It's almost here. The case that will make a mockery out of our democratic system of electing our representatives. You might remember that right wing hack, David Bossie produced a hit piece/movie about Hillary Clinton
The Supreme Court signaled Monday that it could overturn decades-old laws on how money is spent on federal elections, raising the stakes in a case about a scathing documentary about Hillary Rodham Clinton.
The high court was expected to release a decision on the Citizens United movie as part of its end-of-the-term wrap up, but in an unusual move the justices said they will hear arguments in the case again in a special session Sept. 9.
In advance of the rare session, the court told the lawyers in the case to focus their arguments on whether its earlier decisions banning certain political speech by corporations, and the corporate and union spending on television advertising during campaigns, should be overturned.
Advocates on both sides said the decision on this case will likely shape federal elections for years to come.
"At stake in the Citizens United case now is whether the Supreme Court is going to take the radical step of striking down the 60-year old ban on corporate expenditures and open the flood gates to immense amounts of corporate wealth being used to directly influence federal campaigns," said Fred Wertheimer, president of the Democracy 21 group...read on...
The NY Times wrote an excellent opinion piece this topic on July 4th and paints a disastrous direction our country may take.
The justices considered a case this term about an election-year documentary made by opponents of Hillary Clinton. The issue was whether the film could air in the 60 days before an election, a period during which the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law imposes particularly strict limits on election-related communication. The case would have been easy to resolve on narrow grounds. Instead, the court declared that on Sept. 9 it would hear arguments on whether Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce — an important campaign finance precedent from 1990 — and parts of a more recent case should be overruled.
---
The feverish pace is also disturbing. The court has ordered that the arguments take place even before the new term starts. The parties, and interested citizens who want to submit friend-of-the-court briefs, will have only a short time to parse enormously complicated issues.
The most troubling part of the court’s action is the brave new world of politics it could usher in. Auto companies that receive multibillion-dollar bailouts could spend vast sums to re-elect the same officials who hand them the money. If Exxon Mobil or Wal-Mart wants something from a member of Congress, it could threaten to spend as much as it takes to defeat him or her in the next election. It is a nightmare vision, but based on how the justices have come down in past cases, there may well be five votes for it to prevail.
Do you expect anything less from the Roberts Court?
Wow, just when I thought things couldn't get any worse...
the
conservativecriminal gopis worried that the democrats will succeed in
nominating and approving of progressive judges,well,
this is just the example why we should have them
we need to keep the bastard conservative judges who
are set on appeasing their gop base and not
follow the laws of the USA. it's disgusting that
the bastards want to turn the clock back to when
an oligarchy was running the country and not
a democratic majority. it's time to remove
lifelong judges who do not represent the best
interests of the citizens of the country.
they are bought and paid for corporate WHORES!
Hmm,
so if this passes, all corporations can get influence on the poor huddled masses, not just the ones owning media outlets.
Removes one little hurdle at least.
This is an issue that goes directly to the heart of the first amendment and my hope is that the Supreme Court rules in favor of freedom of speech. How would you have liked it if Michael Moore was not able to release Fahrenheit 911?
and buying politicians aren't quite the same thing.
Corporations who have billions to spend and own all the airwaves vs. the little people who are busy trying not to starve while being evicted.
Could you return after you get a f**king clue! Honest to god.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
Moore released it outside the window, thus no problems. If the Hillary movie folks were smart, they would have released their movie outside the window as well. But, they specifically targeted the election and the timeframe. They specifically wanted to influence the election. As such, it was appropriate that campaign finance laws should apply.
completely.
So you're saying that someone making documentaries which are critical of government and Big Business is exactly the same as corporations giving millions of dollars to politicians to pass legislation written for the most part by those very same corporations. Just wanted to make sure I'm clear on that. I think Bob Dylan said it best: Money doesn't talk, it swears
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
All the Bossie group had to do was reveal the identities of the financial backers of the film because it is a political piece.
From the article:
So what's the problem with revealing who is paying for the movie to be broadcast? Why?
