The Roberts Court is about to do the unthinkable...
This is a pretty depressing saga unfolding right before our eyes and it's another reason why we need cameras in the Supreme Court so we can view the mockery Roberts is making out of the Third Branch of government. They are about to grant corporations the right to spend unlimited amounts of money to attack political candidates right up until an election, which would make destroy the very fabric of our voting structure. Did you know that a corporation is an individual in Scalia's mind?
Dahlia Lithwick explains the horror that is unfolding over the hit job produced by Citizens United on Hillary Clinton.
When we first met this case, it involved a narrow question about whether a 90-minute documentary attacking Hillary Clinton could be regulated as an "electioneering communication" under McCain-Feingold. The relevant provision bars corporations and unions from using money from their general treasuries for "any broadcast, cable or satellite communications" that feature a candidate for federal election during specified times before a general election. A federal court of appeals agreed with the FEC that the movie could be regulated. Citizens United, the conservative, nonprofit advocacy group that produced the film, appealed. The issue last spring was whether a feature-length documentary movie was core political speech or a Swift Boat ad. But the court surprised everyone when it ordered the case reargued in September, this time tackling the constitutionality of McConnell and Austin.
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, and Clarence Thomas are already on record wanting to overturn these cases. Justice Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts have been inclined to wait. The question today is whether we wait no more [...]
Solicitor General Kagan stands to defend the FEC, not in a frock coat but a tasteful blue pantsuit, and when Scalia pounces on her, two sentences into her opening, she scolds him as if he were an impudent 2-L: "I will repeat what I said, Justice Scalia: For 100 years this court, faced with many opportunities to do so, left standing the legislation that is at issue in this case." Kagan is so loose and relaxed, you'd think this was her 100th argument. Which allows Roberts to dispense with the kid gloves and accuse her, respectively of "giving up" an argument she made in her opening brief and "changing positions." When she is asked, in effect, if she wants to lose this case in a big way or a little way, Kagan is eventually forced to reply, "If you are asking me, Mr. Chief Justice, as to whether the government has a preference as to the way in which it loses if it has to lose, the answer is yes."
One of the ways the Roberts Court hopes to make all conflicting case law in the campaign finance realm disappear is to blame all prior bad case law on Kagan. When everyone is thoroughly confused about what rationale the government may advance in order to limit corporate spending, Roberts can gleefully conclude that all of Austin "is kind of up for play. …" Poof. And Austin is a problem no more...read on...
It truly is a depressing read, even though we it's an excellent piece and we need to read it. With cameras in the court, Americans would be able to watch how the Roberts Court will tilt the country away from the American people and into the hands of the corporate elite.
All a corporation would have to do is merely threaten a candidate that they'll make a movie or run a gazillion ads against them and that would be enough to "buy" their vote over anything that a corporation deems unprofitable. What's sad is that corporations already funnel millions of dollars through PACs already, but that's still not enough for the activist judges of the right.
Considering that we can lobby corporations much more easily than we can our own Congress.
that is an incredibly depressing thought...
and so far its only lasted how long? How long did it it take for the zeal for individualism and self-gratification to take down the Romans?
Sign our petition to fix the Medicare Prescription drug benefit
and
Sign our petitions for single payer health care
See our web site http://DEMOCRATZ.ORG for those links
See our blog http://blog.democratz.org
Which corporations are you going to deliver those petitions to?
If corporations rules the election process then you really don't have a country anymore.
They are the corporate government run by corporations for corporations.
That, Mussolini could call "Fascist".
"Fascism should be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power." - Mussolini
'The devil crept into Heaven, God overslept on the 7th, the New World Order was born on Sept 11th.' - Immortal Technique
Consider these clips from the work of the late (d 1988) Australian sociologist Alex Carey
The first and so far only scientifically drawn study of the history of the corporate war on democracy.
CORPORATIONS AND PROPAGANDA
The Attack on Democracy
Part 1 - history through WWII
Part 2 - history after WWII
Mariah Gilardian at TUC radio (user supported) here, produced the clips.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Anyone who watched the confirmation hearings of both Sam Alito and John Roberts must remember the harsh questioning that Ted Kennedy gave these two men.
Ted Kennedy understood they were lying by omission. Neither Alito nor Roberts were honest at their own hearings. They lied about what they'd do once on the USSC. They should be Impeached for their lies.
