'Supreme Court Inc.'

[midcan5]

Is it unfair to call the current SCOTUS corporatist? Let's hope it changes.

"The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the Supreme Court. The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html?_r=1

 

[Revere]

If you hate business, you hate Americanism.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Progressives need to be eradicated like small pox and left in a jar at a museum so we never forget what a danger to freedom, liberty and prosperity they were

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is it unfair to call the current SCOTUS corporatist? Let's hope it changes.

"The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the Supreme Court. The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html?_r=1

Bullshit.

Breyer Says Supreme Court Doesn't Have Pro-Business Slant - Bloomberg

 

[Oddball]

Is it unfair to call the current SCOTUS corporatist? Let's hope it changes.

"The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the Supreme Court. The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html?_r=1

And some people claim that there's no good news in the NY Slimes anymore.

 

[William Joyce]

This would be surprising if we lived in China or the Soviet Union.

But we don't.

 

[midcan5]

The problem with controlling the influence and control of corporations is the power money brings to propaganda. A simple example today is the little media attention given to outsourcing as a factor in unemployment. Corporate ownership of media makes this a non topic. The comments from the corporate tools above aside, the issue requires constant vigilance.


See. [ame=http://www.amazon.com/Invisible-Hands-Making-Conservative-Movement/dp/0393059308/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8]Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books[/ame]

"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism."


The Ideological Management Industry

"This chapter is about the modern development of techniques for the ideological management of liberal societies in order to preserve the interests of capitalist elites. More specifically, it is about the introduction to Australia of techniques for taking the political risk out of democracy (from the point of view of protagonists of the market economy) that have long been developed, refined and applied in the US and — more recently and to a much lesser extent — in the UK. Virtually nothing in these developments is indigenous to Australia. A considerable sample of them has already been imported direct from the United States (commonly retaining the name of the model US institution, as in the cases of the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Roundtable, the Business Council and the Foundation for Economic Education). To a lesser extent American techniques have reached Australia via Britain, as in the case of Enterprise Australia’s promotion of the free-enterprise system through special annual reports for employees and courses in ‘economic education’ designed for corporate employees and schoolchildren. 1

At another, intellectually more sophisticated level, there is in prospect a growth of ‘think-tanks’ funded by business with the purpose of ‘...shaping the political agenda in Australia’ (to cite a report on the subject to the Australian Institute of Directors) through production and dissemination of free-market-oriented ‘...policy research’. 2 The inspiration for this development comes from the relatively favourable conditions for the political influence of business which have been created by such initiatives in the US. 3 There the amount of economic policy research produced by think-tanks funded by corporations is so great and so effectively ‘marketed’ that business has been able, through its hundreds of selectively sponsored scholars, largely to redefine the terms of debate on many issues in ways favourable to business. For example, by transforming ‘...quality of life’ issues into esoteric ‘...cost-benefit analysis’ issues. 4 At present the relatively limited Australian progress in this direction is supplemented by importing and distributing publications resulting from business-sponsored policy research in the US and the UK."


How Corporations Influence the Government

"However, it is very difficult to reform campaign financing. If you try to bar corporate campaign contributions, then the members of the board will contribute personally. If members of the board are not allowed to contribute, their wives will contribute, and so on. There are always loopholes that corporations will try to find. And, since they are well connected and have a lot of high paid lawyers on their side, they will find loopholes. It's very difficult to control this. We have been trying to control corporate contributions for the last 100 years now--without much success!"

and this: The Conservative Nanny State

 

[Revere]

Government will always have more money for politiciking than anyone else.

You're not free if you can't spend as much money as you want to defeat them.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The problem with controlling the influence and control of corporations is the power money brings to propaganda. A simple example today is the little media attention given to outsourcing as a factor in unemployment. Corporate ownership of media makes this a non topic. The comments from the corporate tools above aside, the issue requires constant vigilance.


See. Amazon.com: Invisible Hands: The Making of the Conservative Movement from the New Deal to Reagan (9780393059304): Kim Phillips-Fein: Books

"Historian Phillips-Fein traces the hidden history of the Reagan revolution to a coterie of business executives, including General Electric official and Reagan mentor Lemuel Boulware, who saw labor unions, government regulation, high taxes and welfare spending as dire threats to their profits and power. From the 1930s onward, the author argues, they provided the money, organization and fervor for a decades-long war against New Deal liberalism—funding campaigns, think tanks, magazines and lobbying groups, and indoctrinating employees in the virtues of unfettered capitalism."


