic not upon race, ethnicity, language or religion but upon common ideas: equality, democracy, tolerance and secularism.

It took a bloody, four-year Civil War (1861-1865)—a Second American Revolution—to defend these principles and extend their reach by defeating the Southern plantation aristocracy and abolishing slavery. The democratic concepts laid down in the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights have provided the ideological glue—despite gaping discrepancies between theory and practice—that has held the United States together ever since.

As recently as 1960, John F. Kennedy, during the campaign that resulted in his becoming the first Catholic president, famously appealed to these conceptions: “I believe in an America where the separation of church and state is absolute,” he declared.

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions essentially elevate religion over established constitutional principles, allowing the private religious views of an employer to trump the rights of the employer’s workforce. Having thus despoiled one of the basic principles on which the United States was founded, what does the ruling class have to replace it with? On this path lies the fracturing of the country and the growth of sectarian conflict.

In the week since the Hobby Lobby decision, corporations are lining up to unleash a torrent of new lawsuits demanding to opt out of laws on the basis of private religious beliefs. There is no limit to the precedent set by the Supreme Court’s decisions. If the provision of contraception to women violates the “religious liberty” of Hobby Lobby, then what about the “religious liberty” of Scientologists who object to any form of psychiatric treatment, or those Christian fundamentalists who object to all medical care whatsoever?

The Hobby Lobby and Wheaton College decisions herald the return of even more sinister “rights” of employers. After all, it was once the case that proprietors claimed the “right” to exclude Jews, or the “right” to refuse to serve blacks, or the “right” to refuse to hire or promote women. “It is my private property,” the proprietor would say, “I have the right to do what I want with it.” By upholding the employer’s supposed “right” to deny health care to women, the Supreme Court invites an attack on every democratic reform that was achieved over the past century.

With Hobby Lobby, the Supreme Court managed, in one decision, to combine a blow to the principle of separation of church and state with an expansion of the doctrine of “corporate constitutional rights” and an attack on women’s right to privacy. The notion that a corporation is entitled to “religious liberty” is absurd on its face. While the Supreme Court discovers new “rights” in the Constitution for corporations and employers, the actual rights that the Bill of Rights sought to confer on the population are trampled on a daily basis: the Obama administration issues and carries out death warrants on US citizens, militarized police forces roam the streets shooting to kill, and a massive spying apparatus logs every private detail.

As in many recent Supreme Court decisions, the justices started out with the desired conclusion and worked backwards with no genuine regard for the law or legal precedent. The decisions reflect the contempt for legality that permeates everything the ruling class does. While long periods of incarceration are prescribed for the most minor offenses in America, the political establishment and the financial oligarchy themselves operate with utter lawlessness. International law, domestic law, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, banking and securities regulations, environmental regulations, health and safety laws, state constitutions—the law is simply ignored when it conflicts with what they are doing.

Immediate responsibility for the rulings does not rest exclusively with the Supreme Court’s right-wing majority. It was, in fact, the Obama administration—not the Supreme Court—that first granted religiously affiliated non-profit corporations the ability to opt out of the contraceptive mandate in the health care law. These cowardly concessions were compounded by the administration’s refusal to raise the Establishment Clause in defense of the mandate. The right-wing majority simply seized upon what the Obama administration deferentially handed them on a silver platter.

The American ruling class is breaking from any connection to its democratic and (in the more distant past) revolutionary traditions. Everywhere, social and democratic gains are under ferocious attack. This process cannot be understood outside of an examination of the massive growth of social inequality and the crisis of the capitalist system that is producing it.

Over the recent period, the overwhelming majority of the world’s population has seen its living standards stagnate and decline. Meanwhile, through various methods—many of them purely criminal—a tiny collection of financial aristocrats has vastly increased its wealth and influence. These same aristocrats turn to one another and say, “The pitchforks are coming.” Fear of the population—and of a popular movement against capitalism and inequality—explains the buildup of the machinery of repression, the militarization of the police, the massive domestic spying apparatus, and the collapse of democracy and the rule of law.

“The bourgeoisie has shamefully betrayed all the traditions of its historical youth,” Trotsky wrote, “and its present hirelings dishonor the graves of its ancestors and scoff at the ashes of its ideals.” The principles associated with the democratic revolutions of an earlier period can be carried forward today only as part of a struggle led by the working class and based on the higher principle of the unification of the world’s oppressed in the fight for socialism.

Tom Carter is a senior political writer with wsws.org.