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
... it is you who seem to be completely unacquainted with it. If you think that political bribes fall under the umbrella of freedom of expression.
but...in this case I'll make an exception.
Gigabyte...you are simply...an idiot.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
Read is former comments. Republican troll. Consistently trolling!
Actually I'm a registered Democrat and I voted for Barack Obama in the last election. But since I dare question his judgement at times, I'm now a Republican troll. Thanks for your well thought out rebuttal. You sure sound pretty smart.
What does this have to do with Barack Obama's judgement? This is a SCOTUS decision.
I thought he was referring to my former comments where I was critical of the president.
... it feels good, doesn't it? ;-)
That guy really is a troll! A Republican operative plying his tainted wares in a place where THE PEOPLE'S voice is heard!
who disagrees with the majority opinion among the commenters on this site?
Or is that the same thing as a troll?
with the majority opinion, that's not a troll...
A troll disagrees, and uses well known, and debunked rightwing talking points.
This is an issue that goes directly to the heart of the first amendment and my hope is that the Supreme Court rules in favor of freedom of speech. How would you have liked it if Michael Moore was not able to release Fahrenheit 911?
1. That is worst Republican talking point in the WORLD!!!!
Buying influence is not freedom of speech.
I can't legally bribe the City Inspector, I cannot legally buy weed..are those freedom of speech rights? NO!
Campaigns and elections must be regulated and monitored.
2. That is a classic Republican false equivalence. Buying influence is not the same as distributing a movie.
You struck out pal!
This has nothing to do with bribery. What it comes down to is an attempt to censor political speech just because it's being made by one form of legal entity as opposed to another. Why not allow organizations like the ACLU to air advertisements instead of just corporate-backed 527s? Seems fair to me.
You respond to a well thought out rational argument with name calling. You've made your point beautifully.
"Well thought out" is a bit of a stretch.
;-)
Freedom of expression is a concept the conservatives have never favored since the whole whole concept of "symbolic" expression of Tinker v Des Moines.
Even now they would argue the internet's not covered since it was never explicitely mentioned in the Constitution since it hadn't been invented yet.
And lifting corporate bans would give to much influence to international/transnational corporations over much smaller groups like unions, would confuse locally raised funds with funds raised overseas (which is illegal, giving foreign citizens the ability to bribe officials), where corporate interests in one state could shape the laws in an entirely different state, and would favor Wall Street, the Neo Liberals and the World Traders over Main Street and Smithian/Keynesian economics. That's what created our current financial mess.
And if the Court rules totally in favor of what is essentially unfettered bribery of our system, that would preclude any future attempts at running and judging elections, constitutionally mandated to federal and state legislatures.
So technically that would be one branch of government overriding the other two (not counting local), for an abstract concept that corporations equate to people, with an equal claim to equality under the law, a prima facie absurdity of the Fictitious Persons Doctrine.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Now that was a well thought out rational argument.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
It is not true that anyone is attempting to censor political speech, Bossie & Friends COULD have shown their film IF they provided full disclosure of who was paying for the broacast. Don't you wonder WHY it is such a big deal to keep their backers secret?
I cannot imagine that the ACLU would have a problem with placing a "This ______ paid for by..." at the end of any message.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
I agree with you that they should have provided full disclosure of who was financing the movie, but there's more to it than that. They would also have had to pay the cost of airing the movie, which on a cable channel would certainly not have been cheap.
The Bossie group WANTED to pay to have the film broadcast, without revealing the financial backers.
Why would they want to do that? Aren't they proud of their work?
It is much more likely that if everyone knew who paid for the movie, the credibility would suffer.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
Like I said, I think they should have provided full disclosure of financial backers and I can't defend them for not doing it. Maybe there are some donors who don't want to be associated with the movie. Can't say I blame them. I just think there's a double-standard here. A 90 minute movie on a video on demand channel that you specifically have to pay for to watch is simply not an advertisement.
that 'attack ad' is a term-of-art, and thus very different from a generic advertisement.