The Ideological Management Industry

"This chapter is about the modern development of techniques for the ideological management of liberal societies in order to preserve the interests of capitalist elites. More specifically, it is about the introduction to Australia of techniques for taking the political risk out of democracy (from the point of view of protagonists of the market economy) that have long been developed, refined and applied in the US and — more recently and to a much lesser extent — in the UK. Virtually nothing in these developments is indigenous to Australia. A considerable sample of them has already been imported direct from the United States (commonly retaining the name of the model US institution, as in the cases of the Committee for Economic Development, the Business Roundtable, the Business Council and the Foundation for Economic Education). To a lesser extent American techniques have reached Australia via Britain, as in the case of Enterprise Australia’s promotion of the free-enterprise system through special annual reports for employees and courses in ‘economic education’ designed for corporate employees and schoolchildren. 1

At another, intellectually more sophisticated level, there is in prospect a growth of ‘think-tanks’ funded by business with the purpose of ‘...shaping the political agenda in Australia’ (to cite a report on the subject to the Australian Institute of Directors) through production and dissemination of free-market-oriented ‘...policy research’. 2 The inspiration for this development comes from the relatively favourable conditions for the political influence of business which have been created by such initiatives in the US. 3 There the amount of economic policy research produced by think-tanks funded by corporations is so great and so effectively ‘marketed’ that business has been able, through its hundreds of selectively sponsored scholars, largely to redefine the terms of debate on many issues in ways favourable to business. For example, by transforming ‘...quality of life’ issues into esoteric ‘...cost-benefit analysis’ issues. 4 At present the relatively limited Australian progress in this direction is supplemented by importing and distributing publications resulting from business-sponsored policy research in the US and the UK."


How Corporations Influence the Government

"However, it is very difficult to reform campaign financing. If you try to bar corporate campaign contributions, then the members of the board will contribute personally. If members of the board are not allowed to contribute, their wives will contribute, and so on. There are always loopholes that corporations will try to find. And, since they are well connected and have a lot of high paid lawyers on their side, they will find loopholes. It's very difficult to control this. We have been trying to control corporate contributions for the last 100 years now--without much success!"

and this: The Conservative Nanny State

You are just an rdean wannabe, aren't you? Ignore anything and everyone that points out anything that does not fit your worldview. You do throw in a nice twist by posting about conspiracies though.

 

[Flopper]

Is it unfair to call the current SCOTUS corporatist? Let's hope it changes.

"The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the Supreme Court. The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html?_r=1

Bullshit.

Breyer Says Supreme Court Doesn't Have Pro-Business Slant - Bloomberg

What do you expect a sitting Supreme Court justice to say.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Is it unfair to call the current SCOTUS corporatist? Let's hope it changes.

"The headquarters of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, located across from Lafayette Park in Washington, is a limestone structure that looks almost as majestic as the Supreme Court. The similarity is no coincidence: both buildings were designed by the same architect, Cass Gilbert. Lately, however, the affinities between the court and the chamber, a lavishly financed business-advocacy organization, seem to be more than just architectural. The Supreme Court term that ended last June was, by all measures, exceptionally good for American business. The chamber’s litigation center filed briefs in 15 cases and its side won in 13 of them — the highest percentage of victories in the center’s 30-year history. The current term, which ends this summer, has also been shaping up nicely for business interests."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/16/magazine/16supreme-t.html?_r=1

Bullshit.

Breyer Says Supreme Court Doesn't Have Pro-Business Slant - Bloomberg

What do you expect a sitting Supreme Court justice to say.

The truth. Would you expect a liberal justice to agree with everything Roberts represents? Yet, because he rightfully points out that the rulings are in line with both historic precedent, and the overall tendency of the Supreme Court to favor the government, you dismiss him as a pawn of the court.

And progressives wonder why they have no credibility.

 

[Flopper]

There is no place where money speaks louder than politics. Sometimes you will see the big corporations and special interest groups giving to both candidates. As the election nears, they weight the odds of each candidate winning and the political payback for their investment. Then they increase their contributions accordingly. Of course when they know they'll get nothing from one candidate, they throw all the money at other candidate.

This is not an American phenomenon. The big multinationals have being do this for years in many countries they operate in. In third world countries, they can damn near buy the whole government.

