Activist GOP Court Reveals True GOP Agenda

[rdean]

The most hilarious of all is the split between big business and immigration. Business wants immigrants here because they can't vote. And big business knows they have the ignorant Republican base vote all sewn up. Business doesn't want Republicans working for them because Republicans are anti education and anti science. They want immigrants who are qualified for jobs that Republican either can't or won't do.
And the GOP base is blissfully believing they are protecting the "job CREATORS" while getting a big business prostrate exam.

 

[g5000]

Corporations cannot vote and cannot run for political office.

I know people think they are clever when they say things like this. "A corporation can't blow its nose, therefore it isn't a person!"

Look, since you like to simplify things, I will make it very simple for you.

A corporation can be taxed, regulated, and put out of business by the government. Therefore, they have a stake in what kind of government they will have as they will be just as affected by the government, if not moreso, than you will be.

For this reason, they have every right to have a say in how they will be treated by the government.

Get it now?

 

[boilermaker55]

Thank you Citizens United!

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Corporations cannot vote and cannot run for political office.

I know people think they are clever when they say things like this. "A corporation can't blow its nose, therefore it isn't a person!"

Look, since you like to simplify things, I will make it very simple for you.

A corporation can be taxed, regulated, and put out of business by the government. Therefore, they have a stake in what kind of government they will have as they will be just as affected by the government, if not moreso, than you will be.

For this reason, they have every right to have a say in how they will be treated by the government.

Get it now?

you've actually managed to end up sounding dumber than dumb.

As far as Citizens United goes, I agree with parts of the ruling. There are some arguments in it that just defy imagination. You only take positions based on what others do -- you're a reactionary dipshit unworthy of too much attention

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Why the GOP has fought for a century for states' rights and the rights of corporations to spend money to influence who gets elected.

It all began with Teddy Roosevelt:

Corporate regulations
Corporate Interests, States Rights and the GOP Plan
In the Eighth Annual Message to Congress (1908), Teddy Roosevelt mentioned the need for federal government to regulate interstate corporations using the Interstate Commerce Clause, also mentioning how these corporations fought federal control by appealing to states' rights. See link here: ...'Corporate Regulations'....

...and it has ended here:

The recent decision by the shills for corporate interest on the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS),
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., have overturned a century old understanding that a corporation is not equal in totality to a citizen. Corporations cannot vote and cannot run for political office. Corporations, through money contributions to individual politicians, political campaigns and money given to political parties, can only influence elections for or against the interests of the people. Corporations do not have the interests of the people at heart, best or worst. Corporations have the interests of corporations at heart. Corporations are nothing but a corrupt influence on the system. If this is true (do you deny it?), why has the GOP fought for a century for states' rights and no restrictions on corporate donations?

I am not arguing the case for or against the SCOTUS decision here. That is being done elsewhere at USMB, link here: ...Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits... I am pointing out that what the GOP shills on the SCOTUS have done is reveal what has been a GOP and Corporate wet dream for a century: to go back to the days before President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, where corporations actually ran the show. The business of American back then was more than ever, bought and paid for. More so then, than many today it now is. For close to a century, the GOP and the corporate interests, had no way to take back and further their goals. To go back to 'the good old days.'

Under the Democratic Party leadership of America, from the days after Teddy Roosevelt, up to the Presidency of Jimmy Carter and the Congress of House Speaker Tip O'Neil, there was no way for the Corporate interests controlling the GOP to further their goals. So they came up with a plan. Get onto the courts.

For close to a century, the Corporate interests controlling the GOP couldn't stack the courts in their favor. To further their goals. The Corporate interests needed to elect a dupe or willing President, along with a willing Congress. So they came up with another plan: widen the GOP base. How to do that? Southern strategy and culture wars.

The GOP under the corporate interests, ended up going with Southerners upset and baffled and scared of the changes civil rights legislation brought about in their home towns and states. Most of these southerners were Democrats; many were racists; some were principled, but they all had one thing in common. Being duped by the corporate interests controlling the GOP.

The Corporate Shills at the GOP also went into culture wars, where people who were confused, angry, bewildered and upset at the changes progress always brings to a culture (think: Luddites...), were open to voices that told them 'we can go back'..back to a way things never were. Back to a time in mind only: Reagan's America.

