Crybaby Schumer Calls for Hearings on UnAmerican Court Ruling...

[del]

about 300, not counting civic/religious/charitable ones in america. the corporation as a legal entity of course predates the founding of our country by hundreds of years.

then you know they had no intent those corporations be considered "persons".

truly one of the most obscene decisions I've ever seen.

no more obscene than roe v. wade, and i agree, uncomfortably, with roe v. wade.

 

[Ravi]

Wasn't the Boston Tea Party in part a protest against the monopoly the East Indian Tea Company had?

Sounds like we are back sliding.

 

[jillian]

about 300, not counting civic/religious/charitable ones in america. the corporation as a legal entity of course predates the founding of our country by hundreds of years.

then you know they had no intent those corporations be considered "persons".

truly one of the most obscene decisions I've ever seen.

no more obscene than roe v. wade, and i agree, uncomfortably, with roe v. wade.

not even close. roe v wade comes from the same line of cases that prohibited connecticut from outlawing the use of contraception by married couples and prohibited virginia from outlawing interracial marriage. in other words it actually did what the constitution intended... kept government out of the private, personal places in human relationships.

yesterday's monstrosity said a corporation is a person.

you really think that's what the constitution was intended to do... allow exxon mobile to determine the presidency?

 

[Ravi]

so each election is going to be one group of corporations against another group of corporations.

Basically.

The New World Order, baybee!

 

[elvis]

so each election is going to be one group of corporations against another group of corporations.

Basically.

The New World Order, baybee!

uh oh. we can expect at least ten threads from eots on that.

 

[del]

then you know they had no intent those corporations be considered "persons".

truly one of the most obscene decisions I've ever seen.

no more obscene than roe v. wade, and i agree, uncomfortably, with roe v. wade.

not even close. roe v wade comes from the same line of cases that prohibited connecticut from prohibiting the use of contraception by married couples and prohibited virginia from outlawing interracial marriage. in other words it actually did what the constitution intended... kept government out of the private, personal places in human relationships.

yesterday's monstrosity said a corporation is a person.

you really think that's what the constitution was intended to do... allow exxon mobile to determine the presidency?

no, i believe the constitution was intended to let unions and 527s nag the bejeezus out of me while muzzling corporations.

i don't see this as making any substantive change to business as usual.

 

[asaratis]

Schumer represents everything wrong with our Government. Why do people keep voting for that tool? He's been in Congress far too long. It's time for him to go.

This too shall pass.

like hell it isn't. i can guarantee you no one is touching chuck schumer's seat.

Yeah I heard Democrats saying the same thing about "Kennedys Seat" ....

The people are awake now. Beware the people, you pompous assed liberal incumbents.

like hell it isn't. i can guarantee you no one is touching chuck schumer's seat.

Yeah I heard Democrats saying the same thing about "Kennedys Seat" ....

Kennedy wasn't in it at the time. Or you wouldn't have, genius.

And last I heard Chuck is very much alive.

Doesn't matter. "His" seat belongs to....the people.

His Seat is no longer Safe...



peace...

Yes it is.

Schumer has no credible opponents. He'll win, and he'll keep winning. The people of NY like Chucky.

chuck rocks. the frothing at the mouth he inspires is just a bonus. joe scarborough actually said reid should resign as senate majority leader and they should start a draft chuck movement.

their heads would explode.

Chuck sucks.

then you know they had no intent those corporations be considered "persons".

truly one of the most obscene decisions I've ever seen.

no more obscene than roe v. wade, and i agree, uncomfortably, with roe v. wade.

not even close. roe v wade comes from the same line of cases that prohibited connecticut from outlawing the use of contraception by married couples and prohibited virginia from outlawing interracial marriage. in other words it actually did what the constitution intended... kept government out of the private, personal places in human relationships.

yesterday's monstrosity said a corporation is a person.

you really think that's what the constitution was intended to do... allow exxon mobile to determine the presidency?

I'm sixty six and I learned in HIGH SCHOOL that a corporation is a fictitious person. Where the hell were you when the lessons in real life were passed out?

I don't know why you're so worried about American corporations contributing to American campaigns. George Soros and foreign money paid a lot of the BoyKing's way to the White House.

 

[oreo]

hey a politicain could always rake the high road and accept no contributuins from corporate america and vote on the issue at hand with no riders and pork....

just because scotus says you can be a shill doesn't mean you have to be one....

Nice and admirable in theory. But in reality, the candidate with the bigger war chest has the better chance of winning.

Sad but true.

Let's face it--the McCain/Feingold bill didn't stop lobbyists in Washington D.C. They're still there--pokeing-&-proding our politicians right along.

