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

[WillowTree]

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

Have you made your escape plans? where ya wanna go? Venezuela might be to your liking.. Hugo, he don't like no damn corporations either. Hitch a ride on down there with Danny Glover and kiss you some Hugo ass.

 

[MIPS]

As an aside, I'm mildly stunned to see Tea Partiers and TP sympathizers siding with the corporations on this one. (not referring to you specifically)

Ummm.. try "siding with the CONSTITUTION on this one", some us understand that the rule of law requires decisions which may not be as pragmatic as we would like them to be but are required for the continuation of that rule.

 

[uscitizen]

I saw no where in the constitution where money is speech.

 

[Oldandtired]

I saw no where in the constitution where money is speech.

Stop spinning.
It will get you no where and adds nothing to the debate.

 

[Oldandtired]

I saw no where in the constitution where money is speech.

And there are many more freedoms afforded us than simply speech.
I suggest you do some reading.

 

[uscitizen]

I saw no where in the constitution where money is speech.

Stop spinning.
It will get you no where and adds nothing to the debate.

Diss much?

 

[MIPS]

I saw no where in the constitution where money is speech.

Why don't you try actually READING the majority opinion. Why should media corporations have unlimited free speech when corporations that do not own media outlets are limited? why do the American People not have the right to hear what corporations and unions have to say in the same fashion and to the same degree as any other organization?

Would you prefer that SCOTUS just legislates from the bench on this one ? or would you rather that they follow both the language and the intent of the U.S. Constitution as they did in this case?

 

[MajikMyst]

Your forgetting.. When the neotards agree with it, it isn't judicial activism.. When they do not agree with it, It is..

It is a double standard you see.. They actually believe they are better off with a company that profits off of shafting them at every turn.. Than a government they actually have some control over.. It is truly amazing how deep this ignorance goes.. When was the last time a company held elections for the CEO that the general public could vote on?? Never.. Exactly..

I hope you neotards have a lot of lube!! Your going to need it!!

Enjoy your loss of freedom...

 

[Barb]

As an aside, I'm mildly stunned to see Tea Partiers and TP sympathizers siding with the corporations on this one. (not referring to you specifically)

Ummm.. try "siding with the CONSTITUTION on this one", some us understand that the rule of law requires decisions which may not be as pragmatic as we would like them to be but are required for the continuation of that rule.

The problem is, the 14th Amendment was not written to confer personhood status on corporations. The Supreme's did not even do that, a slimy little stenographer by the name of J.C.Bancroft Davis who used to be a railroad exec slipped that in, and has been used as precedent ever since the 1800s.

 

[uscitizen]

I saw no where in the constitution where money is speech.

Why don't you try actually READING the majority opinion. Why should media corporations have unlimited free speech when corporations that do not own media outlets are limited? why do the American People not have the right to hear what corporations and unions have to say in the same fashion and to the same degree as any other organization?

Would you prefer that SCOTUS just legislates from the bench on this one ? or would you rather that they follow both the language and the intent of the U.S. Constitution as they did in this case?

I am hitting on the same tack that many do saying that only what is clearly outlined in the constitution should be what the govt does.

Do you take the same tack on the Promote the general welfare part of the constitution?

You can't have it both ways.

 

[Some Guy]

Corporations should not be classified as a "person". Profit is their only concern, and by any means necessary, and they have more money, power and voice than the rest of us combined. I have a BIG problem with this.

Isn't it most people's individual goal to make a profit as well? I mean, you're not going to work for nothing, right? Most people will take jobs they hate so they can make more money.

I'm a big supporter of campaign reform and would love to see a drastic cut on how much money can be used in campaigns in general, but you can't argue with the ruling on this one; it's unconstitutional to try to legislate how people or businesses spend their money.

 

[Claudette]

Was watching one of the news programs last night and they were saying that the States already allow this and it hasn't made much of an impact on the elections.

Don't know how that would compare to the national elections though.

 

[MIPS]

I am hitting on the same tack that many do saying that only what is clearly outlined in the constitution should be what the govt does.


Do you take the same tack on the Promote the general welfare part of the constitution?

You can't have it both ways.

Clearly you do not understand the constitution, it LIMITS the AUTHORITY of government to what is explicitly granted it does NOT limit (or grant) the RIGHTS of the people. It's not a complicated concept if you stop and think about it (which clearly you have not).

Why don't you start by reading Amendment IX and Amendment X maybe that will help you figure it out.

 

[xotoxi]

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.

You have two options:

or

Your choice.

 

[Bfgrn]

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.

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)

You really don't understand the constitution it seems. Obviously there are more laws on the books than what is specifically listed in the constitution. The standard for those laws is simply that they must not be in violation of anything in the constitution. That a corporation is its own entity and thus has essentially the right as a person is not a violation of the constitution. As such they are etitled to its protections, including free speech.

No Bern, I do understand the Constitution, it is a document written by human beings to protect human beings who are mortal creatures that can be injured or extinguished. It was never designed as a weapon TO injure or extinguish human beings. If THAT is your level of comprehension of what the Constitution was written for then I guess we both loose...

 

[Bern80]

Your forgetting.. When the neotards agree with it, it isn't judicial activism.. When they do not agree with it, It is..

It is a double standard you see.. They actually believe they are better off with a company that profits off of shafting them at every turn.. Than a government they actually have some control over.. It is truly amazing how deep this ignorance goes.. When was the last time a company held elections for the CEO that the general public could vote on?? Never.. Exactly..

I hope you neotards have a lot of lube!! Your going to need it!!

Enjoy your loss of freedom...

Please explain how this ruling is a violation of any law or of anything in the constitution. All I can tell from you and Bf is that you failed high school level civics.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

It's just ignorance. Corporations are in essence legally created persons. They have rights and obligations. The Supreme Court had no problem requiring disclosure, but you cannot limit their free speach rights. End of story. Some provisions of McCain Feingold are illegal.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Yeah, I think a good read on enumerated powers would be beneficial to many.

 

[Oldandtired]

Corporations should not be classified as a "person". Profit is their only concern, and by any means necessary, and they have more money, power and voice than the rest of us combined. I have a BIG problem with this.

Isn't it most people's individual goal to make a profit as well? I mean, you're not going to work for nothing, right? Most people will take jobs they hate so they can make more money.

I'm a big supporter of campaign reform and would love to see a drastic cut on how much money can be used in campaigns in general, but you can't argue with the ruling on this one; it's unconstitutional to try to legislate how people or businesses spend their money.

Exactly. I hate it but accept it.

I hate many things our consitution does for me....but love others it does for me as well.

I hate the cost of gas, but love the convenience of driving.

WHen are progressives going to realize that you do not compromise the integrity of something so you can ALWAYS get the benefit?

 

[Bern80]

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)

You really don't understand the constitution it seems. Obviously there are more laws on the books than what is specifically listed in the constitution. The standard for those laws is simply that they must not be in violation of anything in the constitution. That a corporation is its own entity and thus has essentially the right as a person is not a violation of the constitution. As such they are etitled to its protections, including free speech.

No Bern, I do understand the Constitution, it is a document written by human beings to protect human beings who are mortal creatures that can be injured or extinguished. It was never designed as a weapon TO injure or extinguish human beings. If THAT is your level of comprehension of what the Constitution was written for then I guess we both loose...

That is a rather faulty intepretation on your part. The document was designed to protect society, period. Why shouldn't business' (which keep in mind could be YOUR business someday) be portected by the constitution?