Roberts said he would honor and respect precedent and what is known as stare decisis. Ted Kennedy took a lot of criticism for his harsh criticisms of Roberts and Alito by many people in America. Kennedy was one of the few U.S. Senators who did not buy into their lies and obfuscations of the truth.
The late Senator Kennedy also understood they are members of the Federalist Society which shares many extreme views including rolling back the Voting Rights Act, Privacy rights and opposes the Miranda Ruling. One should go and become familiar with this very extreme Federalist Society, and its members who now infest all the courts in America.
The left must take note of the extremists from the Federalist Society who now infest all courts across America and not allow the right wing to say any longer there is "judicial activists from the left" on the courts. The judicial activists on the courts in America today are from the right wing and the Federalist Society. Ted Olson is another Federalist Society member and so too, is Orrin Hatch.
In closing, Roberts and Alito should be Impeached for lying before the U.S. Senate Judiciary Committee during their confirmation hearings. This is no joke. A few years back Ted Kennedy commented on the lies of these two men after they were already on the bench at the USSC.
What you're overlooking is that every time the Court "reaffirms" the so-called First Amendment Right
for Corporations, it makes any hope of reforming the election process nearly impossible.
The only way we won't have to lobby either one is to remove big money from elections, thus removing the need for politicians to fill their campaign chests and PAC accounts.
And making the whole process more honest, both during campaigns and afterwards.
"which would make destroy" and "even though we it's"
I can't afford to give much but I'll give whatever I can.
Checks and Balances to trying to achieve balance with a check.
Who checks the power of the SCOTUS?
Mickey: "It was an epiphany. Do you know what an epipany is?"
Keoni: "NOT NOW MICKEY!"
In theory, it's the Congress.
...We are so screwed.
To sum up, Congresscritters, Senators and the President would have to intervene and say no to unlimited corporate sponsorship.
far left loon >.<
If I may complete your thought:
"To sum up, Congresscritters, Senators and the President would have to intervene and say no to unlimited corporate sponsorship..."
...of those same Congresscritters, Senators and President.
Welcome to the real world, Neo.
"Someday somebody related to some of these sufferers, these victims, these collaterally damaged souls, may try to kill you. And I have to tell you, I think you’ll have it coming." - Christopher Cooper
What I find interesting is that these right wingers like Scalia and Thomas are always going on about the "intent of the founding fathers" at the time of the signing of the Constitution....It is obvious that the FF intended the 1st Amendment to protect individuals right to free speech.....not Corporations. But they conveniently forget their "original intent" when it suits them.
This country is killing itself. Publicly funded elections like they have in the UK are the only answer.
Isn't that what they like to call themselves? More like Strict Corporate Constructionist. How many laws have been overturned since Roberts and Alito? Nice of them to tell the Congress they would respect precedent. It would seem that Sotomayer is the willing to protect precedent. And Roberts has yet to rule for the People.
i would tend to agree with the late charles beard's POV about the intent of the founding fathers, and his evidence that went a long way in proving that the FF's intent was to further their economic interests, and any benefit to the lower classes was a beneficial side-effect.
The way the law developed was that corporations, for various reasons, were to be treated the same as an individual. And now with decades of case law maintaining that legal fiction, we're kind of stuck with it till some land mark case some how revokes that status.
As a second year law student living in America of 2009, I call bull shit on that concept.
at those around you! How many of your peers see it that way. Believe me, I know from first hand esperience. What happens when the grades are posted? Law school is designed to weed out the intellectually inferior so they end up being....doctors for example!
I wish you good luck in law school and hope you keep you're sensibilities, and if your married, your wife!
Monica Goodling had a good chuckle over your post.
Lawyers. Feh.
P.S., Aren't grammar, punctiuation, and spelling prerequisites for law school?
writing a legal memorandum! What is your point!
not a post. A post is what we are commenting on!
P.S. Shouldn't you know where you are before you start commenting?
1886 U.S. Supreme Court case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company (118 U.S. 394) is generally cited as the application of the 14th amendment to corporations.
Although there is twist to the story.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Go to commondreams.org.
Thom Hartman has a great piece there on this trial and how the "corporations are people"
ruling was in fact a clerical error.
I read everything I can at common dreams and I believe I read that but I can't find it now. Do you have a link?
