Is There a Tie-in Between Abortion and Corporate Power in the U.S.?

Has Judge Alito Violated His Oath of Office?

Is There a Legal Tie-in Between Abortion and
Corporate Power in the

U.S.

By Katherine Yurica.

November 11, 2005

[Yurica Report Editor's Note: This article was updated on November 14, 2005 to include a direct quote from Judge Alito and to clarify the wording of the accompanying paragraph. We encourage our readers to download Judge Alito's essay, "Documents and the Privilege Against Self-Incrimination. in a large PDF file. 56 pages.]

The Woburn Case and a Judges’ Oath of Office

In 1995 Jonathan Harr published his legal thriller, A Civil Action, which quickly shot up to bestseller status as readers agreed with John Grisham’s statement on the book: He found it to be the most compelling chronicle of litigation he had ever read. However, this was not a Grisham thriller, the events in the book were real. In 1999, John Travolta played the part of Jan Schlichtmann, the courageous lawyer who took on the Beatrice Foods and W. R. Grace companies for allegedly dumping poisonous chemicals into the drinking water of a small Massachusetts town. If you read the book or saw the movie, the Woburn case is almost impossible to forget. A map at the beginning of the book shows where the children who died of leukemia lived, where the companies owned by Beatrice and the W. R. Grace Co. had their plants, and where the town’s water wells were located.

Judge Skinner, the judge who heard the Woburn case, repeatedly favored the corporations and their lawyers. Jan Schlichtmann found himself behind the eight ball over and over throughout the progress of the trial. While it is true that W. R. Grace eventually “settled” with the plaintiffs, they did so without making a full disclosure and without any expression of atonement, and the settlement was small when one considers the deaths of the children.

The issue facing the Senate and the American people on whether or not to approve the nomination of Judge Samuel Alito has in fact less to do with Roe v. Wade and a great deal more to do with the fact that according to a New York Times article by Stephen Labaton, Alito favors corporations over injured citizens who file claims against them. Labaton says Alito is known for his favoritism, and large corporate interests will be spending millions of dollars to back him. Perhaps Americans and members of the Senate should re-read A Civil Action, for we really are facing an issue of favoritism for the mighty against individual American citizens. And there are grave consequences for our nation should legal favoritism of corporations increase. The reality is that corporations never die! But citizens do. The question then becomes, how many Americans have to die so that an everlasting corporate entity known in this one instance as the W. R. Grace company, can live? And make no mistake it will live beyond all our life spans.

So with eternal existence granted to them by the states that gave birth to them, and with judges who favor them—over humans—America’s legal system is being tested in ways that mean we as a people must enforce the oath of office of the judges.

A question that should be raised is this, has the W. R. Grace company changed its tactics since A Civil Action was first published? According to Labaton’s article the answer is no. Judge Alito sided with W.R. Grace in Grace v. E.P.A., and United States v. Allegheny Ludlam, two “companies who were seeking to overturn fines and remedial actions ordered by the Environmental Protection Agency.”

II.

How Does the Oath Compare to the Biblical Legal Tradition?

The oath of office for a Supreme Court Justice requires a judge to swear or affirm that he will “administer justice without respect to persons and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and...faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon...” the office.[1]

It is a fact that this oath of office originated from the Mosaic law in the Bible. In my book, Bloodguilty Churches, I made the following observations in the section titled “The Development of the Biblical Justice System” [2]:

“Just as we saw that the God of the Bible has taken a special interest in public health and safety laws, inspiring the code against pollution, the Bible has a very special interest in justice. The Bible contains the rules of evidence and the code of behavior for judges.

“The system of jurisprudence in ancient Israel began as follows:

‘You shall appoint judges and officers in all your towns which the Lord your God gives you, according to your tribes; and they shall judge the people with righteous judgment.

‘You shall not misinterpret or misapply judgment; you shall not be partial, or take a bribe; for a bribe blinds the eyes of the wise, and perverts the words of the righteous.” (Deuteronomy 16:18-19. Amplified.)

‘Keep far from a false matter; and [be very careful] not to condemn to death the innocent and the righteous, for I will not justify and acquit the wicked.” (Exodus 23:7. Amplified)

“Today, justices of the Supreme Court take an oath based essentially on the following biblical edict:

‘You shall do no injustice in judging a case; you shall not be partial to the poor or show a preference for the mighty,[3] but in righteousness and according to the merits of the case judge your neighbors.’ (Leviticus 19:15. Amplified Version) [Emphasis added.]

“According to Title 28, Chapter I, Part 453 of the United States Code, each Supreme Court Justice takes the following oath:

‘I, [NAME], do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will administer justice without respect to persons, and do equal right to the poor and to the rich, and that I will faithfully and impartially discharge and perform all the duties incumbent upon me as [TITLE OF POSITION] under the Constitution and laws of the United States. So help me God.’

“Note that under this oath a judge cannot be “pro” big business or “anti” the small guy. This prohibition is one that Mr. Bush and Republicans in congress brush aside, often scornfully. Although the oath seems weak, a study of a judge’s decisions ought to reveal whether or not such a bias exists and its presence must disqualify that judge from his office. (This is why Mr. Bush is most apt to nominate candidates without a judicial record because they haven’t served as judges in the past.) [Emphasis added]

“….The prophet Jeremiah returns to the overwhelming theme of biblical justice:

‘Execute justice and righteousness, and deliver out of the hand of the oppressor him who has been robbed.’ (Jeremiah 22:3. Amplified)

“The last question to address is this: “What happens if justice is perverted?” The answer is found in Deuteronomy:

‘Cursed be he who perverts the justice due to the sojourner or the stranger, the fatherless, and the widow. All the people shall say, Amen.’ (Deuteronomy 27:19. Amplified.)’”

III.

Is A Corporation A Person?

One might be tempted to argue that a corporation is not a “person” and therefore the scripture as well as the oath of office could not possibly be referring to such an organization and therefore there is no justification for a comparison between an individual and a corporation in a court of law. But that reasoning would be overlooking the fact the laws governing this country have for more than a century identified a corporation as an artificial “person.” (See for example the U.S. Bankruptcy Act of 1898, which specifically stated that the word “persons” shall include corporations, partnerships and women…” 11 U.S.C.A. §1.) And thanks to misleading notes of a clerk, in 1886 the Supreme Court case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad was used as precedent to hold that a corporation was a “natural person.”[4]

Therefore both the oath of office and the biblical injunction, must of necessity be interpreted to mean that a judge may not favor the mighty—the richer, the stronger, the more powerful corporation over a single human being in court who is opposing that corporate entity or defending against the corporation’s complaint.

If it can be shown that Judge Alito favors big business over individuals, he has violated his oath of office. Judge Alito must have criteria that he applies to offset the inherent greater respect or advantage that artificial corporate “persons” may have. He should be asked, if he has criteria that equalize the corporate persons appearing in court before him that equate the might of say a W. R. Grace company with a single housewife or a single child who may be a plaintiff against the corporate person. He should be able to tell the Senate what his rules of equalization are. In other words—the public is entitled to know by what criteria Judge Alito equalizes an elephant against a bunny rabbit (especially if the elephant has an apparent advantage such as costly high powered lawyers at its disposal).