I pledge allegiance to the Constitution of the United States of America, and to the republic which it established, one nation from many peoples, promising liberty and justice for all
And in addition it would be helping someone attack a public figure without regard to accuracy.
The fact that something like pay-per-view is profit driven works against it claiming it's doing a public service in airing such pieces, especially the parts which are insupportable or mostly hyperbole.
It's one thing for courts to make the burden of proof high for public figures to claim harm, but quite another to actually aid in the defamation.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
have the exact same rights as individuals.
In my own opinion that is a load of hog wash. A corporation is a financial and legal entity/organization. Period. It is not a human being, it is not a US citizen. It can not vote, and it can f*cking well not influence directly the political system.
have allowed a judicial mistake to give them rights. They are an artificial creation, with no inherent 'natural' rights. In the first 100 years of this nation, corporations were much more tightly controlled, and in many states were not allowed to make political or charitable donations.
Many of the founders feared what corporations would do to our democracy if allowed, and we should pay heed to their warnings.
Let me teach you something: Tell me why a donor would not want to be associated with a movie they donated to? Under what circumstances could this happen?
it is a fact. Is this a glimmer of their not having total control yet? I wonder...!
That's conditional on networks agreeing to carry the advertisements, which is not required of them, even if PSA producers can pay for the broadcast minutes, and why we need the Fairness Doctrine restored.
Even Dan Quayle and Elizabeth Dole, when they left their presidential campaigns, before even the first debate was held, complained that it was all about the money.
Representatives and senators spend as much as the last two years of their terms begging for cash. Even before then they so frequently comingle actualy legislative action, with campaign finance funding, with personal funding into an unholy mess that's breeding grounds for corruption and ethical violations.
As it was before, cable was not coveredy by the Fairness Doctrine though.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
corrupting politician's with his money. The vast sums of corporate dollars have been deployed with the explicit purpose of rotting our government and elected officials from within. They aren't exercising free speech, they're utilizing free speech as cover from which to perform bribery and other acts that are corrupting. They are purchasing our government at fire sales conducted by the officials whose job it was to protect government from the clutches of those who serve only themselves and from those who hold government that derives its sole authority to exist and operate from the Soveriegn Will of the People.
Free speech is merely the excuse that is being used.
Two completely different things.
And you know it.
Save your BS talking points, you're merely wasting your time and looking stupid.
A political film to bribery? What the hell is wrong with you?
they had to come up with something to counter the growing influence of citizen journalists.
I gotta admit, I'm liking Victor Mattiece's plan more and more everyday.
you know i gotta wonder whether this current crop of americans deserve to live in a democratic state.
when a bunch of right wing rascists can put more boots on the ground with thier selfish teabagging parties than liberals can fighting for something for everyone than all hope is lost.
good friggin luck!
"If Exxon Mobil or Wal-Mart wants something from a member of Congress, it could threaten to spend as much as it takes to defeat him or her in the next election."
As if they don't do that already. What's disturbing about this is the Roberts Court is going to codify into law the bribery which has become known as "lobbying"
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
Public financing for campaigns of candidates for national office. Get the corrupting influence of corporate and special interest money out of our elections.
Absolutely. As long as the rich - be they individuals or corporations - can buy their influence, they will.
This way true progressives, such as Dennis Kucinich, will get equal time in front of the public.
You are absolutely correct. We are already witnessing political corruption of our goverment as most members of Congress are on the take for one cause or another because they need the cash to fend off swiftboating and lies. If you want to run for office but cannot show you can raise large sums of money for either the Democratic or Republican Party, then you can kiss an endorsement from either good-bye.
Until we get the private money out of the political system it is going to be a constant battle with the insurers to keep effective whatever health care system we get passed. Even a full-fledged single-payer system.
Healthcare and ethics reform are the two main issues that must be dealt with in the same legislative session.