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Imagine a person or persons (inside a corporation, or out) who so damage a corporation that it has to dissolve, or be sold for pennies on the dollar, or is simply dismembered by take over artists. This has been happening all too often in recent years. If a corporation as an individual is given the equivalent of a citizen's rights, then not only should a forced demise be considered murder, but the corporation should be allowed to vote! They (at least the big ones) seem to have health insurance already in the form of bailouts and the like. I don't think I'd want them on jury duty.
after all, spent the majority of her career as a highly placed, highly paid CorpoRat litigator before being named to the Bench by a Puke President, GHW Bush...
Her questions suggest she's a very weak "Liberal" voice on the Court who is unwilling to take a strong stand on principle...
I hope she surprises me, but like so much Obama has done, I suspect she'll live down to my expectations...
mistrust of former hippies and other well off persons of non-color who locate to quiet southwestern locations, turn them into avant garde communities and create the situation where the locals find it difficult to live because of the rising costs of land and goods. Especially when they then use their wordly expectations to criticize those they displace and their representatives. Its another way of maintaining the status quo!
n/t
were not disappointing. It is so very early though.
Yeah it's bad. But remember, folks, that Republicans had everything going their way with the result that they so totally screwed the pooch the Democrats took away their power. If corporations allow themselves to be as abusively stupid as the Republicans (or Fox News), they may just wind up talking the public into a new era of trust busting. Also, Scalia and some of the other older so-called conservatives are likely to die in the next seven years, thus giving Obama and the Democrats a chance to reverse things by putting in a reliably moderate-to-liberal justice.
Doesn't somebody have the swing vote here?
I hope for. I do hope scalia and thomas are the first to check it in looking for their rapture and consequential appointments by Obama. That is one of the big reasons I voted for him and against the possibility of appointments by a republican president.
Remember that SCOTUS decided a political question when it decided to put boosh in power. That was against a long standing federal doctrine!
FWIW, it is here: http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/10/10/.... He seemed so unhappy with his education, his career, and, I suspect, his skin. So I made a proposal to buy him out for big bucks once W was out of office. Scalia enjoys the job too much to leave.
Corporations are abusively stupid, but they own Washington, so they can get away with it.
Voting with your dollars speaks loudest. Don't give the corporations your money.
Considering how we've been getting gouged by health insurance companies for a while and no one has assumed the mantle of Ted Roosevelt or William Howard Taft, and in fact, people are defending the very same corporations fucking them over. I wouldn't hold my breath over a second round of trust busting.
what I have been commenting about in the past when I say we need to stop thinking of corporations as individuals and that the Consitutional rights should only be guaranteed to natural persons.
Remember that SCOTUS decisions can also be overturned by legislative and popular reactions to them. Its happend in the past and progressives need to start gearing themselves up for those battles. If not, the death of Democracy, as Plato warned will happen again.
the road to Fascism widens.
Fascism, Corporate controlled goverment.
Democracy, people controlled government
you decide
Republic, the illusion of a people-controlled government.
But what about the economy we have now? These corporate morons have built business not upon demand, but have built business that builds demand for a product. It is backward, short sighted, and unsustainable! It is all short term greed above long term benifit.
They do the same thing with the enviroment. It won't happen before I am gone so why should I care.
republicanism is a mental illness!
Full-on government of the people, by the corporations, for the corporations is no more than a couple of election cycles away. The fascist ideologues on the Supreme Court will see what they've done.
The Roberts Court wouldn't address this issue, or would uphold the constitutionality of the prior law. With corporations having all the gold, however, Roberts feels the corporations are entitled to make the rules...
line his pocket with the valuable element so he pushes for that entitlement.
If corporations start acting like that did back during the early 1900s, I would expect the resulting backlash to place more power back to the unions. A corporation can do jack shit if all their workers say "fuck you we won't unless..." The public backlash would likely reach up to Washington, since while corporations might donate hell money, they're not the ones that cast the vote, like did when the FDA was formed.
I wonder what sort of conditions need to be met to have a "French" or "Russian" revolution in the U.S.
like it's 1899, yee haw
... what you think it means.
Look, Roberts and Alito were well-known to be right-wing ideologues at the time of their appointments. They were both active in the Federalist Society, ferChrissake. So I don't see what is even remotely unthinkable, inconceivable, or even mildly surprising, in the idea that these two will team up with the hard right ideologues already on the court to trash any number of precedents that you and I might think of as fundamental, but which the Federalist Society is well-known to consider wrongly decided.
