Activist GOP Court Reveals True GOP Agenda

Procrustes Stretched

And you say, "Oh my God, am I here all alone?"
Dec 1, 2008
60,271
7,487
1,840
Positively 4th Street
Why the GOP has fought for a century for states' rights and the rights of corporations to spend money to influence who gets elected.

It all began with Teddy Roosevelt:
Corporate regulations
Corporate Interests, States Rights and the GOP Plan
In the Eighth Annual Message to Congress (1908), Teddy Roosevelt mentioned the need for federal government to regulate interstate corporations using the Interstate Commerce Clause, also mentioning how these corporations fought federal control by appealing to states' rights. See link here: ...'Corporate Regulations'....

...and it has ended here:

The recent decision by the shills for corporate interest on the US Supreme Court (SCOTUS),
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr, and Justices Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel A. Alito Jr., have overturned a century old understanding that a corporation is not equal in totality to a citizen. Corporations cannot vote and cannot run for political office. Corporations, through money contributions to individual politicians, political campaigns and money given to political parties, can only influence elections for or against the interests of the people. Corporations do not have the interests of the people at heart, best or worst. Corporations have the interests of corporations at heart. Corporations are nothing but a corrupt influence on the system. If this is true (do you deny it?), why has the GOP fought for a century for states' rights and no restrictions on corporate donations?

I am not arguing the case for or against the SCOTUS decision here. That is being done elsewhere at USMB, link here: ...Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits... I am pointing out that what the GOP shills on the SCOTUS have done is reveal what has been a GOP and Corporate wet dream for a century: to go back to the days before President Theodore (Teddy) Roosevelt, where corporations actually ran the show. The business of American back then was more than ever, bought and paid for. More so then, than many today it now is. For close to a century, the GOP and the corporate interests, had no way to take back and further their goals. To go back to 'the good old days.'

Under the Democratic Party leadership of America, from the days after Teddy Roosevelt, up to the Presidency of Jimmy Carter and the Congress of House Speaker Tip O'Neil, there was no way for the Corporate interests controlling the GOP to further their goals. So they came up with a plan. Get onto the courts.

For close to a century, the Corporate interests controlling the GOP couldn't stack the courts in their favor. To further their goals. The Corporate interests needed to elect a dupe or willing President, along with a willing Congress. So they came up with another plan: widen the GOP base. How to do that? Southern strategy and culture wars.

The GOP under the corporate interests, ended up going with Southerners upset and baffled and scared of the changes civil rights legislation brought about in their home towns and states. Most of these southerners were Democrats; many were racists; some were principled, but they all had one thing in common. Being duped by the corporate interests controlling the GOP.

The Corporate Shills at the GOP also went into culture wars, where people who were confused, angry, bewildered and upset at the changes progress always brings to a culture (think: Luddites...), were open to voices that told them 'we can go back'..back to a way things never were. Back to a time in mind only: Reagan's America.

Today American businesses swear no allegiance (if they ever did) to America. More than a few corporations have recently hinted at leaving the US for safer havens overseas because of differing views on what corporations owe back to America. Corporations these days are not really American, or Israeli, or German anymore. They are multinational. They owe no allegiance to any one nation. Their allegiance is to profit and profit alone. Profit at the expense of America, or Germany or Israel...doesn't matter. Power and Profit.

Because of this long quest, this long road back to power, the decision by the SCOTUS now allows multinational corporations based in America (and ones based in foreign countries), all with no allegiance whatsoever to Americans or their interests, to exert their influence and power over politicians and elections more than ever. More than ever in the history of America.

The GOP led Courts, The GOP led Congresses, and the GOP Presidents of the last 30 year, have done all they could to weaken the hold American citizens have on their own government and electoral politics. The Corporate, GOP led team attempted what was one of the most shameful attempts in American business history...to sell off American ports...
REPORT: Oman Trade Pact Permits Foreign Ownership of U.S. Nat’l Security Assets

In an explosive report tonight, top House Democrats discovered provisions in the controversial Oman Free Trade Agreement that would permit foreign ownership of U.S. ports and other key national security assets. Three Democrats and one Republican held an emergency press conference today to expose the provisions just before the House is scheduled to vote on the Oman pact on Thursday. As Reuters reports, "Rep. John Murtha, a Pennsylvania Democrat who serves on the House Defense Appropriations subcommittee, said the pact would allow companies such as Dubai Ports World to acquire U.S. port operations by establishing a shell company in Oman." Those provisions might also allow foreign ownership of other key national security assets, considering just after the recent Dubai Ports controversy, that country went ahead with plans to purchase a major U.S. defense contractor.

Last month, lawmakers from both parties in the U.S. Senate joined hands to pass the Oman Free Trade Agreement - which is being pushed aggressively by the Bush administration and its largest corporate donors. Lawmakers ignored major labor, human rights and environmental objections to the pact put forward by more than 400 union, religious and consumer groups. Among those voting for the pact in the Senate were Mike DeWine (R-OH) and Joe Lieberman (D-CT), two Senators facing tough re-election bids who could face renewed criticism in their home states that they have sold out their constituents.
-clue: why did the GOP have such a hard-on for Murtha? Did he upset his former military/corporate friends by protecting the sovereignty and safety of the American public?

I do know that many will disbelieve what I have written since it challenges the world view of many of us. We've been brainwashed for decades. We have been fed false idols like Ronald Reagan, a good and decent man, but not a very deep thinker. A man who switched back and forth between parties and ideas like a bowl of jello in the hands of a child.

We've been fed the notion that American based companies are American, that they have the same rights as citizens, that they do what is best for America.

We have been fed bullshit and told it was filet mignon.