Today American businesses swear no allegiance (if they ever did) to America. More than a few corporations have recently hinted at leaving the US for safer havens overseas because of differing views on what corporations owe back to America. Corporations these days are not really American, or Israeli, or German anymore. They are multinational. They owe no allegiance to any one nation. Their allegiance is to profit and profit alone. Profit at the expense of America, or Germany or Israel...doesn't matter. Power and Profit.

Because of this long quest, this long road back to power, the decision by the SCOTUS now allows multinational corporations based in America (and ones based in foreign countries), all with no allegiance whatsoever to Americans or their interests, to exert their influence and power over politicians and elections more than ever. More than ever in the history of America.

The GOP led Courts, The GOP led Congresses, and the GOP Presidents of the last 30 year, have done all they could to weaken the hold American citizens have on their own government and electoral politics. The Corporate, GOP led team attempted what was one of the most shameful attempts in American business history...to sell off American ports...

REPORT: Oman Trade Pact Permits Foreign Ownership of U.S. Nat’l Security Assets

In an explosive report tonight, top House Democrats discovered provisions in the controversial Oman Free Trade Agreement that would permit foreign ownership of U.S. ports and other key national security assets. Three Democrats and one Republican held an emergency press conference today to expose the provisions just before the House is scheduled to vote on the Oman pact on Thursday. As Reuters reports, "Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who serves on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the pact would allow companies such as Dubai Ports World to acquire U.S. port operations by establishing a shell company in Oman." Those provisions might also allow foreign ownership of other key national security assets, considering just after the recent Dubai Ports controversy, that country went ahead with plans to purchase a major U.S. defense contractor.

Last month, lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. Senate joined hands to pass the Oman Free Trade Agreement - which is being pushed aggressively by the Bush administration and its largest corporate donors. Lawmakers ignored major labor, human rights and environmental objections to the pact put forward by more than 400 union, religious and consumer groups. Among those voting for the pact in the Senate were Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), two Senators facing tough re-election bids who could face renewed criticism in their home states that they have sold out their constituents.

-clue: why did the GOP have such a hard-on for Murtha? Did he upset his former military/corporate friends by protecting the sovereignty and safety of the American public?

I do know that many will disbelieve what I have written since it challenges the world view of many of us. We've been brainwashed for decades. We have been fed false idols like Ronald Reagan, a good and decent man, but not a very deep thinker. A man who switched back and forth between parties and ideas like a bowl of jello in the hands of a child.

We've been fed the notion that American based companies are American, that they have the same rights as citizens, that they do what is best for America.

We have been fed bullshit and told it was filet mignon.

What will the GOP spin be? What will the next few election cycles bring about? Will Americans be further disenfranchised by faceless and careless corporate interests? Will any of us be happy with what the Corporate interests get the GOP to do? What good will it all be if after passing a few conservative culture war legislative acts, the country gets sold to the highest foreign or multinational bidder?

Dante Speaketh

---------

History of House Leadership:

The power of the Speaker was greatly augmented during the tenure of the Republican Thomas Brackett Reed (1889–1891 and 1895–1899). "Czar Reed," as he was called by his opponents,[3] sought to end the obstruction of bills by the minority, in particular by countering the tactic known as the "disappearing quorum".[4] By refusing to vote on a motion, the minority could ensure that a quorum would not be achieved, and that the result would be invalid. Reed, however, declared that members who were in the chamber but refused to vote would still count for the purposes of determining a quorum. Through these and other rulings, Reed ensured that the Democrats could not block the Republican agenda.

The Speakership reached its apogee during the term of Republican Joseph Gurney Cannon (1903–1911). Cannon exercised extraordinary control over the legislative process; he determined the agenda of the House, appointed the members of all committees, chose committee chairmen, headed the Rules Committee, and determined which committee heard each bill. He vigorously used his powers to ensure that the proposals of the Republican Party were passed by the House. In 1910, however, Democrats and several dissatisfied Republicans joined together to strip the Speaker of many of his powers, including the ability to name committee members and chairmanship of the Rules Committee. Much—but not all—of the lost influence of the position was restored over fifteen years later by Speaker Nicholas Longworth.


Joseph Gurney Cannon is often considered the most powerful Speaker in the history of the House.