Sure, Democrats in the Senate too weak-kneed to do their jobs and vote against known idealogues, instead settled for getting assurances that Alito and Roberts would respect stare decisis. Big whoop. Stare decisis just means that for close issues, you leave settled law undisturbed. No one thinks that if you believe that settled law is just plain wrong, as I presume we all believe for, say, Plessy v Ferguson, and as the Federalist Society types believe for a wide spectrum of settled law, you just leave settled law in place.
Look, the two Bush-baby newbies rubber-stamped by the Dems in the Senate were known to subscribe to a belief system in which all sorts of settled law is thought to have been wrongly decided. But these senators didn't even press them during confirmation hearings on their Fed Society connections. Both of them bristled visibly when that connection was even tentatively made to them. Their discomfort made clear that questioning about this connection was the right track, if the questioning had actually been intended to go anywhere. But it wasn't. The Dems chose amity, comity and avoidance of the nuclear option over doing their jobs. That too was the opposite of inconceivable, unthinkable, or even mildly surprising.
Senators Ted Kennedy, Pat Leahy and Russ Feingold asked hard questions and did not buy into the lies told to them by Alito and Roberts.
It was the great Ted Kennedy who put a quash on Robert Bork's nomination, so I beg to differ with you on this point. The Republicans had enough votes along with the conservative Dems to put these guys through.
Though perhaps it would be a good idea to have an actual separate Democratic Party to go along with the Corporate Sellout Democratic Party that controls the Senate and House.
I certainly appreciated the tough questioning from these three. I would have liked to see it even tougher, and specifically I would have liked to see questioning that could have served as a basis for perjury charges down the road. I don't claim to have read every word of the hearings, but my recollection is that on the question of their Federalist Society association, there was no pursuit of that assocociation past both candidates' bristling denial of any involvement beyond attending a few conferences and lectures. We already knew about political vetting of DOJ career positions at that time, (though I believe the US Atty scandal only broke later) and it was a short inference path that the candidates' sensitivity was not unlikely based on the Fed Society having been part of that illegal vetting, with the candidates themselves either involved or at least knowledgeable. At the very least, they should have been asked about this, to get their answers on the record. But even the three senators you cite didn't want to appear that they were conducting a witch hunt, God forbid.
But my point was about the Dems as a party, and our Dem legislators as a legislative party, not three Dems who were marginalized within that party precisely because of their inclination to do their jobs. Alito didn't even get 60 votes, and could have been blocked by a filibuster, if only the Dems had done their duty to keep right-wing idealogues off the Court.
... you call Ginsburg "weak-kneed" to her face. Please video-tape response, I wouldn't mind a laugh.
On the other side, Scalia isn't "weak-kneed" either. But, Thomas isn't awake enough to be weak, Roberts may be an ideologue true, but I was never impressed with him in the least. I wouldn't call either of them tough stuff. I don't see the right-side of the bench as all possessed of stronger wills, I see them as more numerous.
That was Senate Dems I referred to as weak-kneed.
RBG has always reminded me of my mother, so, yes, she doesn't strike me as being weak-kneed either.
so you did!
//note - must remember coffee on Saturdays
why no one should have a job for life. These justices are so out of touch. Also, why is anyone really surprised by this? It was easy to see what Roberts was about. Thomas is an idiot and Scalia's just an asshole.
FDR stacked the courts to pass the New Deal.
hmmm.
Christ Almighty you right wingers are stupid!
FDR "wanted" to stack the Supreme Court by expanding it from 9 to 15.
Election 2012: Be Educated! Be Active! Vote!
www.PhoenixJustice.com
by his OWN PARTY, that controlled Congress at the time.
And FDR wanted to stack the Court to get his programs through easier. Programs intended
to improve the lot of the common person.
A big difference from the goal of corporations and Corporate Republicans who
want to "stack" the Court with conservative ACTIVIST judges.
just a threat?
i think it safer, from a mental health perspective, to avoid knowing what's in scalia's mind...
yet, the idea that corporations are individuals isn't a figment of scalia's imagination--it is part of our legal heritage. since the late 19th century on, corporations are, in the eyes of the law, individuals, guaranteed the same rights and protections as everyone here.
the right to consume alcohol too? The right to marry?
the rights indiv are granted under the bill of rights are the same rights that the SCOTUS awarded corporations (santa clara county v. southern pacific RR)
yes, it is completely ridiculous and infuriating
progressives including this blog have known about the dangers of not having a publicly funded election process for years, yet they have never called for it.
why is that? and now when it may become too late they whine like hell.
nobody to blame but yourselves.
in fact, so it can be done. They have to realize their power via the "internets" as boosh and the wingnuts feared and fear!
progressives should have listened to them damn libruls who have been calling for public financing for 30+ years. Oh wait, progressives are the libruls.
