Ruth Bader Ginsburg: Liberal Lioness of The Supreme Court

[Roudy]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

Ya right! Can't fight nature. At best she's got one or two "working" years left, just in time for Trump to replace her. Don't worry, be happy.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Thank you for proving my point. You (stupidly - but that is beside the point) agree with Citizens United, so that is not "legislating from the bench-or judicial activism, and if it is, it's ok in this case.

I support freedom of speech, so naturally I support Citizens United.

It's funny, you Communists had no problem with Michael Moore creating a film about Bush, but the idea that mere peasants would DARE produce a film about Hillary had you fucking Stalinists losing your shit. How DARE these peasants engage in political speech that questions a ruler like Hillary? You'll have none of it - the proles will be SILENT in front of their masters.

I get it dude, you seek to crush free speech.

CU upheld the First Amendment right of the people to engage in political speech. You Stalinist scum had outlawed speech by the Proles. but that violated the Constitution, which you're down with, but luckily we had enough honest SCOTUS justices to defend the Bill of Rights.

Citizens United, a political action committee using small donations from individuals produced "HIllary, the Movie" detailing the criminal acts of Hillary Clinton. The FEC dropped trou and took a shit all over the first amendment, outlawing the movie as banned political speech - you fucking scum totalitarians cheered.

But LIBERTY prevailed in that case.

Now I'm convinced that you are absolutely insane and residing in an alternative reality. CU put a thumb on the scale in favor of big money controlling the message. In no way did it bolster the right of individual free speech which is what the first amendment is really about. But because the decision favored a conservative cause it was not judicial activism or legislating from the bench, it was merely upholding the constitution. Such a fucking hypocrite!

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Thank you for proving my point. You (stupidly - but that is beside the point) agree with Citizens United, so that is not "legislating from the bench-or judicial activism, and if it is, it's ok in this case.

I support freedom of speech, so naturally I support Citizens United.

It's funny, you Communists had no problem with Michael Moore creating a film about Bush, but the idea that mere peasants would DARE produce a film about Hillary had you fucking Stalinists losing your shit. How DARE these peasants engage in political speech that questions a ruler like Hillary? You'll have none of it - the proles will be SILENT in front of their masters.

I get it dude, you seek to crush free speech.

CU upheld the First Amendment right of the people to engage in political speech. You Stalinist scum had outlawed speech by the Proles. but that violated the Constitution, which you're down with, but luckily we had enough honest SCOTUS justices to defend the Bill of Rights.

Citizens United, a political action committee using small donations from individuals produced "HIllary, the Movie" detailing the criminal acts of Hillary Clinton. The FEC dropped trou and took a shit all over the first amendment, outlawing the movie as banned political speech - you fucking scum totalitarians cheered.

But LIBERTY prevailed in that case.

Now I'm convinced that you are absolutely insane and residing in an alternative reality. CU put a thumb on the scale in favor of big money controlling the message. In no way did it bolster the right of individual free speech which is what the first amendment is really about. But because the decision favored a conservative cause it was not judicial activism or legislating from the bench, it was merely upholding the constitution. Such a fucking hypocrite!

Interesting. How is it that you see an individual individually exercising freedom of speech as constitutional, but individuals banding together to exercise the right together as a group is not?

 

[Penelope]

She's so dynamic........

And she not be prayin', nomsayn?

From working so hard.

 

[jasonnfree]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism

I read 'worker's rights' in the preamble to the constitution. At least the constitution recognizes 'we the people'. Nothing in the constitution about 'them the corporations', which the majority of the supreme court now works for. In fact, the predatory nature of corporations is the reason this country went to war against england for in the first place. The east india company. See below...We the people....promote the general welfare...Nope. Nothing about corporations.

We the People of the United StatesIn Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism

I read 'worker's rights' in the preamble to the constitution. At least the constitution recognizes 'we the people'. Nothing in the constitution about 'them the corporations', which the majority of the supreme court now works for. In fact, the predatory nature of corporations is the reason this country went to war against england for in the first place. The east india company. See below...We the people....promote the general welfare...

We the People of the United StatesIn Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Corporations are composed of - wait for it - "we the people".

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Ginsburg is a left wing hack.
The Left Wingers are always trying to bend the constitution, not follow it.

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism

I read 'worker's rights' in the preamble to the constitution. At least the constitution recognizes 'we the people'. Nothing in the constitution about 'them the corporations', which the majority of the supreme court now works for. In fact, the predatory nature of corporations is the reason this country went to war against england for in the first place. The east india company. See below...We the people....promote the general welfare...

We the People of the United StatesIn Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Corporations are composed of - wait for it - "we the people".

