One crucial factor behind the meltdown that caused the Great Recession is the assurance many financial firms gave customers that risky investments were safe. In this context, one would think the Supreme Court would watch out for attempts by dishonest financial executives to evade accountability. But in Janus Capital Group, Inc. v. First Derivative Traders, the Court split 5 to 4 along familiar ideological lines, saying that executives could not be held liable for lies contained in literature distributed by a mutual fund managed by the corporation.I guess dancing in the streets would be unseemly. Besides, it might cause people to notice that the company that manages their IRAs and 401k's (what's left of them) now have a license to cheat them and lie to them about it with impunity.
When these kinds of decisions were coming down in the 1930s, FDR proposed expanding the court to 15 seats, so that he could appoint six new justices who stop the Court from striking down New Deal legislation. Think Obama would ever consider this? Based on what I've seen, he probably supports the majority decision.
If this doesn't convince you that the banksters now own all three branches of our government, nothing will.