I don't mind conservatives but come on. We need an honest Supreme Court, one that looks at an issue legitimately. What I'd like to see is the strong well written opposing views. That will temper the court because it will ignite a firestorm of legitimate debate in this country. That is something the backwater conservatives don't want. It will also force eyes on questionable court members like Clarence Thomas. I talked to a lawyer who tried a case in front of the US Supreme Court and he had nothing good to say about him. I want to see these justices give reasoned opinions. I want to see their opinions. If they are taking up space they need to retire.
YES put cameras in the courtroom.
Jeanne
There'll probably be as much debate as there has been about everything else. The GOP will line up and accuse Obama of... (fill in your own blank) and the nation will be side-tracked yet again. Sarah Palin is due to deliver another bombshell, isn't she?
Most Americans won't care a rat's ass about campaign finance as long as it's not costing them today.
Just my $0.02
far left loon >.<
i doubt most americans could ID the 3 branches of govt, let alone be able to develop an informed opinion on campaign finance reform
Well lessee, Legislative, described in Article I, Executive, described in Article II and Judicial described in Article III (the shortest of the top three articles).
Campaign finance reform stripped to it's basics is paying for accessibility. Now there are many factors that can press on a politicians vote, but if they're first priority is winning reelection it's often doing what the deep pocket boys want, but being able to justify, defend or distract other supporters (and political enemies) in the process.
So because there are so many fistfulls of cash coming from every direction, it's often impossible to prove quid pro quo, but paying for accessibility is antithetical to the first amendment's guarantee of speech as well as the right of the people to assemble and petition their governments for redress of grievances.
What's causing it is threefold: Southern Pacific Railroad v Santa Clara which established the idea of corporations as legal persons, an anachronism of the 19th Century Guilded Age, the idea that money is a form of symbolic speech (a noodle scratcher if there is one since lack of it can prevent the speech, and it's based on Tinker v Des Moines that the conservaturds HAAATTTTEEE... and the fact that campaign finance is allowed during the rest of a political campaign.
And comparing corporations to unions like the Hillary movie lawyers are doing is nonsensical, since the Unions were virtually destroyed under ray gunn.
But I'm just grabbing stuff out of my ass, because I'm half-aswleep and haven't had my first cup of tea yet.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
You meant Gilded Age, I suspect.
The age of guilds was quite another matter.
As far as unions and Reagan, see my links on Alex Carey here
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
I did mean Gilded Age
I guess I was thinking about apprenticeships, and even Unions which in effect too the place of the Guilds..
At least I didn't say the Gelded Age.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
.
she got knocked up again?
http://blog.rednecklaughs.com/wp-content/uplo...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
There has been little polling on the subject of campaign finance reforms, but
from what I recall it shows large popularity for reducing the money involved
in elections.
This is something that could be sold (no pun intended), even with the power
of corporate money opposing it.
But won't happen till there's a 5-4 Liberal majority in the Court.
Following up an expression of with the subscript no pun intended shows that the pun was intended, or one would've changed their word choice.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
conservatism either! What is being practiced these days is a far cry from it!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsxBSXWqH4c
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
A few of us were still milling about the classroom chatting with my torts professor, and he commented that he would not be surprised to see some sort of violent revolt in his lifetime.
I'd say removing yet another restriction on the corporate aristocracy profit crusade will contribute to that happening.
to bring a lawsuit challenging the ruling in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railway, which erroneously granted corporations "personhood?"
It would probably have to be in a case involving a corporation's legal rights versus an individual (perhaps the medical insurance corporations?), so it would be the logical precedent. But with the current makeup of the supremes, over-turning would be unlikely.
And laws and statutes could be passed by legislatures, only to be overturned by the Supreme Court or it's inferior courts as being against the First Amendment. The only time such statutes pass muster is when they're essentially rubber-stamping a supreme court decision already made.
Didn't the Germans pass Muster Gas in WWI?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
On the radio right now they're playing one of my favorite songs of all times:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wMD7Ezp3gWc
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
if the roberts court rules the way i think they will...that will be all for our great nation
since I applied for my passport. I hope it comes soon.
to both my kids.
