[Nettime-bold] Re: <nettime> Alan's query - counter-powers

[Amy Alexander <plagiari@plagiarist.org>]

On Wed, 4 Apr 2001, Brian Holmes wrote:

> Alan, I'm no jurist, but I think your idea of pressing charges against Bush
> for failure to keep his campaign promises (among other things) is worth a
> try. It's very much the way that politics is really carried on today. 
> 
<snip>

> Your idea, in the U.S.A. right now, would be a good way to push toward a
> more democratic political culture, that is, a more activist one. For
> starters, the only way to make it realistically happen would be to get an
> ethics question going among the lawyering profession. Because you need a
> lot of free labor to make your idea happen! And of course the separation of
> the juridical and the executive is exactly what failed in the Supreme Court
> decision that brought us Bush, so the issue is real.

Pressing charges does sound interesting - though one can assume that the
case would likely go "all the way to the Supreme Court" - which, as you
point out, is  a party to the case. I'm not sure how that would work, if
we seriously think about it happening under US law. If there's a case
involving 2 states, then it goes to a federal court. But what happens if
it's a case where the federal (Supreme) court is a party? 

Another idea that might be useful, which Alan mentioned in his prior
post: instead of pressing criminal charges (i.e. impeachment), 
sue Bush. Litigation is *really* the American way, isn't it? :-)
And maybe name the Supreme Court as a party to the suit. It could be
a class-action suit on the part of the people of the US - maybe or
maybe not as shareholders - against
CEO Bush and the Board of the Supreme Court. (or whatever...)

Alan mused about the grounds for the suit - can we sue for reversal of
campaign promises? I'm thinking that a more "corporate" grounds might
be appropriate here, as well as entertaining. 
The premise of the suit would be that the US has been financially harmed
by Bush's actions - there are numerous options: tarnishment of the US
trademark, malpractice resulting in financial loss due to boycotts,
personal injury (environmental),
or maybe an antitrust suit due to Bush administration's collusion with the
oil industry et al (or possibly due to the aforementioned 
Bush/SupremeCourt executive/judicial "trust.") I'm sure there's more
that could be conjured up. I'm tempted to host a contest....

Of course the potential financial results of such a suit may not mean much
as opposed to criminal proceedings - er, the settlement money comes from
where and goes to where? But, as in most lawsuits, "it's the
principle that matters" (of course! :-)) 
Certainly, I'm not a lawyer either. 
But, litigation is the American Way - and certainly the Corporate American
Way - because it allows for an unbelievable variety of Things You Can't Believe
Someone Can Actually Sue For  (or Threaten to Sue For.) 
It could at least make for some entertaining and hopefully useful PR
by utilizing the time-tested corporate tactic of litigation, this time
as the presumed Court of Last Resort for democracy.
  
BTW, that doesn't solve the "Supreme Court is a party to this
case" problem, it's just another idea to kick around. :-)

Happy Litigation,
-@




_______________________________________________
Nettime-bold mailing list
Nettime-bold@nettime.org
http://www.nettime.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nettime-bold