At the top, America is totally corrupt, and even blatantly so, especially in conservative circles (Alito being an example), but far more hypocritically so in liberal circles, as will be documented here.
On June 20th, ProPublica, a Democratic Party billionaires’ non-profit site, headlined “Justice Samuel Alito Took Luxury Fishing Vacation With GOP Billionaire Who Later Had Cases Before the Court” but reported something that’s actually much worse than that: 7 of those 9 ‘Justices’ including Alito very importantly, helped to make that billionaire, the hedge fund manager Paul Singer, a multi-billionaire, at the expense of Argentina’s 40 million citizens who depend upon Argentina’s Government for their essential governmental services. That case, of the American billionaire versus the people of Argentina, pitted Singer against Argentina’s Government, and what a 16 June 2014 7-to-2 U.S. Supreme Court decision (Alito included) did then was to interpret American law in such a way that would cause Singer — who first became a billionaire in 2012 — into a multi-billionaire, and Forbes at that time, in 2012, said that his firm had $19B under management. As Forbes headlined on that day, about that Supreme Court decision, “Supreme Court Hands Billionaire Paul Singer A Victory Over Argentina”. On 23 May 2014, Forbes estimated Singer’s net worth at $1.5B. On 1 March 2015, Forbes estimated his “Earnings” “For the year 2014” at “$225 million”; then, weeks later, on March 19th, his Forbes estimated net worth was $1.92B. By the time of 30 November 2017, Forbes estimated his net worth at $2.8B and noted that “The firm now has some $33 billion in assets under management.” On 4 December 2020, his net worth was $3.6B, and Forbes furthermore noted that “The firm now has some $40 billion in assets under management. He famously spent 15 years warring with the government of Argentina over bond payments, which resulted in a $2.4 billion payout to his firm in 2016.”
That Supreme Court decision was written by the Republican ‘Justice’ Scalia, and co-signed by his fellow Republicans Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Alito, plus by the Democrats Breyer and Kagan. The only dissenting Opinion in the case was by the Democrat Ginsburg. She asked “By what authorization does a court in the United States become a clearinghouse for information about any and all property held by Argentina abroad?” She cited cases which clearly had held that such authorization doesn’t exist anywhere. She concluded that “A court in the United States has no warrant to indulge the assumption that, outside our country, the sky may be the limit for attaching a foreign sovereign’s property in order to execute a U. S. judgment against the foreign sovereign.” She closed by saying “I therefore dissent from the sweeping examination of Argentina’s worldwide assets the Court exorbitantly approves today.” The majority decision ignored her argument and citations. This was going to be a big payday for Mr. Singer. The Democrat Sotomayor recused herself from the case and gave no reason for that, but the common assumption is that she had a personal relationship that might be seen as prejudicing her judgment in that particular case. The ProPublica article makes crushingly clear that both Alito and Scalia were supposed to have done the same — and that the law required it but no one has any power or authority to enforce it. So, being pure psychopaths, neither of them recused themselves from it — and Scalia even wrote the opinion for his friend Singer.
Tha ProPublica article provides conclusive damning evidence against both Alito and Scalia. Above all, one needs to see the photos it shows. Can anyone doubt that Alito knew that Singer was his patron and friend? Here is the best passage in the ProPublica article:
Singer’s most famous gamble eventually made its way to the Supreme Court.
In 2001, Argentina was in a devastating economic depression. Unemployment skyrocketed and deadly riots broke out in the street. The day after Christmas, the government finally went into default. For Singer, the crisis was an opportunity. As other investors fled, his fund purchased Argentine government debt at a steep discount.
Within several years, as the Argentine economy recovered, most creditors settled with the government and accepted a fraction of what the debt was originally worth. But Singer’s fund, an arm of Elliott called NML Capital, held out. Soon, they were at war: a midtown Manhattan-based hedge fund trying to impose its will on a sovereign nation thousands of miles away.
The fight played out on familiar turf for Singer: the U.S. courts. He launched an aggressive legal campaign to force Argentina to pay in full, and his personal involvement in the case attracted widespread media attention. Over 13 years of litigation, the arguments spanned what rights foreign governments have in the U.S. and whether Argentina could pay off debts to others before Singer settled his claim.
If Singer succeeded, he stood to make a fortune.
Because of the U.S. Supreme Court, Singer did succeed.
On June 21st, Jake Johnson at Common Dreams gave a good summary of the ProPublica article.
On the same day as the ProPublica article, June 20th, Alito himself headlined an op-ed in the Republican Party newspaper Wall Street Journal, “ProPublica Misleads Its Readers. The publication levels false charges about Supreme Court recusal, financial disclosures and a 2008 fishing trip.” He misrepresented the article and ignored its main evidence.
So: how were Democrats simply more hypocritical about this greedy grasping? By Democratic ‘Justices’ signing onto the filth that the Republican Scalia wrote there, they participate in the crime that this case was to the people of Argentina. And by the Democrat Ginsburg failing to have demanded that the majority decision ought to discuss the points and evidence that she was presenting, she continued the comity of the Court but failed what is basic to real justice anywhere: a discussion by each side against the opposite side’s argument and evidence. How can there be justice if that is not present? Comity at the expense of even the possibility of justice produces only fraudulent ‘justice’. If the opposing sides do not encounter each other frankly in discussion, then even a path to justice isn’t present; it’s merely a power-game, and corruption will decide its winner.
Reposts are welcomed with the reference to ORIENTAL REVIEW.
Comments