I've never had one. I'll wait for me.
pretty obvious to me that "government" doesn't work, but, for those of you who think otherwise, wouldn't it be wise to stop calling humans "individuals" or "persons". Only a human can speak so only a human can have feedom of speech. A corp. can't be a human, therefore cannot speak.
this is the exact opposite conclusion one 'should' come to... oy...
Corporations are legal persons under the law. Take a liability and turn it into a asset. Put politicians on alert that in the Internet age we the people can make or break them. I heard that Obama was bowing to insurance companies 'cause he needed their money to re-elected. He was elected on our money!
Look at screamin Joe's opponent almost a million dollars.
Change the paradigm.
Well technically their pre-established agents in the health care delivery system (ironic since they're profitable only if they deny health care delivery with their death panels). And any medical insurance reform will affect 1/6 of our economy.
It may be just a political dodge, but it's logical.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
We need to now change the name of our country ...........
Meanwhile, thousands of tea baggers are howling along Pennsylvania Ave about "big government".
I just wonder what any of them would say about the 5-4 SCOTUS decision about to come down.
Tea Baggers claim to represent the "desires" of the Founding Fathers....and since these latter would
in no way support what the Court is about to sanction, I just wonder how many of them would be
protesting in front of the Court if given the chance.
Since the string-pullers of the Tea Bag movement are pawns of the Republican party, I have no
hesitation in saying that precious few of them would.
The problem with the Founding Father's Intents is that it's a misnomer. They were no more single-minded than any politicians today, except maybe for the ultimate outcome of the Revolution. The Adams brothers and the Jeffersons were more radical than the Washington's and the Revere's. Paul Revere was mostly pissed at governmental intrusion on his copper making business, the Crown passing laws restricting where such goods could be sold to protect certain industries. Other's presumably had some early idea of American Exceptionalism and the Manifest Destiny, since they stated clearly in the Declaration of Independence dismay that the Crown forbade expansion past the Appalachians. There was even something of a conspiracy theory there too, that the Brits were making deals with the indigenous to attack the colonies. Whilst the Brits were complaining that Americans were demanding http:British Troops for protection from the indigenous, but refused to pay for support through taxes, or quartering. It's like they wanted a freebie.
The idea that the FF (no, not the Fantastic Four), would recognize groups of people as well as having a right to free speech is in the language where the rights of the people to free speech is protected, not the individual specifically. The Supreme Court was required to hear certain cases between States (a collection of individuals) and individuals within and without the state.
However, States are political subsidiaries, not for profit like corporations. But one would have to tread carefully here, because one could use such logic to undermine the freedom of the press (which is largely for profit in our country).
However, even a moderate like George Washington would warn the country in his farewell address about the formation of political parties, and presumably he would be against the funding of parties in any fashion, including public.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
So even if the robert's court rules to support the exception rule of no expenditure of corporate money in the last few weeks of an election, we're screwed, because that would in effect be justifying corporate participation in the preceding interim, effectively knee-capping any attempts to create the public funding for elections.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Since the real goal of Roberts/Scalia/ALito/Thomas/Kennedy is to scrap McCain-Feingold,
John McCain has it right when he says that Roberts must have lied in his confirmation hearings
when he pledged to make stare decisis/precedence a cornerstone of his views.
As we've seen, Roberts in particular has voted every time possible on behalf of corporations
and against individuals and consumers.
Remember this in 2010 and 2012.....SCOTUS appointments DO MATTER.
Just as the Founding Fathers wrote: ..Of, By and For the Corporation
Thom Hartmann: Must see! The TRUE story of the Boston Tea Party
I was just scratching my ass and balls when it occurred to me, what if political campaign contribution reform concentrated not on the benefactor but on the recipient? We regulate what percentage of their campaign coffers can be personal (like the perots and forbes and romneys), and what percentage can be corporate, with an escalating/deescalating scale for the relative wealth of that particular benefactor. The wealthier interests get the deescalating scale for the political purpose of not disrupting the political system and to avoid the appearance of impropriety and quid quo pro, not because they are wealthy.
Afterall, if we go too far with that issue, the money I sent ActBlue for joe wilson's opposition, might be in violation of campaign finance reform.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Just like this case. They didn't donate to a Republican, they spend money to create a massive attack on Hillary and were going to spend a lot more to get to "spoken". It never went to anyone who could be limited in their receipt of it I think?