The middle of the 20th century saw the service of one of the most influential Speakers in history, Democrat Sam Rayburn.[5] Rayburn was the longest serving Speaker in history, holding office from 1940 to 1947, 1949 to 1953, and 1955 to 1961. He helped shape many bills, working quietly in the background with House committees. He also helped ensure the passage of several domestic measures and foreign assistance programs advocated by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Rayburn's successor, Democrat John William McCormack (served 1962–1971), was a somewhat less influential Speaker, particularly because of dissent from younger members of the Democratic Party. During the mid-1970s, the power of the Speakership once again grew under Democrat Carl Albert. The Committee on Rules ceased to be a semi-independent panel, as it had been since the Revolt of 1910; instead, it once again became an arm of the party leadership. Moreover, in 1975, the Speaker was granted the authority to appoint a majority of the members of the Rules Committee. Meanwhile, the power of committee chairmen was curtailed, further increasing the relative influence of the Speaker.

Albert's successor, Democrat Tip O'Neill, was a prominent Speaker because of his public opposition to the policies of President Ronald Reagan. O'Neill is the longest-serving Speaker without a break (1977 through 1987).

He challenged Reagan on domestic programs and on defense expenditures. Republicans made O'Neill the target of their election campaigns in 1980 and 1982; nevertheless, Democrats managed to retain their majorities in both years.

The roles of the parties were reversed in 1994, when the Republicans regained control of the House after spending forty years in the minority. Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich regularly clashed with Democratic President Bill Clinton; in particular, Gingrich's "Contract with America" was a source of contention.

Gingrich was ousted in 1998 when the Republican Party fared poorly in the congressional elections—although retaining a small majority—his successor, Dennis Hastert, played a much less prominent role. In the 2006 midterm elections, the Democrats won majority of the House.

Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker when the 110th Congress convened on January 4, 2007, making her the first female Speaker. Pelosi was, from the beginning, an influential and powerful Speaker,[citation needed] and the main leader of the opposition to the Republican George W. Bush administration.

With the election of Barack Obama and a more Democratic Congress (races in which she played an influential role) Pelosi became the leader of the nation's most prominent reforms, including financial measures and health care reform. Bush Presidency veteran Karl Rove has referred to her tenure so far as an "iron reign".[6]
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

an argument...

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Weird post.

All the court said was that the 1st Amendment still applies, even to people you don't care for.

Way back in the day, it was obvious it wasn't going to survive.


The court did say it was perfectly acceptable to require disclosure. Which is what should have happened, and I think still still should happen. Candidates who get more than 12 percent from a single source, should disclose that fact. Any advertisement that gets money from a single place should be obliged to report that.

As in "This add was 30% paid for by Screw You Corp."

quite a good argument

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

I am not a progressive. I am only pointing out that the conservatives rallying cry has been against activist courts.

OIC, so you just decided to channel one (Teddy Roosevelt) in your OP, my apologies.

Liberals like me are not libertarians pretending to be anything.

"Liberals" like you? what sort of "liberal" is that ?

The decision today was twisted into a coherent argument by 5 Corporate Shills. 5 corp shills who are all GOP appointments since the days of Reagan.

Did you actually read the majority opinion? Since it seems like every time we get a ruling that's clearly based on strict constructionist reasoning from SCOTUS, "Liberals like you" can be found complaining about it based on dogmatic rather than CONSTITUTIONAL grounds.

Read and try to understand the dissent.

seriously...read the dissent.

The GOP voters along with conservative idelogues and independent fools who voted to elect GOP Presidents in the last 40 years, will regret this day soon enough.

The business interests who will now truly control the game do not have those people's agenda or interests at heart.

The dissent is also based on interpretations of constitutional foundations as well.

ok

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Unfortunately, on this subject Scalia threw any judicial objectivity and discretion to the wind. * * * *

Absolute nonsense.

What Justice Scalia did (something Justice Stevens was unwilling to do) was to give the words of the Constitution their intended and actual and literal meaning and effect.

There is nothing "unobjective" about fidelity to the actual words of the Constitutuion.

The dishonest dissent was shameful and Justice Scalia exposed it. Shame on Justice Stevens and the other three dissenters.

But Bravo for Justice Scalia.

"Congress shall make no law ..."

Nevertheless, Congress did make such a law.

The Court, quite properly, set that law aside.

But I will do this: I will do a bit of research on both the dissent and majority opinions, and I will start a thread later next week on the subject. We shall see just how far out of your ass your opinions come.

In other words, your braying jackass comments so far have been hee-hawed without you having read the dissent and the majority and concurring opinions. Color me unsurprised.

