Harlan Crowe is right about nothing amiss in his relationship with a Supreme Court justice, if we throw the history of democracy out the window.

The politically privileged aristocracy in England openly hob-nobbed with high level government officials all the time. In fact, they often got automatic hereditary positions in the government precisely because they were from the upper crust.

But England’s slow revolution in the 1600s and America’s revolution in 1776 changed all that. We learned about the importance not only of separation of powers, but separation of the moneychangers from unfettered access to public decision-makers. Our ancestors put a provision in the Constitution prohibiting any titles of nobility, so everyone would have an equal chance to influence government.

The Citizens United court case opened up the floodgates allowing American corporations and individuals to control election financing by permitting unlimited financial contributions to friendly candidates. Are you seeing the link here between money and Supreme Court decisions favoring the Republican party?

Condoning friendly financial contributions from the wealthy to sitting Supreme Court justices is another big step on the road to allowing the wealthy exclusive control of policy in America, and it must not be allowed to happen.

Kimball Shinkoskey, Woods Cross

Newsletter