So why not approach it in a different manner. Make politicians disclose all of their campaign money. If it comes from a corporation--let it be known immediately. If it comes from the unions--let it be known immediately.

 

[jillian]

I'm sixty six and I learned in HIGH SCHOOL that a corporation is a fictitious person. Where the hell were you when the lessons in real life were passed out?

I don't know why you're so worried about American corporations contributing to American campaigns. George Soros and foreign money paid a lot of the BoyKing's way to the White House.

then you know that it was a ficitious person only for jurisdictional purposes and have no first amendment rights.

puleeze... this was the first time in years that dems outraised repubs BECAUSE of corprate interests. And THAT is why this decision.Bugged the righties that he raised tons more.

soros is an individual last i heard... same as warren buffet and forbes. he isn't a corporation.

i'm sorry you feel the need to sell this country to corporations.

 

[elvis]

now the corporations will have infinitely more pull over who wins elections and infinitely more pull on the candidate once (s)he is chosen than they do right now. Aside from all the legal definitions, I don't see this as a good thing for the average voter.

 

[asaratis]

I'm sixty six and I learned in HIGH SCHOOL that a corporation is a fictitious person. Where the hell were you when the lessons in real life were passed out?

I don't know why you're so worried about American corporations contributing to American campaigns. George Soros and foreign money paid a lot of the BoyKing's way to the White House.

then you know that it was a ficitious person only for jurisdictional purposes and have no first amendment rights.

Do you mean this First Amendment?

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.


I do believe corporations petition the courts quite often...as is their right as a fictitious person before the court.

Of course, some representative must speak for the corporation, but he can say whatever the corporation demands be said.

Of course, some person or other corporation must print for the corporation (unless the corporation prints its own brochures and pamphlets and form letters and advertisements and catalogs...), but freedom of press is granted.

Of course, some person will have to express whatever religious holdings the corporation may have, but it has the right to express religious thought and appear to be religious.

Whatever are you saying, child? Binny Hinn is a corporation.

puleeze... this was the first time in years that dems outraised repubs BECAUSE of corprate interests. And THAT is why this decision.Bugged the righties that he raised tons more.

With an equal amount of money, he'd likely have lost. Had he not lied, he'd have lost. His lying got him the job as sock-puppet for Soros and foreign interests.

soros is an individual last i heard... same as warren buffet and forbes. he isn't a corporation.

People can vote. Corporations can't. That makes people more powerful than corporations.

\

i'm sorry you feel the need to sell this country to corporations.

Strawman. Nothing has really changed. All that needs to be done is for Congress to legislate that all contributions to all campaign funds must be taxed at 50% and the proceeds given to the people...in cash...before the election!

now the corporations will have infinitely more pull over who wins elections and infinitely more pull on the candidate once (s)he is chosen than they do right now. Aside from all the legal definitions, I don't see this as a good thing for the average voter.

All it does is change the size of the war chests. The people can vote as they please.

As the people learn who to trust, the people will hone in on what's best for the people.

 

[MIPS]

now the corporations will have infinitely more pull over who wins elections and infinitely more pull on the candidate once (s)he is chosen than they do right now. Aside from all the legal definitions, I don't see this as a good thing for the average voter.

You should keep in mind that there are other avenues to pursue here, including re-writing the legislation in such as way as to make it constitutional, or amending the constitution in such a way as to achieve the desired objective (limiting corporate influence in elections). Just because one law was struck doesn't mean that the matter is settled.

For example (just off the top of my head), what happens when a judge has a case before him and one of the parties in the case is a campaign donor for the judge? Wouldn't the judge have to recuse himself from the case? couldn't congress be subject to something similar?

After all the LEAST useful path is to politicize the decision, attempt to demonize SCOTUS and complain about partisanship (not that you were Elvis). SCOTUS did it's job, now it's time for Congress and We The People to do ours.

 

[Terry]

now the corporations will have infinitely more pull over who wins elections and infinitely more pull on the candidate once (s)he is chosen than they do right now. Aside from all the legal definitions, I don't see this as a good thing for the average voter.

I don't really have a view on this one way or another yet but I would think Corporation's would want anyone that is PRO capitalist right?

 

[MIPS]

now the corporations will have infinitely more pull over who wins elections and infinitely more pull on the candidate once (s)he is chosen than they do right now. Aside from all the legal definitions, I don't see this as a good thing for the average voter.

I don't really have a view on this one way or another yet but I would think Corporation's would want anyone that is PRO capitalist right?

Are you kidding? the vast majority of modern corporations are staunchly ANTI-CAPITALIST as in they do everything possible to subvert fair & open market competition and they especially like using government to do so.

 

[Xenophon]

Elections can never be for show as long as the citizens have a vote.

There are other ways to get the word out now besides TV and newspaper adds, big money buys on TV I don't have the impact they once did.