The congressional bills to fight for are: Fair Elections Now Act (S.752, H.R.1826) and Single Payer, Expanded Medicare For All, (S.703 and HR676)
John Roberts is a corporate fascist piece of garbage.
Since Bush was not really elected, both him and Alito should be removed from the bench.
If I were a psychopath, I would join the republican party, and get in on the gravy train taking the Teabircher morons to the cleaners.
it will just be another case of Judicial Activism. Of course, the right wingnuts won't see it that way.
would think that the Dems will not be all over this like stink on shit. John wrote this as if the Dems are different than the other party.
Wake up, John.
When will you right wingers realize that sometimes people on the left can be correct? We tried to warn you people during the Bush years about giving the executive branch too much power. You folks wouldn't listen. You were too busy worshiping W. People in power rarely give power up.
How about this weird concept. The reason John posted this story is because he knows that BOTH sides would LOVE it. The reason he posted this story is because any concerned American should be outraged about this type of thing, liberal AND conservative.
Get it through your head. This isn't a reality TV show of Liberals Vs. Conservatives. Our Republic is at stake. Stop worrying about "scoring points" for your team, and get active.
BuelahMan a 'right winger'! Not by my observations.
That is coming from a socialist, lower case 's'.
The mindset in this blog too often fails to notice that for the most part Democrats are bought and paid for by the same Corporate interests as the Republicans.
Neither PARTY is worth a bucket of warm spit. Which is why I call them the Republicrats.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Our Democracy died the day the politicians running the country convinced the majority of Americans that the outright bribery of legislators known as "lobbying" is actually part of the process. Funny, I've had the opportunity to study the U.S. Constitution, and I don't recall seeing anything about lobbying as being part of the process. Maybe I missed something, huh?
If you have selfish, ignorant citizens, you're gonna get selfish, ignorant leaders.
George Carlin
If democracy died that day, then come September, we'll drive the last nail into the coffin.
The Destruction of Democracy (Cliff Notes Version)
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
Bush v. Gore
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
There's a review today in the NYT for a book called Packing the Court, the history of the Supreme Court in the social context they found themselves.
During the Guilded Age high placed Railroad men, politicians and lawyers bought by them, were the ones appointed to the Supreme court right before a whole series of railroad cases hit the court, and decided favorably for the Industry.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Looking bad, consistent with the Roberts court.
I'm very curious on what basis they would overturn this. Like someone said, if they do this it would appear to be the work of "activist judges"
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
.
if you decide for the Constitution or decide for the People.
How about a constitutional amendment that explicitly states that corporations and other collective entities are not persons and are not entitled to the rights and priviledges of persons?
Then their speech can be regulated, liability laws could be tailored to protect persons from corporations, executives and board members would be liable as persons for the misdeeds of the collective entity, etc.
Just floating the amendment might advance the discussion.
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
trumps all decisions by corrupt courts.
Most of the rights conferred in the last 50 years were conferred by the Courts. They were codified by politicians AFTER the fact, because politicians had political cover.
Look at Civil Rights.
The Congress is NOT going to write law overruling a decision like this, and if you think they will...then you are simply naive.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
so we all can drag our children on tubes and rafts in the water behind our 4 mile to the gal giant power boats then head back to the 7,500 square ft second home for barbecue and beer.
If there is one thing we need, it's corporate money in elections!
What are you worrying about.
The American People will LOVE IT.
Now they don't have to worry about elections at ALL! They can let the corporations handle this whole democracy thing...and they can spend time on important pursuits like playing Wii and watching Dance Your Ass Off.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
since WW2 because we were the only country left standing to lead the way.
That's not the case anymore.
Thanks for the history lesson.
