There was a time when those selected to sit upon the US Supreme Court would vote 9-0 to affirm the document upon which their position was formed as one of three equal parts of the US government. The UK court system was also paralysed yesterday when Law Lords ruled against the use of anonymous witnesses testifying in court trials where a witness feared for their life if testifying against certain criminals. A two month trial ground to a halt and Home Secretary Jack Straw threatened emergency legislation to overturn this decision.

While it is almost impossible to see the Constitution today as anything but George W. Bush’s “damned piece of paper,” the way it has been tarnished and attacked in decisions by ultra-conservatively stacked lower court decisions they allow to stand by ignoring and sending back without comment, the UK ruling means the mobs of yobs and members of organised crime who terrorise individuals could simply walk.

Listening to BBC Radio Five a caller said witness protection schemes like in America would never work because the UK work and population centres are separated by 200 miles vs. 3,000 or more in the USA. The Law Lords and certain solicitors maintained that without Counsel having the right to determine the veracity of the Crown Prosecution’s witnesses, their client could not be assured a fair trial.

The Supreme Court today is not your grandfather’s court and has problems of its own. It is stacked along conservative vs. liberal ideological lines. Some say the reach of big business extends to individual justice’s holdings. Judging by yesterday’s decision to cut punitive damages to $500 million dollars for the world’s worst oil spill, the Exxon Valdez, they handed the globe’s largest oil company a $2 billion dollar Christmas present in June.

Since Justices serve for life and are accountable to no one, it is with some surprise that uber conservative Justices Thomas and Scalia provided intimate portraits of themselves on CBS Television’s 60 Minutes news magazine. Of course Justice Scalia has written a book and Thomas’ legendary confirmation hearing revealing him to be a bigot in sheep’s clothing (you be the judge on colour since he is the court’s only black man) left him in need of an image makeover so it was less surprising than puzzling as to why 20-years later he’d think we care. Their appearance was disturbing and showed that they care not a whit what anyone thinks because they are appointed for life.

No decision though rankled as much as the recent 5-4 decision to allow so-called “enemy combatant” many held for seven years without trial in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, the right to contest their detention in court. Giving them the basic habeas corpus rights any other person would have to a hearing before a judge was, according to right wing-nut ideologues like Pat Buchanan, “a decision that will so embolden the terrorists that it could cost us a city.” What?!?

The court has ruled against the Gitmo detention facility for some time and the Bush Administration’s desire to keep these military detentions under a different set of legal rules (basically, the ones they decide). “Special rendition” flights continue to prisons all over the globe to extract information by means not available in US prisons because we have laws against torture.

Is anybody watching while Rome and the rule of law burns? Where is the outrage? 40 years ago there were riots in the street against this kind of abuse of authority. Like President Truman who wanted to see one-handed economist (one the one hand this… on the other hand that…), on two continents the courts face difficult decisions with little or no real authority or incentive to act in anyone;s interest but their own.

At the very least I’d like to see one branch of the US government arrest and try the other for crimes. If that won’t work, then at the very least a cage wrestling match between Bush and Ginsberg with Cameron and Brown as the undercard on pay-per-view. At least we’d be entertained instead of continually shocked and awed.