The Left Wingers don't understand that Corporations are treated as people by the constitution because Corporations are the property of people. This is a well established judicial fact.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism

I read 'worker's rights' in the preamble to the constitution. At least the constitution recognizes 'we the people'. Nothing in the constitution about 'them the corporations', which the majority of the supreme court now works for. In fact, the predatory nature of corporations is the reason this country went to war against england for in the first place. The east india company. See below...We the people....promote the general welfare...

We the People of the United StatesIn Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Corporations are composed of - wait for it - "we the people".

You are a gullible fool. Yes , since the founding of this once great nation, they have, legally gained much of the same rights as individual people- but they are not people in the sense that the founders intended- and they often can buy a hell of a lot more free speech real people can individually

'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie

How exactly did corporations come to be understood as “people” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits over 130 years ago involving a lawyer who lied to the Supreme Court, an ethically challenged justice, and one of the most powerful corporations of the day.

That corporation was the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, owned by the robber baron Leland Stanford. In 1881, after California lawmakers imposed a special tax on railroad property, Southern Pacific pushed back, making the bold argument that the law was an act of unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of the freed slaves, that amendment guarantees to every “person” the “equal protection of the laws.” Stanford’s railroad argued that it was a person too, reasoning that just as the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of racial identity, so did it bar discrimination against Southern Pacific on the basis of its corporate identity.

Read it all, you may come away somewhat wiser.......or not

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism

I read 'worker's rights' in the preamble to the constitution. At least the constitution recognizes 'we the people'. Nothing in the constitution about 'them the corporations', which the majority of the supreme court now works for. In fact, the predatory nature of corporations is the reason this country went to war against england for in the first place. The east india company. See below...We the people....promote the general welfare...

We the People of the United StatesIn Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Corporations are composed of - wait for it - "we the people".

The Left Wingers don't understand that Corporations are treated as people by the constitution because Corporations are the property of people. This is a well established judicial fact.

No Smiley. I do understand that corporations have gained much of the same rights as people. You are right! For once in your miserable life YOU ARE RIGHT Just remember that-and celebrate that- -the next time that you have an idea for a political message that you are burning to get out there, but can't afford, while those corporate people with deep pockets are funding and airing their message

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Socialism - it'll work this time, we promise! Give us all your freedom and all your property.

Seriously how many times must it fail before you figure out it's only better for political leadership

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

She's so dynamic........

And she not be prayin', nomsayn?

From working so hard.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

As she did on Monday in an important employee wage dispute, Ginsburg dons her classic dissenting collar -- black with silver crystal accents -- over her robe when she is about to take the unusual step of protesting a majority decision from the bench.
"Nothing compels the destructive result the court reaches today," she said, adding in her written opinion that the majority was "egregiously wrong," retrenching on 80 years of federal labor law that sought "to place employers and employees on more equal footing."

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

On Monday, the so-called Notorious RBG opposed the majority of her colleagues in a landmark decision that inhibits the ability for employees with mandatory arbitration contracts to collectively sue their employers. In a fiery dissent on workers' rights, Ruth Bader Ginsburg lambasted the conservative justices that decided in favor of bolstering mandatory arbitration clauses that frequently appear in employment contracts, describing the ruling as "egregiously wrong."

As part of her dissent, RBG warned that inhibiting the right for workers to collectively sue their employers for compensation-related issues, or other workplace problems, could pitch U.S. labor rights back nearly a century. "The end of the 19th century and beginning of the 20th was a tumultuous era in the history of our Nation’s labor relations," Ginsburg wrote. "Under economic conditions then prevailing, workers often had to accept employment on whatever terms employers dictated."

Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism

I read 'worker's rights' in the preamble to the constitution. At least the constitution recognizes 'we the people'. Nothing in the constitution about 'them the corporations', which the majority of the supreme court now works for. In fact, the predatory nature of corporations is the reason this country went to war against england for in the first place. The east india company. See below...We the people....promote the general welfare...

We the People of the United StatesIn Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Corporations are composed of - wait for it - "we the people".

You are a gullible fool. Yes , since the founding of this once great nation, they have, legally gained much of the same rights as individual people- but they are not people in the sense that the founders intended- and they often can buy a hell of a lot more free speech real people can individually

'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie

How exactly did corporations come to be understood as “people” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits over 130 years ago involving a lawyer who lied to the Supreme Court, an ethically challenged justice, and one of the most powerful corporations of the day.

That corporation was the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, owned by the robber baron Leland Stanford. In 1881, after California lawmakers imposed a special tax on railroad property, Southern Pacific pushed back, making the bold argument that the law was an act of unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of the freed slaves, that amendment guarantees to every “person” the “equal protection of the laws.” Stanford’s railroad argued that it was a person too, reasoning that just as the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of racial identity, so did it bar discrimination against Southern Pacific on the basis of its corporate identity.