...went before the courts… 288 brought by Corporations and 19 brought by African Americans.(Amendment XIV)
"Did you know that a corporation is an individual in Scalia's mind?"
THE CORPORATION - "Birth"... if ya get a chance
[ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8SuUzmqBewg&NR=1 ](4:55)
Also posted here:
[ http://videocafe.crooksandliars.com/heather/c... ]
Amended: I bought the DVD, though I think it's fully available on the web?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
It's true. Check his background.
Pure fascism enthroned on the court in D.C.
Do you REALLY think America still exists?
Are you REALLY willing to fight to bring it back?
The prevalent aura of fascism seems to predominately prevail amongst the fundies.
Study the symptoms not the virus...
This story has been brewing for a year now and I HAVE BEEN SCREAMING trying to get SOMEONE to look. Why have you finally noticed AFTER the arguments are already made before the court?
WHAT TOOK YOU?
Oh, I forgot, we had to talk about Malkin and Beck and Faux, etc.
My friend Dianne just called and yelled, "TURN ON CSPAN!!!!! HURRY!!!"
So, like a sucker, I turned on CSPAN and it's "The Tea Party Demonstration" in D.C.
"Dick" Armey is speaking now. It's pretty trippy stuff.....
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
They thanked the Army, Navy, Air-force and Marines, in their little rap... In their attempt to kiss up to our fine soldiers, I'm perplexed why they failed to include the (National Guard)... then again, they are not known to embrace facts!
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Singing "America the Beautiful" at their Nazi rally!!!
Only in the U.S.A.
CSPAN ROCKS!!!
(I just saw a sign that said, "Bury Obamacare with Kennedy").
This is the biggest Rush, Glen Beck love fest you can imagine.
Just don't be blinded by all the "white" people in case you tune in.
"The US has an army of 90,000 soldiers in Afghanistan and is spending $100bn a year, but has still been unable to defeat 20,000-25,000 Taliban who receive no pay at all." - Patrick Cockburn
I'm very curious to see how Scalia, Roberts, et. al., will justify their position in terms of "strict constitutionalism."
Santa Clara Co v. Southern Pacific Railroad (118 U.S. 394, 1886), the ruling that interpreted the 14th Amendment to extend the equal protection clause to corporation, had no "history, logic or reason given to support that view," according to Justice W. O. Douglas.
The legal tradition of ceteris paribus has no basis in the constitution, so conservative justices can't rely on that argument and maintain ideological consistency.
So my question remains - how will they justify such a shift of power, based on their own proclaimed legal doctrine?
... they'll just do it... who's going to over turn it!
First thing that comes to mind is Roberts was selected by a President
who phoned French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 to drum up troops for Iraq and told him . .
. . “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”
Now why the hell our Idiotic Congress approved this guy is another story.
I hear tell the New Age is gettin' ready to arrive around 12/21/2012.
So, the Corpora-Fascists will only have about 3 years to exercise their expanded rights as as individuals.
"Egotism is the anesthetic that dulls the pain of Stupidity" - Frank Leahy
This will complete the circle. Corporate American has bought out the executive and the legislative branch and thru those two branches allowed the judicial branch to seal the deal by the putting people like Roberts, Scalia and Clarence-the-porno king-Thomas on the court.
We the people have nobody act as our advocate. I'm really sick of this fucking country. France is looking better and better... 4 weeks vacation, 35 hour work week, and free healthcare from one of the best in the world!
We've seen people lie under oath to the congress, take the country to war on a pack of lies, torture people, throw away the constitution with habeas corpus and illegal wire tapping and NOBODY is held accountable. You get caught with 10mg of crack and you get 20 years... what kind of fucked up country are we living in.
Me personally, I will not vote for any incumbent candidate in the next national election... I don't give a fuck who the opposition is. We are on a path of extinction as a nation... we elect our reps with a mandate, give them a filibuster proof majority and they stick is up our ass... no mas!
"Decline And Fall Of The American Empire": http://www.financialsense.com/editorials/quin...
