WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Bfgrn, Jan 21, 2010.

  1. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060


    The Theft of Human Rights

    The first thing to understand is the difference between the natural person and the fictitious person called a corporation. They differ in the purpose for which they are created, in the strength which they possess, and in the restraints under which they act.

    Man is the handiwork of God and was placed upon earth to carry out a Divine purpose; the corporation is the handiwork of man and created to carry out a money-making policy.

    There is comparatively little difference in the strength of men; a corporation may be one hundred, one thousand, or even one million times stronger than the average man. Man acts under the restraints of conscience, and is influenced also by a belief in a future life. A corporation has no soul and cares nothing about the hereafter. "-

    A corporation has no rights except those given it by law. It can exercise no power except that conferred upon it by the people through legislation, and the people should be as free to withhold as to give, public interest and not private advantage being the end in view.

    William Jennings Bryan
    address to the Ohio 1912 Constitutional Convention



    Stevens Accuses Supreme Court Conservatives of Judicial Activism

    — By David Corn
    | Thu Jan. 21, 2010 8:30 AM PST

    So where are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

    By ruling today that corporations and unions can independently spend as much money as they want to back or trash congressional and presidential candidates, the conservative Supreme Court justices are throwing out over a century of jurisprudence that backed the regulation of corporate involvement in elections. Yet will the right denounce the five-to-four decision as an act of judicial overreach? That's not likely. But Justice John Paul Stevens, in a stinging dissent written for the minority, argues that the right wing of the court has engaged in a brazen act of activism--and has done so to award corporations more legal rights than they have previously been afforded.

    A few excerpts:

    * Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

    * The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

    * Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.

    * The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

    * The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress hasplaced special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907....We have unanimously concluded [in 1982] that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process"...and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation...The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaignspending as an invidious novelty born [in a 1990 opinion].

    * The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.

    With this dissent, Stevens is scoffing at Chief Justice John Roberts' self-proclaimed fancy for "judicial modesty" and waging battle on one of the major fronts in the court's history: how far should the justices go in equating corporations with citizens. You can read the decision here.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 2
  2. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    Because what the court did was not judicial activism. We often call judicial activism legislating from the bench. That is setting new precedents that aren't law.

    the court did not do that here. Had the ruling gone the other way THAT would have been judicial activism. The court simply affirmed that limiting a corporations ability to contribute money to a campaign would have been a violation of the first amendment.
     
  3. Oddball
    Offline

    Oddball BANNED Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2009
    Messages:
    41,428
    Thanks Received:
    8,397
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Drinking wine, eating cheese, catching rays
    Ratings:
    +8,409
    You'll have to excuse Jehtro from making such nuanced distinctions.

    He has a sixth grade edumacation, dontchaknow? :lol:

    [​IMG]
     
  4. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060
    Here's some 'nuance' for you to chew on...

    The Supreme Court has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.

    “We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want,’ ” a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.
    More...

    -------------------------------------------------

    A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. In 2006, USA Today reported: "Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies also have a sizable presence in running power plants, chemical factories and water treatment facilities in the United States." It was also reported that, "Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying." In 2008, it was reported that foreign ownership of U.S. companies "more than doubled" between 1996 and 2005. To get a fix on the spending power, consider this: "The total receipts of foreign-owned companies were $1.7 trillion in 1996 and just $39 billion in 1971."
    More...
    ===========================

    So another 'nuance' of this radical activist ruling is that foreigners now have a 'vote' in who represents We, the people...

    AGAIN...WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?
     
  5. Yurt
    Offline

    Yurt Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jun 15, 2004
    Messages:
    25,583
    Thanks Received:
    3,554
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Location:
    Hot air ballon
    Ratings:
    +5,038
    there was absolutely no judicial activism, in fact, the court overturned a prior case due to the overwhelming amount of cases that have held corps also have a right to free speech. they ruled correctly on the constitution.

    i suggest you read the case.
     
  6. Bern80
    Offline

    Bern80 Gold Member

    Joined:
    Jan 9, 2004
    Messages:
    8,094
    Thanks Received:
    720
    Trophy Points:
    138
    Ratings:
    +726
    What you don't seem to get is that it is not the Supreme Court's job to decide whether something is good or bad and set precendent accordingly. Their job is to uphold the constitution. Had they voted the other way, that would have been a violation of the first amendment. You are the one who quite clearly doesn't understand what real judicial activism is.
     
  7. Mr. Peepers
    Offline

    Mr. Peepers Senior Member

    Joined:
    Aug 11, 2009
    Messages:
    3,206
    Thanks Received:
    394
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Ratings:
    +394
    That's it. I've had it. We have now been completely sold out. This country is stupid - its leaders, policies and its people. And the now we have confirmation that the supposedly fair and blind justice system is in the pockets of corporations, ie against real persons. I think I want out now. This is not the country I thought it was... :(

    Supreme Court Lifts Campaign Spending Limits : NPR
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 4
  8. Oldandtired
    Offline

    Oldandtired BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,618
    Thanks Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island
    Ratings:
    +349
    I find it interesting that you have a problem with this.
    So corporations can be taxed, regiulated, slandered.....but they can not donate to a candidate of their choosing.

    You see....this ruling IS the America we are supposed to be.

    Freedom......liberty.....choice.....

    No problem here.
     
  9. Bfgrn
    Offline

    Bfgrn Gold Member

    Joined:
    Apr 4, 2009
    Messages:
    16,829
    Thanks Received:
    2,480
    Trophy Points:
    245
    Ratings:
    +3,060
    OK Bern, then it should be easy to clear up our differences...just direct to the section of the Constitution that says a corporation is a person. I'll settle for the 'word' corporation in the Constitution, I'm easy going...

    "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country...corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."
    -- U.S. President Abraham Lincoln, Nov. 21, 1864
    (letter to Col. William F. Elkins)
    Ref: The Lincoln Encyclopedia, Archer H. Shaw (Macmillan, 1950, NY)
     
  10. California Girl
    Offline

    California Girl BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2009
    Messages:
    50,337
    Thanks Received:
    8,960
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +8,965
    Is this "Start Multiple Threads on the Same Topic" Friday?
     

Share This Page