The craziness just keeps on coming from the “venerable” US Supreme Court. The sick individuals that make up the corrupt court never fail to amaze in their nefarious dealings.

 For example: Ex Monsanto lawyer Clarence Thomas to hear Major Monsanto Case. The world has long since noticed, and Americans begin to notice, that the 911-Empire crushes life, wealth and community. The US government invades at will, and now invades its own continent of citizens. Now, in Monsanto v. Geertson Seed Farms, No. 09-475, the US Supreme Court will hear arguments in a case which could have an enormous effect on the future of the American food industry. This is Monsanto’s third appeal of the case, and if they win a favorable ruling from the high court, a deregulated Monsanto may find itself in position to corner the markets of numerous US crops, and to litigate conventional farmers into oblivion. Here’s where it gets a bit dicier. Two Supreme Court justices have what appear to be direct conflicts of interest. First is Stephen Breyer. Charles Breyer, the judge who ruled in the original decision of 2007 which is being appealed, is Stephen Breyer’s brother, who apparently views this as a conflict of interest and has recused himself. And Clarence Thomas (ass-clown extraordinaire). From the years 1976 – 1979, Thomas worked as an attorney for Monsanto. Thomas apparently does not see this as a conflict of interest and has not recused himself. Clarence – alone! -  is half the reason America is so messed up! The lawsuit was filed by plaintiffs that include the Center for Food Safety, the National Family Farm Coalition, Sierra Club, Dakota Resources Council and other farm, environmental and consumer groups and individual farmers.

Antonin Scalia Rewrites History, Claims 5-4 Bush v. Gore Decision of 2000, ‘Wasn’t Even Close.’ At Wesleyan University in early 2012, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia gave a speech. At the end of the speech, Scalia took questions from the audience. One person asked about the Bush-Gore case, where the Supreme Court had to determine the winner of the election. “Get over it,” Scalia said of the controversy surrounding it, to laughter from the audience. Scalia reminded the audience it was Gore who took the election to court, and the election was going to be decided in a court anyway—either the Florida Supreme Court or the US Supreme Court. “It was a long time ago; people forget…It was a 7-2 decision. It wasn’t even close,” he said. Bush v. Gore was not a 7-2 decision — and indeed, Scalia could tell this was true by counting all four of the dissenting opinions in that case. Although it is true that the four dissenters divided on how the Florida recount should proceed — two believed there should be a statewide recount of all Florida voters while two others believed a narrower recount would be acceptable — not one of the Court’s four moderates agreed with Scalia that the winner of the 2000 presidential election should effectively be chosen by the five most conservative members of the Supreme Court of the United States.

Antonin Scalia believes innocent people can be executed, so he’s not going to care about people dying from not having health insurance. Scalia is the major enforcer of political allegiance to the corporations and the Koch brothers. The man is so dangerously ideological that he even declared, in a dissenting opinion, that there is nothing in the Constitution to prevent an innocent person from being executed. He argued that, "this Court has never held that the Constitution forbids the execution of a convicted defendant who has had a full and fair trial but is later able to convince a habeas court that he is actually innocent." If Scalia thinks it is legally justified for the state to kill an innocent person, then why would he give a whit about people dying from lack of health insurance? Scalia even scornfully noted that it would be presumptuous for anyone to suggest that he, the other judges, or their law clerks should actually read the Affordable Healthcare Act as passed by Congress. In essence, Scalia is arguing, you don't have to read a law to rule on its validity.

Crazier and Crazier! The US Supreme Court, based on the urging of the Obama administration, has ruled that any prisoner – even those arrested for offenses such as dog leash laws, peaceful protest, or driving with an expired license – can be subject to a routine strip search upon entering jail!