Read it all, you may come away somewhat wiser.......or not

Idiot. You are not "bestowing" anything upon a corporation. You'll agree that individuals have the right of free speech, yes? You'll agree that each individual within a group of individuals has the right of free speech, yes? You will agree that a corporation is a group comprised of individuals each having the right of free speech, yes?

Now, how is a corporation comprised of individuals each expressing an idea within their right of free speech in a like-minded fashion with the others any different than a political group comprised of individuals each expressing an idea within their right of free speech in a like-minded fashion with the others, or a protest march comprised of individuals each expressing an idea within their right of free speech in a like-minded fashion with the others?

they often can buy a hell of a lot more free speech real people can individually

Aye, and there's what's poking you in the ass, eh?

So what.

How is that different from any other influential group of people expressing like-minded ideas as a unified group?

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Socialism - it'll work this time, we promise! Give us all your freedom and all your property.

Seriously how many times must it fail before you figure out it's only better for political leadership

Who are you addressing and what does it have to do with Ginsburg and labor law. Oh! Silly me- you dumb fucks think that protecting workers right is socialism. I get it.

 

[Marion Morrison]

OP is a Communist faggot, but Citizens United is bad. Legalizing bribery is bad, mmmk?

Ginsberg is probably on the death watch list. She also is one to pervert the Constitution, it's no wonder OP likes her, being TheRegressivePervert that he is.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Also known as the notorious RBG, Justice Ginsburg, at 85 is showing no sign of slowing down or letting up on opposing the conservatives on the high court. On Monday, she delivered a scathing dissenting opinion on the narrowly decided labor relations case.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg takes off the gloves - CNNPolitics ​

Here is more:

This Ruth Bader Ginsburg Dissent Is An Unforgettable Defense Of Workers' Rights In America

Where are "worker's rights" in the U.S. Constitution? That sounds like Marxism

I read 'worker's rights' in the preamble to the constitution. At least the constitution recognizes 'we the people'. Nothing in the constitution about 'them the corporations', which the majority of the supreme court now works for. In fact, the predatory nature of corporations is the reason this country went to war against england for in the first place. The east india company. See below...We the people....promote the general welfare...

We the People of the United StatesIn Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Corporations are composed of - wait for it - "we the people".

You are a gullible fool. Yes , since the founding of this once great nation, they have, legally gained much of the same rights as individual people- but they are not people in the sense that the founders intended- and they often can buy a hell of a lot more free speech real people can individually

'Corporations Are People' Is Built on an Incredible 19th-Century Lie

How exactly did corporations come to be understood as “people” bestowed with the most fundamental constitutional rights? The answer can be found in a bizarre—even farcical—series of lawsuits over 130 years ago involving a lawyer who lied to the Supreme Court, an ethically challenged justice, and one of the most powerful corporations of the day.

That corporation was the Southern Pacific Railroad Company, owned by the robber baron Leland Stanford. In 1881, after California lawmakers imposed a special tax on railroad property, Southern Pacific pushed back, making the bold argument that the law was an act of unconstitutional discrimination under the Fourteenth Amendment. Adopted after the Civil War to protect the rights of the freed slaves, that amendment guarantees to every “person” the “equal protection of the laws.” Stanford’s railroad argued that it was a person too, reasoning that just as the Constitution prohibited discrimination on the basis of racial identity, so did it bar discrimination against Southern Pacific on the basis of its corporate identity.

Read it all, you may come away somewhat wiser.......or not

Idiot. You are not "bestowing" anything upon a corporation. You'll agree that individuals have the right of free speech, yes? You'll agree that each individual within a group of individuals has the right of free speech, yes? You will agree that a corporation is a group comprised of individuals each having the right of free speech, yes?

Now, how is a corporation comprised of individuals each expressing an idea within their right of free speech in a like-minded fashion with the others any different than a political group comprised of individuals each expressing an idea within their right of free speech in a like-minded fashion with the others, or a protest march comprised of individuals each expressing an idea within their right of free speech in a like-minded fashion with the others?

they often can buy a hell of a lot more free speech real people can individually

Aye, and there's what's poking you in the ass, eh?

So what.

How is that different from any other influential group of people expressing like-minded ideas as a unified group?

Well, I said that you might come away wise- or not - and now it know which it is. THE POINT IS that your free speech as an individual, IS NOT EQUAL- to that of any group who can pool resources to BUY free speech. Get it now? Dhaaa

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

OP is a Communist faggot,

Watch those personal attacks cowboy.

 

[DrLove]

She's BADASS

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Citizens United is bad. Legalizing bribery is bad, mmmk?

A rare glimmer of intelligence and enlightenment

 

[DrLove]

OP is a Communist faggot,

Watch those personal attacks cowboy.

Congrats - Your OP flushed out every nutbar south of the Mason-Dixon Line.