Last modified: 7:58 AM Saturday, 14 January 2017

Je recuse?

There is a judicial tradition — unfortunately not one that has meant much to certain corrupt jurists I could name — according to which a judge with a personal stake in a case recuses himself from ruling on it to avoid the appearance of a conflict of interest.

Full pockets

Full pockets beat a full house any day.
[ Image Source: Unknown ]

In Congress, where there has long been more an actuality than an appearance of corruption, this practice should become law. Although it might well mean that only a minority of senators or representatives could vote on a given question, all those who have received contributions from industries that stand to gain or lose from Congress’ decision should be required to recuse themselves. And if this leads to a cumbersome process in which a quorum must be redefined as the majority of those not debarred from voting, or if it cripples the Congress because it can’t reasonably vote on too many matters, then we should consider the next step: forbidding legislators to accept contributions from private interests altogether.

To do this will likely require a constitutional amendment. Very well. We need one anyway, to nullify the Supreme Court’s miscarriage of a decision declaring corporations full citizens, so we may as well make the amendment comprehensive and eradicate corruption at its source.

Originally published as a review of a Mother Jones article on congressional corruption.

Peace, liberty, unity, justice, equality
Home Economy Government Mammonolatry Pathocracy Religion Science Society The Record The Struggle WikiLeaks World Events