Pass it on to anyone living in the South.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
WATCH LIVE: Celebrities, fans pay tribute to Michael Jackson at Los Angeles memorial
(Bless his soul and all but . . . )
That tribute is on every cable news channel and on all the regular channels like NBC, CBS and ABC. I appreciate what they are trying to do, but on all the channels? Hopefully no news break while this is on.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
democracy continues or not in this country. There's free speech, and then there is manipulation of elections by those who are not entitled to vote. It isn't simple free speeech, because it isn't about individual citiczens exercising a right. It's about propaganda and pure manipulation by entities with effectively limitless funds who use those funds to malignly manipulate the electorate into supporting positions that benefit neither themselves or the nation. I expect the Supreme Court will support the corporations, because it supports corporations who support the GOP and the corporatists. It is a way to make sure that a party which can no longer achieve a majority still is able to control political outcomes. It will also serve to assure that government becomes even more corrupt than it is now. It will be a further proof that the majority of the Supreme Court does not care about representative democracy and is intent upon destroying it. They will craft carefully worded rationalizations, but the impact is going to be one of handing the keys and the deed to our government and country over to corporate Amerika. They will be making the subversion of our government complete and official.
And, I'm sure we won't hear nary a word from the GOPer's and corporatists about activist judges, as we would if they came out with a decision that actually strengthened the Constitution and stood for the People. The only thing to hope for is the day that some future Supreme Court has a field day correcting the corrupt errors of this clown act of a court.
Hope they prove me wrong.
Pure capitalism,like communism, is an enemy of democracy and hell, even of a Republic, such as ours. Allowing corporations to act as people in our society is horrible. The reason government gets nothing done that's good for the people is because of this and Republicans use the fact that government does nothing as a rallying cry for their base while they continue to support (and so do some Democrats) the very thing that stops government from being something for the people and not just for the corporations.
We really do need a public financing system or something better for elections or else our republic is going to die a slow, painful, horrible death.
Tell me where you have observed pure communism, lower case 'c' to describe it as an enemy of democracy.
Capitalism on the other hand, is anti democratic no matter WHAT its level of 'purity', whatever the word 'purity' can therein be taken to mean.
Capitalism demands the growth of capital for the individual 'owner' of the capital, it is by DEFINITION, not democratic. It has no concern for the social externalities that inevitably are associated with it.
The State, such as it is organized to consider and limit the effects of capitalism's social externalities will act or fail to act for the public interest according to the progress or lack thereof of democracy.
Pure communism, as I am able to understand the term, has existed many times in human history but on a small local scale. To my way of thinking there is no distinction between the communal and the democratic, that per se is their definition.
The problem in modern times has always been with the mechanisms of a State Communism.
We in this country have State Capitalism, which is also described as fascism.
The problem in human nature which is redressed through socialization is the development of the altruist versus the selfish motive. Or not!
The United States polity has attempted to make virtue out of the selfish.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
Corporations are not people, and should not be entitled to rights of the individual.
I might as well be pissing in the wind, trying to make that point in our country these days.
getting my feet wet if I can make a difference.
Mind your aim.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Company
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
1.) (sarcasm) I don't know what everyone's so upset about. Everyone deserves a chance to speak their mind, including corporation, since they're considered people by law.
2.) This is why elections matter. We all know which way the four neoconservative judges will vote (Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas). This all comes down to the swing vote.
... we're discussing this under an Obama administration, btw.
The 2008 election only matters if one of the right-wing nutjobs on the Supreme Court dies - AND if Obama picks a true progressive for his replacement, something I don't trust him to do.
I had heard that one definition of Fascism is the control of the government by business interests. We are largely there now, but if the court throws out limits to campaign communications by business, it would be a larger step toward that. It's hard enough to sift through all the propaganda now.
This could potentially lead to the US becoming a fascist state. I hope it's something that will never happen. Someone should lead the way to a real and workable public financing system.
Politics is for the present, but an equation is for eternity. Albert Einstein
Wake up.
We are having our feathers smoothed by drugs, entertainment, and a massive propaganda machine known as "the media". We are given an outlet for our anger, as well as a place to spy upon our collective thoughts; known as the internet.
But we are no longer free. This nation is definitely fascist.