The courts have held on communication policy that "an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will prevail" - a marketplace where there is a "wide diversity of viewpoints from a multiplicity of sources" is the means whereby people will ultimately support the correct policy. We need only look to the health debate, where we hear a socalled balanced presentations from both sides, to see that certain ideas intentionally aren't being presented, in order to persuade the public to pay a lot more for health care than would otherwise be the case. Despite CBS news reporting that the Republicans and Democrats are 80% in agreement, the real alternative, single payer, is nearly invisible on the corporate media. Maybe, instead of "both" sides, there's "three" sides.
But, the current control of the broadcast media isn't enough. The corporations are losing control of the Republican party to the flat earth society, and corporate control of the Democrat party is being challenged by progressive whippersnappers, such as the ones posting on this blog. The internet is counteracting big money's ability to control what people see and hear, and therefore, what they say, do and vote. The internet is our best tool for presenting "an uninhibited marketplace of ideas in which truth will prevail".
So, they can put their message on television, and I have a hair trigger on my remote. But, where this will have to go is for them to eliminate net neutrality, so that blogs will have to pay internet providers to carry their content. For example, C&L would have to pay AT&T, Time Warner, and Comcast to reach their U.S. audience. Then, the price of access will be priced out of reach so only corporations will be able to purchase, as is done on broadcast television. Somehow, I think that's what they're going to have to do to prevail. That have to not just flood us with their content, they have to shut off our content, as the commercial broadcast corporations are doing right now in the health reform debate. And, if there's any doubters out there, just ask yourself how much airtime has been given to death panels, versus cost comparisons to the other industrial countries? Figuring out the cause for the cost disparity between the U.S. and other countries would go a long way towards developing an intelligent policy.
But right now, the primary objective of the current system is to make sure the truth doesn't prevail. This further entrenchment of corporate ownership of our politicians poised to occur with this Supreme Court decision is just another part of the process of drowning out alternative to our current corporate oligarchy.
EFF today?
You can determine whether an individual is an American citizen, but how do you determine if a corporation is? A group of foreign investors or a foreign government could buy enough shares to take control of an "American" corporation and be free to meddle in our elections.
Since I've read no mention of this in these comments, I'm guessing it has not been addressed in the case before SCOTUS. I hope someone who can get more notice than I can will bring this up in Congress our the major media.
Rockytonker √
Study the symptoms not the virus...
I remember Michael Moore, in Fahrenheit 9/11, said something to the effect that Saudi Arabia alone owned 7% (?) of the stock market, but I don't know where to find the data for all foreign ownership.
But it's quite clear that the percentage of foreign ownership of our large corporations translate into foreign ownership of our politicians currently, and this court decision will serve to expand that control.
Welcome to the New World Order.
most politicians say the problem is to much money in politics so whats the Roberts and Scalia solution...more money!
What astounds me is the ACLU advocates for the corporations. I will cease all donations to the ACLU immediately because of this.
You can kiss the constitution goodbye if these right wing bozoes have their way. I think this is the most important issue of this century. It could mean the end of our democracy and a return of control to the robber barons.
UFB, welcome to the new and improved, no longer thinly veiled Corporatocracy! I don't want to vote for just anybody, I want to vote for the Goldman Sachs candidate!
I certainly will not stand by and watch GE candidates for me to choose from. It will be the bea-baggers, Bought Enough Already!
This precedent was not determined by the court, it was determined by a fucking CLERK. We need to end the misapplication of the 14th amendment.
Today 7pm ET [ http://www.c-span.org/ ]
Snip - This week, the Supreme Court examined the constitutional basis of campaign finance law when it re-heard Citizens United v. FEC. New Justice Sonia Sotomayor took part in this special session, which was held before the official start of the new term.
After watching part of the god fearing Teabirchers stomp their feet in DC today, then our President in MN on health-care reform, C-SPAN said they would be showing the afformentioned at 7:00pm EST. I'm not sure of the format though, so I just listed it here for a courtesy too anyone whom maybe interested. Hope your weekend proves to be enjoyable. ♥
Study the symptoms not the virus...
is to strip every company in this country of its incorporated status. We can NOT be subject to the whims of these "persons" with infinitely deep pockets and impossibly long lives. I guess it is time to rescind the protected status that incorporation gives them, not one at a time, but all at once.
The quotation cited earlier, from the Australian sociologist, "the three great movements of the 20th century were the rise of democracy, the rise of corporations, and the rise of corporate propaganda to protect corporations against democracy
should likely read: "...protect corporations FROM democracy"
[nit]
> As that's what corporations have used propaganda to achieve.
thanks to commenter for posting quote.
Comments are closed on this entry