Clearly your opinions are already out of your ass, you jackass.

did Dante come back with more?

He did and then Liability Liar ignored it...

Rightwingers: Shine a Light on 'Dark Money' in Politics?

Why not? Maybe because... Inquiry sheds light on 'dark money' in 2012 election - Los Angeles Times

Dante actually supports many of the legal arguments in favor of Citizens United. Dante also agrees with the SCOTUS ruling with a few caveats concerning the comments and opinions of particular Justices in the case/ruling, but come on...hiding who is behind things serves no one but the donor.

What's next, party ballots with no names of candidates? Secret candidates? Step up and demand rightwing money people and Republicans shilling for corporate/billionaire interests step into the light, or scatter like cockroaches

Citizens United | Ideological Hypocrisy & Reversal | Gun Control

A long time ago I posted about supporting certain arguments on behalf of the Citizens United case. Around that time up until the Gun control issue, others were on ideologically dictated sides of the Citizens United case. No more. What a difference an ideological and emotional debate makes.

I have issues with one person having so much of a voice when the electorate is as uneducated and ill informed as they are in the USA, but I support the final result of Citizens United. CU is not the last word. The man who argued it agrees with this. I know others feel one can like the end result of a billionaire's Super PAC message while feeling distaste for the process that allows it all. Others believe in a free market type of process where anything goes when it comes to an individual and money equaling a voice.

I just get immense joy out of watching the democratic circus when things like Citizens United bump into Super PACs and Gun Control

---

Is Citizens United just misunderstood___link___?
Two years after the Supreme Court decision, a lawyer who argued the case says it has been unfairly smeared
By Justin Elliott Wednesday, Jan 18, 2012 7:08 PM UTC

James Bopp

Illinois Governor Reverses Stance On Michael Bloomberg's PAC

“I think he has the right to speak,” Quinn says. Last week, the governor scolded Bloomberg for using “huge amounts of money” to dictate the gun-control-focused special election. posted on February 25, 2013 at 5:59pm EST


NY Mayor Bloomberg's PAC Boosts Winner In Chicago Race To Succeed Jackson, Jr.
2/26/2013 @ 9:24PM

Mayor Bloomberg to Spend Millions Through New Super-PAC
By Henry Goldman & Julie Bykowicz - Oct 17, 2012 9:00 PM PT

Bloomberg Starts ‘Super PAC,’ Seeking National Influence
By RAYMOND HERNANDEZ
Published: October 17, 2012

Billionaires - Super PACs - Policy - Cabinet Fights

Dante followed the Super PACs closely during the 2012 Presidential election, and like many of the political junkies wondered what permanent role the PACs would play in American politics.

A few major issues have Super PAC money behind them, but this Hagel fight is one the right wing billionaires have staked their model on.

There will be more of this to come, if the next President is a Republican you can be sure the right will be told to scream bloody murder about Democratic backed Super PACs using this right wing billionaire tactic. If the next President is a Democrat, the right will be told to scream bloody murder when Democrats cry bloody murder about right wing Super PACs doing Hagels on every appointee, proposed or considered and on every potential and real nomination.

Brave new world we have entered. This is the true legacy of Citizens United, which in some ways Dante has come to support for some pretty basic reasons not listed here.

Big money gets in on Cabinet nomination fights - latimes.com

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

IlarMeilyr yep

 

[initforme]

Corporations have it made... oh they whine about "too many regulations" and bs like that which is nothing but a lie. They now call the shots and the GOP falls in line at their feet. I say if there are too many regulations, pack up and move to China, I'll help you pack. While you post your record profits that is. As long as they control things, this country has no shot.

 

[rdean]

Corporations have it made... oh they whine about "too many regulations" and bs like that which is nothing but a lie. They now call the shots and the GOP falls in line at their feet. I say if there are too many regulations, pack up and move to China, I'll help you pack. While you post your record profits that is. As long as they control things, this country has no shot.

They aren't moving to China as long as GOP dupes protect them and there are plenty of skilled immigrants and Democrats here to do the work.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

resurrecting a 5 year old thread is evil necromancy.

let old threads rest in peace. Though I do think I said it very well back then

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

resurrecting a 5 year old thread is evil necromancy.

let old threads rest in peace. Though I do think I said it very well back then

delusion gets worse with age