Did you notice that the new president never rolled back all those NEW POWERS the previous regime invented? I see no repair to Habeas Corpus or Posse Comitatus, or any of the 100 or so other incursions to our Constitution rolled back yet. And we all had hope because Mr. Obama is a Constitutional scholar.
Hah.
Damn it. He was a professor who taught Constitutional Law. He is NOT an expert on Constitutional Law.
...does not give a shit about the Constitution.
I was hoping for better. Let down again. I was going to write him a letter asking him not to break my heart. Decided it was a waste of time.
I was going to write him a letter asking him not to break my heart.
So...are you "on the rebound"? ; o )
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
The horrendous amounts of money it takes to have "speech" in an election or at any other time; I mean to say the amount of cash it costs to be heard on Capital Hill is so stupendous that it is blocking the speech of BILLIONS of Americans.
How can we be heard above the MOUNTAINS OF CASH and SALIVA that block our way to be heard?
Are there no Constitutional rights for the PEOPLE?
Why has nobody spoken about this other than me?
n/t
To many "F" bombs again.
Money is a form of speech. So the Supreme Court had previously decreed.
To limit "speech" solely because someone has more money to buy more "access" is unconstitutional.
So long as that money is not used to limit someone else's speech.
It's the Golden Rule.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
And now for more pressing matters:
http://tvnz.co.nz/entertainment-news/michael-...
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Nobody can expect anything good to come out of this Supreme Court dominated with corporate money loving, Right Wingers, that are probably lobbied and paid off too by other Reslugs big wigs.
appointed GWB president in the 2000 election.
Does no one read my posts. : o (
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
L&P
I don't. :)
What post?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Thom Hartmann: Fascism Coming to a Court Near You
See .. "free speech" includes the right to give money.
And .. since 1886 corporations have been considered to be "persons" just like you and me, and therefore have ALL the rights our Constitution secures for Real Live Breathing Human Beings.
When will government of the people, by the politicians, for the corporations perish from this Earth?
Not soon enough!
"..they asked for it to be re-argued... "
I may be showing my ignorance, but once it's been decided, and there is not an appeal, how can SCOTUS "ask" for it to be re-argued?
If that's the case, then can't the court "ask" ANY decision to be re-argued, i.e. Roe v. Wade and others?
Looking for a little edification here....
They're making it up as they go.
Who's gonna deny them? The public? LOLOLOLOL!
Most of the public has no idea what the Plessy decision was. The only reason the public THINKS it has any knowledge of the judicial system is A) they've heard "Roe v. Wade! Roe v. Wade" drummed into their heads so much they think they understand it, B) they watched the OJ trial and c) they purchased the last two seasons of LA Law on DVD.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
If this happens, it will be a further transition away from political freedom to a concept of "economic freedom", which assigns rights based on ability to pay - and for the most part that means corporations will be buying themselves off the hook. For the rest of us, we mere people, this is the way to serfdom.
You will be free to 'shop'.
And yes, neo-feudalism is the coming thing.
statusquObama, change you can only pretend in
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uf5rIuJPTt0
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
OK, that should be "serfdom, dude." Awesome!
with various topics...
But it seems that they're trying to get us to riot.
I mean really, WTF?
If these damn judges undermine our "democracy" such as it is...they should be forced to seek other employment.
until pitchforks (made in China) go on sale at Walmart and kerosene is under $3/gallon, available on every corner in self-serve stations, we will do NOTHING.
"Parachutes are allowed in checked or carry-on baggage, but may not be worn in flight."
---Southwest Airlines
Pitchforks are already on sale and last time I checked kerosine was way under $3/gal. So what is your excuse?
I'll tell you what it is, you like living too much. Just like me, just like the rest of us. We enjoy the shit sandwich they make us eat because we can still eat it.
When there is nothing left to eat and nothing left to watch on TV, THEN you will do something.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
It's not conditional on the ability to pay.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
There is no special case for people who can't pay. There is nothing that protects the weaker part of the society from the stronger part when it comes to "free speech". That is the problem.
BTW, "free" speech isn't free at all.