Take Mass for example, coakly flooded TV with adds the last week, and her numbers went DOWN.

The abilty to 'buy' elections is not as it was.

How funny. I'm now seeing sudden naivete just because Republicans won a couple of elections. So you think all those special interest groups are just going to fade away for some strange reason? Hell, whereas before today they were just halting on blinking yellow, they just got a fucking green light from the USSC!!

Its not an act, you really aern't very bright, are you.

This is the way it was for over 2 centuries until McCain feingold came along.

You act as if it something new, thus we can conclude you are either really stupid or a political fool, there is no third possibility.

 

[MaggieMae]

so each election is going to be one group of corporations against another group of corporations.

Bingo. As I said, elections in the future will be just for show.

 

[MaggieMae]

no more obscene than roe v. wade, and i agree, uncomfortably, with roe v. wade.

not even close. roe v wade comes from the same line of cases that prohibited connecticut from prohibiting the use of contraception by married couples and prohibited virginia from outlawing interracial marriage. in other words it actually did what the constitution intended... kept government out of the private, personal places in human relationships.

yesterday's monstrosity said a corporation is a person.

you really think that's what the constitution was intended to do... allow exxon mobile to determine the presidency?

no, i believe the constitution was intended to let unions and 527s nag the bejeezus out of me while muzzling corporations.

i don't see this as making any substantive change to business as usual.

Oh I see a definite increase in TV ads during a major election cycle. I also can see my mute button wearing out long before the rest of the buttons on my remote.

 

[MaggieMae]

I'm sixty six and I learned in HIGH SCHOOL that a corporation is a fictitious person. Where the hell were you when the lessons in real life were passed out?

I don't know why you're so worried about American corporations contributing to American campaigns. George Soros and foreign money paid a lot of the BoyKing's way to the White House.

then you know that it was a ficitious person only for jurisdictional purposes and have no first amendment rights.

Do you mean this First Amendment?

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.


I do believe corporations petition the courts quite often...as is their right as a fictitious person before the court.

Of course, some representative must speak for the corporation, but he can say whatever the corporation demands be said.

Of course, some person or other corporation must print for the corporation (unless the corporation prints its own brochures and pamphlets and form letters and advertisements and catalogs...), but freedom of press is granted.

Of course, some person will have to express whatever religious holdings the corporation may have, but it has the right to express religious thought and appear to be religious.

Whatever are you saying, child? Binny Hinn is a corporation.


With an equal amount of money, he'd likely have lost. Had he not lied, he'd have lost. His lying got him the job as sock-puppet for Soros and foreign interests.

People can vote. Corporations can't. That makes people more powerful than corporations.

\

i'm sorry you feel the need to sell this country to corporations.

Strawman. Nothing has really changed. All that needs to be done is for Congress to legislate that all contributions to all campaign funds must be taxed at 50% and the proceeds given to the people...in cash...before the election!

now the corporations will have infinitely more pull over who wins elections and infinitely more pull on the candidate once (s)he is chosen than they do right now. Aside from all the legal definitions, I don't see this as a good thing for the average voter.

All it does is change the size of the war chests. The people can vote as they please.

As the people learn who to trust, the people will hone in on what's best for the people.

Of the people--operative words. The SCOTUS should have defined exactly what a "corporation" is before it went off half-cocked. Some "corporations" have thousands of shareholders. Why should the CEO speak for all of "the people" comprising those shareholders?

 

[Truthmatters]

Schumer calls for hearings on 'un-American' court decision - The Hill's Blog Briefing Room

For... the... Love... of... God.

Seriously, Chuckles?...



peace...

Hes holding hearing to determine the impact of the decision.

Why did you LIE about what he said?

"As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I'm announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next of couple of weeks," Schumer said.

 

[MaggieMae]

Elections can never be for show as long as the citizens have a vote.

There are other ways to get the word out now besides TV and newspaper adds, big money buys on TV I don't have the impact they once did.

Take Mass for example, coakly flooded TV with adds the last week, and her numbers went DOWN.

The abilty to 'buy' elections is not as it was.

How funny. I'm now seeing sudden naivete just because Republicans won a couple of elections. So you think all those special interest groups are just going to fade away for some strange reason? Hell, whereas before today they were just halting on blinking yellow, they just got a fucking green light from the USSC!!

Its not an act, you really aern't very bright, are you.

This is the way it was for over 2 centuries until McCain feingold came along.

You act as if it something new, thus we can conclude you are either really stupid or a political fool, there is no third possibility.

I invite you to a history of campaign finance reform, idiot.

Campaign finance in the United States - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

And if you don't trust Wikipedia, I'm sure you can find historical facts elsewhere.