Link to an article by Marty Hart-Landsberg:
“In the US You Can be Fired for Any or No Reason—It Doesn’t Have to be This Way”
Tag: Courts
Brian Dolber – Sleeping at the Wheel: The Uber Files, the Media, and the Coup Against Labor Rights
Link to an article by Brian Dolber:
“Sleeping at the Wheel: The Uber Files, the Media, and the Coup Against Labor Rights”
Bonus link: “Uber Bosses Told Staff to Use ‘Kill Switch’ During Raids to Stop Police Seeing Data”
The Rightwing’s Supreme Court Coup
Rafael Correa & Jean-Luc Mélenchon – Lawfare
Link to an interview with Rafael Correa & Jean-Luc Mélenchon, conducted by Denis Rogatyuk & Patricio Mery Bell:
“Lawfare: The Technocrats’ War on Democracy”
Bonus links: “Democracy: When the Opposition is the Media” and “Their Little Show” and An Alger Hiss Memoir
Gregory Shill – Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It
Link to an article by Gregory H. Shill:
“Americans Shouldn’t Have to Drive, but the Law Insists on It”
Bonus link: “The Making of a Monster”
Sam Natale & John Sadek – The Socialist Origins of Public Defense
Link to an article by Sam Natale & John Sadek:
Russell Mokhiber – Laurent Cohen-Tanugi on Scapegoating in Corporate Crime Cases
Link to an article by Russell Mokhiber:
“Laurent Cohen-Tanugi on Scapegoating in Corporate Crime Cases”
Bonus link: The Chickenshit Club: Why the Justice Department Fails to Prosecute Executives
Ryan LaMothe – The Occult Injustice of Laws Supporting Capitalism
Link to an article by Ryan LaMothe:
John Steppling – Before the Law
Link to an article by John Steppling:
While fairly detailed in its analysis and proffered support, the asserted parallels with fascist regimes of the past aren’t fully convincing. Does the current moment not have neo-feudalist (or neo-Bonapartist) aspects? Doesn’t the present moment have some unique features without complete historical precedent?
Bonus link: The Courts Are Political
Benjamin Fogel – Against “Anti-Corruption”
Link to an article by Benjamin Fogel:
Curiously, while the author says moralism isn’t an answer, his argument is essentially moral! He really is saying mere moralistic, individualistic finger-wagging won’t convince political opponents to change their own ways, which is a tactical argument that recognizes that the problem does not lie at an individual level and therefore cannot be solved at the individual level either but glosses over normative/ideological (moral) bases for structural/institutional action. But isn’t the author simply arguing that instead of criminalizing the political left through “anti-corruption” laws such policies should instead criminalize the political right? He offers no real explicit argument to this effect, relying instead on implicit ideology and morality/ethics. This is about a political struggle for hegemony, making certain specific procedural/tactical suggestions along the lines of Rosa Luxembourg’s famous “socialism or barbarism” maxim.
Bonus links: Slavoj Žižek On Political Struggle (technocrats as defenders of hierarchy) and Slavoj Žižek on Populism (populists) and Ibi Rhodus, Ibi Saltus! Quote (ethics/morals are ultimately political)