The constitution is written in a way that you can interpret it 10,000 different ways. Just like the bible. If you want to know what it means, just make shit up and you will have an answer.
"It's almost here. The case that will make a mockery out of our democratic system"
I think you forgot about Bush V. Gore. That was the seminal case that invalidated our "democracy".
By the way, it's a republic and if you don't love then leave it. I did.
Roberts courts sucks
though it's my theory, that human nature will rebuke any such outcome. It matters not what one says... it matters what one does.
The Core conservative ideology, may very well be bought, as well as the liberal mindset, evolution will take care of any injustice(s). IMO
I would simply point to Iran, for an example of dissatisfaction with repressive rule, albeit it's based on Sharia.
See, The Road Ahead: by Bill Gates (Read the reviews)
[ http://www.amazon.com/Road-Ahead-Completely-U... ]
Our descendants will naturally be keen too injustice(s), exponentially so, in relation too their predecessors'. Technology will make it so... as it already has done throughout history. That's not to say, one should currently let injustices happen though. If we never faced a challenge, I think life would be fairly frivolous. Communication is the key... The pony-express and smoke signals worked well at one time , didn't they.?
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Sotomayor is the sixth catholic on the supreme court.
Newt Gingrich is a slimy little weasel but he just turned catholic.
Now when Roe vs Wade is negated by the Pope's orders there will be singing and dancing and cheering in all of the clueless.
But when Obama converts and the clueless finally catch on,
it isn't going to be just the snake handlers and holy rollers who go ballistic.
You going to see Mormons and Baptists and Seventh Day Adventist make a recap of the
reformation look like a joke.
If I were catholic, I would move to Paraguay and change my name to Bush or Cheney.
Unless the Pope approves it it won't be law. If the Pope disapproves it, it won't be law. Read the Reformation and impeach 5 supreme court "justices."
Tin foil hats must be on sale today......
I wish Chief Justice John Roberts would get himself a girlfriend in Argentina, fall in full-throttle dopey-eyed love, have a mid-life crisis, plus a crisis of faith, resign, and then, move to a tropical island in South America.
For that matter, he could also confess his love for Justice Scalella and they both elope to a tropic island in South America.
"...you expect anything less from the Roberts Court?"
Hell no! (sardonic tone activated) I expect more, much more.
How about allowing corporations to fuck up at their will and discretion the workers' pension plans?
Check Conkright v. Frommert. It's a beauty!!
Can anyone explain to me, why, among ALL the cases presented to the SCOTUS, this seemingly open-and-shut case has been taken up by the Court?
Imagine that: this session of the SCOTUS has been the worst on record in terms of Environmental Law, and we could end up after the next session with unlimited corporate money meddling in federal elections AND corporations free to decide whether pensions shall be honored or not.
All this shit because the Democrats couldn't locate their spine and filibuster Roberts and especially Alito.
Unbelievable!
flowing into political campaigns?
You can write democracy off entirely in America if that happens. PEOPLE WILL BE TURNED INTO SLAVES.
It would be official, the United States of America is a corpocracy.
Why am I reminded of that line in one of the Robocop movies where the OCP CEO says "Anyone can buy OCP stock and own a part of our city, what can be more democratic than that?"
Anyone can buy General Electric stock and own a part of our country, what can be more democratic than that?
Hey, I have an idea! Since corporate status is a grant of privilege by the government in the first place, how 'bout we do away with that?
This isn't about free speech, its about free money!
I live for the day that they can spend as much as they like and we will believe then as much as Baghdad Bob. Yes, ok .. I'm a dreamer.
I have never voted for a candidate just because they spent the most money. I didn't vote for McCain or Obama.
Both political parties voted to end Glass Steagall. President Clinton supported ending Glass Steagall. Just what is this ruling going to change, either way it goes?
You can write democracy off entirely in America if that happens. PEOPLE WILL BE TURNED INTO SLAVES.
---------------
People have turned themselves into slaves.
Comments are closed on this entry