 

[midcan5]

Government will always have more money for politiciking than anyone else.

You're not free if you can't spend as much money as you want to defeat them.

That makes no sense. Government is not a person, but now according to the SCOTUS corporations are, and I think given the power of media to control the message, and the busy lives most lead, money talks.

You are just an rdean wannabe, aren't you? Ignore anything and everyone that points out anything that does not fit your worldview. You do throw in a nice twist by posting about conspiracies though.

Are ad hominem replies the best you can do, I am always reminded of an English profs words, is it necessary I give your idiocy consideration when it is idiocy. I don't think so. You may be unteachable but others think. Please ignore my posts if they conflict with your worldview.



"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You are just an rdean wannabe, aren't you? Ignore anything and everyone that points out anything that does not fit your worldview. You do throw in a nice twist by posting about conspiracies though.

Are ad hominem replies the best you can do, I am always reminded of an English profs words, is it necessary I give your idiocy consideration when it is idiocy. I don't think so. You may be unteachable but others think. Please ignore my posts if they conflict with your worldview.



"The 20th century has been characterized by three developments of great political importance: The growth of democracy, the growth of corporate power, and the growth of corporate propaganda as a means of protecting corporate power against democracy." Alex Carey

Quoting the liberal voice of the Supreme Court to contradict your OP is not an ad hominen attack. Total fail on even attempting to rebut my points, and more proof that you are nothing more than an rdean wannabe. Actually, I shouldn't insult him like that, he would at least try to claim that Breyer is secretly a Republican.

Why don't you throw in another random quote to prove how educated you are?

 

[Father Time]

If you hate business, you hate Americanism.

Because businesses never do anything unethical and businesses are never completely self-serving.

Hell some of their advertisements are enough to get me to despise them (the individual companies).

 

[Jeremy]

Oh Boo fucking Hoo!!!! Cry me a gawd damn river..

IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!!!!

 

[Flopper]

Bullshit.

Breyer Says Supreme Court Doesn't Have Pro-Business Slant - Bloomberg

What do you expect a sitting Supreme Court justice to say.

The truth. Would you expect a liberal justice to agree with everything Roberts represents? Yet, because he rightfully points out that the rulings are in line with both historic precedent, and the overall tendency of the Supreme Court to favor the government, you dismiss him as a pawn of the court.

And progressives wonder why they have no credibility.

I have read a lot of interviews with Supreme Court judges. For most part they do exactly what Breyer is doing, defend the court.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

What do you expect a sitting Supreme Court justice to say.

The truth. Would you expect a liberal justice to agree with everything Roberts represents? Yet, because he rightfully points out that the rulings are in line with both historic precedent, and the overall tendency of the Supreme Court to favor the government, you dismiss him as a pawn of the court.

And progressives wonder why they have no credibility.

I have read a lot of interviews with Supreme Court judges. For most part they do exactly what Breyer is doing, defend the court.

I see.

According to you, the only way he could possibly be right is if he agreed with you. Otherwise, he is defending the court.

 

[Flopper]

The truth. Would you expect a liberal justice to agree with everything Roberts represents? Yet, because he rightfully points out that the rulings are in line with both historic precedent, and the overall tendency of the Supreme Court to favor the government, you dismiss him as a pawn of the court.

And progressives wonder why they have no credibility.

I have read a lot of interviews with Supreme Court judges. For most part they do exactly what Breyer is doing, defend the court.

I see.

According to you, the only way he could possibly be right is if he agreed with you. Otherwise, he is defending the court.

I would never expect a Supreme Court judge to express an opinion on a controversial issue, although they do occasionally. A judge that would do that would open themselves up to lot of criticism plus they would have to abstain from participation in some legal proceedings. So they discuss issues that are not particular controversial and defend the court.

 

[Oddball]

Government will always have more money for politiciking than anyone else.

You're not free if you can't spend as much money as you want to defeat them.

That makes no sense. Government is not a person, but now according to the SCOTUS corporations are, and I think given the power of media to control the message, and the busy lives most lead, money talks.

Actually, gubmints ARE a 14th Amendment "persons", under the auspices of Santa Clara County v. Union Pacific, too.

Oh yeah....Gubmints are corporations as well...To prove this, look up the date when your state/county/city was incorporated.

You've met the enemy, Buckwheat.....