Kucinich v. NBC: Nevada Supreme Court Upholds the Spirit of Fascism in the U.S.

Two can play the game of making arguments based on technical matters underlying precedent. So, let's see how the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in the January 15, 2008 case brought by NBC against [former presidential candidate] Rep. Dennis J. Kucinich (D-OH) upholds the spirit of Fascism.

First, from the Merriam-Webster dictionary...

fascism: 1 often capitalized : a political philosophy, movement, or regime (as that of the Fascisti) that exalts nation and often race above the individual and that stands for a centralized autocratic government headed by a dictatorial leader, severe economic and social regimentation, and forcible suppression of opposition 2: a tendency toward or actual exercise of strong autocratic or dictatorial control

This post presents for the reader's consideration, analysis of the element of fascism characterized by "forcible suppression of opposition" demonstrated by the January 15, 2008 decision by the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada in the case NBC UNIVERSAL, INC., Petitioner, vs. THE EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF THE STATE OF NEVADA, IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF CLARK, AND THE HONORABLE J. CHARLES THOMPSON, SENIOR JUDGE, Respondents, and DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Real Party in Interest. (Case No. 50889)

The case was brought before the Nevada Supreme Court by NBC in their effort to overturn the Nevada Eighth District Court's decision in favor of Congressman Kucinich, mandating Kucinich be included in the January 15, 2008 Democratic Presidential Primary debate held at the Cashman Center in Las Vegas.

Representative Dennis Kucinich (D-OH) has since dropped out of the race for the office of President of the United States, citing how his being locked out of several nationally televised debates prevented his campaign's message from widely reaching the American people.

Even prior to his most recent legal dispute with NBC, Kucinich himself spoke about the rising tide of fascism in the United States in an interview conducted by the REAL News prior to the January 8, 2008 New Hampshire primary. The Nevada Supreme Court decision reversing the Nevada 8th District Court's ruling might stand to validate his view when it is considered in the context of the intended spirit underlying American justice.

THE DECISION

The Nevada Supreme Court's ruling essentially was on the issue of the validity of the Nevada 8th District Court's jurisdiction in deciding Kucinich's claim that NBC was violating the Federal Communications Act of 1934 by excluding him from the nationally televised Democratic Presidential Primary debate held in Las Vegas on January 15, 2008.

The Nevada Supreme Court ruled in favor of NBC, holding that the Nevada 8th District Court had no jurisdiction in deciding a claim based on the FCA:

"Under the FCA, primary and exclusive jurisdiction to vindicate [the public interest] with respect to alleged violations of Section 315(a), which pertains to equal opportunities and fairness, is vested in the Federal Communications Commission (FCC), and the courts' sole function with respect to FCA enforcement is to review final FCC orders under the federal statutory scheme."

Essentially, the Nevada Supreme Court ruling was based on precedent of how such cases as Kucinich's are legally decided. The court claims:

"Here, because the district court granted the real party in interest relief for alleged Section 315(a) violations even though he failed to allege that he first requested and was denied relief from the FCC, the district court exceeded its jurisdiction."

So, because Kucinich apparently "failed to allege that he first requested and was denied relief from the FCC," this became the basis for the Nevada Supreme Court ruling in favor of NBC.

Assuming the Nevada Supreme Court's assertion here is true, what does one make of the court's ultimate decision against Kucinich in light of a preliminary statement the court made prior to citing Kucinich's above failure to seek proper redress from the FCC? Namely:

"In this case, the court's order is styled a temporary restraining order, from which no appeal lies. Further, even if the order could be properly appealed under NRAP 3A(b)(2) as an order granting an injunction, the severe time constraints in operation would render an appeal an inadequate remedy."

One might conclude, then, "severe time constraints in operation" are not a matter weighty enough for the Nevada Supreme Court to rule contrarily about the strictly technical issues they cite as the basis for their ultimate ruling in favor of NBC, even unto setting a legal precedent out of consideration for how these same "severe time constraints" might, practically, have prevented Mr. Kucinich from abiding the established legal course (i.e. first petitioning the FCC) for claiming a violation of the FCA.

MAKING A CONTRACT WITH AN UGLY PAST

Subsequently -- possibly to help rationalize its FCA-related decision based strictly on technical matters underlying precedent -- the court also was compelled to rule on the issue of NBC initially inviting Kucinich to the debate, then uninviting him, doing this on the basis of precedent pertaining to contract law.

The Eighth District Court ruled against NBC on this matter, whereas the Nevada Supreme Court concluded "that the district court manifestly abused its discretion in determining that a contract existed between the parties."

And the reason for this?

Kucinichs' claim before the Nevada Supreme Court asserted that, "promissory estoppel replaces traditional consideration," whereas "he failed to raise [this argument] in the district court as a basis for relief."

So this discrepancy is the sole basis for deciding "the district court manifestly abused its discretion!"

Conclusion

One of the primary reasons our republic provides its citizens with courts of appeal is so the spirit of our nation's laws might rightly be asserted. Of course, this presupposes courts of appeal consist of well-intentioned citizens who possess the wisdom to deliberate on the spirit underlying the Bill of Rights, who will consider all judicial matters -- all laws establishing precedent -- within the confines of the spirit of Justice our nation was founded upon, then demonstrate a certain courage of conviction to issue its rulings in accordance with its wisdom to discern this spirit, doing so even unto exercising its power to establish new legal precedent.

Indeed, one need only turn to the Nazi judicial system imposed on Germany during Hitler's reign of terror to discover how the legal community can be made to act in a most unseemly, inhumane manner, using strict technical adherence to precedent for the sole sake of political expediency.

Thus, the reader may now be comforted to know that when Dennis Kucinich suggests fascism is a growing threat in these United States, he is speaking from first-hand experience, courtesy of the Nevada Supreme Court's decision in his case against NBC.

End Note

This article is presented as neither an indictment of the Supreme Court of the State of Nevada, nor a condemnation of the Justices serving on the court. The commentary here simply intends to present a layman's view of the court's decision in the context of larger social issues relevant to the matter at hand, as well as the author's understanding of the spirit of justice the United States of America was formed to defend.

Any comments fomenting rage against the Nevada Supreme Court or its justices will not be accepted.