What will the GOP spin be? What will the next few election cycles bring about? Will Americans be further disenfranchised by faceless and careless corporate interests? Will any of us be happy with what the Corporate interests get the GOP to do? What good will it all be if after passing a few conservative culture war legislative acts, the country gets sold to the highest foreign or multinational bidder?

Dante Speaketh
:cool:
---------

History of House Leadership:
The power of the Speaker was greatly augmented during the tenure of the Republican Thomas Brackett Reed (1889–1891 and 1895–1899). "Czar Reed," as he was called by his opponents,[3] sought to end the obstruction of bills by the minority, in particular by countering the tactic known as the "disappearing quorum".[4] By refusing to vote on a motion, the minority could ensure that a quorum would not be achieved, and that the result would be invalid. Reed, however, declared that members who were in the chamber but refused to vote would still count for the purposes of determining a quorum. Through these and other rulings, Reed ensured that the Democrats could not block the Republican agenda.

The Speakership reached its apogee during the term of Republican Joseph Gurney Cannon (1903–1911). Cannon exercised extraordinary control over the legislative process; he determined the agenda of the House, appointed the members of all committees, chose committee chairmen, headed the Rules Committee, and determined which committee heard each bill. He vigorously used his powers to ensure that the proposals of the Republican Party were passed by the House. In 1910, however, Democrats and several dissatisfied Republicans joined together to strip the Speaker of many of his powers, including the ability to name committee members and chairmanship of the Rules Committee. Much—but not all—of the lost influence of the position was restored over fifteen years later by Speaker Nicholas Longworth.


Joseph Gurney Cannon is often considered the most powerful Speaker in the history of the House.

The middle of the 20th century saw the service of one of the most influential Speakers in history, Democrat Sam Rayburn.[5] Rayburn was the longest serving Speaker in history, holding office from 1940 to 1947, 1949 to 1953, and 1955 to 1961. He helped shape many bills, working quietly in the background with House committees. He also helped ensure the passage of several domestic measures and foreign assistance programs advocated by Presidents Franklin D. Roosevelt and Harry Truman.

Rayburn's successor, Democrat John William McCormack (served 1962–1971), was a somewhat less influential Speaker, particularly because of dissent from younger members of the Democratic Party. During the mid-1970s, the power of the Speakership once again grew under Democrat Carl Albert. The Committee on Rules ceased to be a semi-independent panel, as it had been since the Revolt of 1910; instead, it once again became an arm of the party leadership. Moreover, in 1975, the Speaker was granted the authority to appoint a majority of the members of the Rules Committee. Meanwhile, the power of committee chairmen was curtailed, further increasing the relative influence of the Speaker.

Albert's successor, Democrat Tip O'Neill, was a prominent Speaker because of his public opposition to the policies of President Ronald Reagan. O'Neill is the longest-serving Speaker without a break (1977 through 1987).

He challenged Reagan on domestic programs and on defense expenditures. Republicans made O'Neill the target of their election campaigns in 1980 and 1982; nevertheless, Democrats managed to retain their majorities in both years.

The roles of the parties were reversed in 1994, when the Republicans regained control of the House after spending forty years in the minority. Republican Speaker Newt Gingrich regularly clashed with Democratic President Bill Clinton; in particular, Gingrich's "Contract with America" was a source of contention.

Gingrich was ousted in 1998 when the Republican Party fared poorly in the congressional elections—although retaining a small majority—his successor, Dennis Hastert, played a much less prominent role. In the 2006 midterm elections, the Democrats won majority of the House.

Nancy Pelosi became the Speaker when the 110th Congress convened on January 4, 2007, making her the first female Speaker. Pelosi was, from the beginning, an influential and powerful Speaker,[citation needed] and the main leader of the opposition to the Republican George W. Bush administration.

With the election of Barack Obama and a more Democratic Congress (races in which she played an influential role) Pelosi became the leader of the nation's most prominent reforms, including financial measures and health care reform. Bush Presidency veteran Karl Rove has referred to her tenure so far as an "iron reign".[6]
Speaker of the United States House of Representatives - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and the prototype neocon, not an old line conservative.

Also, the democrats are just as big of willing slaves to the corporatized welfare/warfare/nanny/police state as are the republicans.

Despite all your shrieking bluster to the contrary, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the remocrats and depublicans, moonbat.
 
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and the prototype neocon, not an old line conservative.

Also, the democrats are just as big of willing slaves to the corporatized welfare/warfare/nanny/police state as are the republicans.

Despite all your shrieking bluster to the contrary, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the remocrats and depublicans, moonbat.

I didn't say what Teddy was. I apologize for any confusion. Teddy started the ball rolling getting corporate interests out of the election process.

Under the Democrats there were no judges nominated who advocated the agenda of the corporate interests. None that I am aware of. DO you know of any?

I am not arguing that Democrats did NOT take corp. money. That would be an insane stance for even a fool to take. The Democratic party used and was used by the Corporate interests, but there were NO attempts by the Democratic party to stack the courts with corp friendly judges. None that I know of. Do you know of any?

When it comes to the decision handed down today there is a world of difference between what the two parties advocate.

I am not a moonbat, but you are definitely a dupe of a wingnut. The decision was 5/4.
Three of the 4 Justices opposing corporate interests in polluting the election process were Democratic appointments. One was a Republican appointed by President Gerald Ford, the unelected President. President Ford nominated John Paul Stevens as an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court in 1975 to replace Justice William O. Douglas, The supreme Liberal of his time.

The stacking of the court with judges shilling for the Corporations began under President Ronald Reagan. That is a fact.
 
Yeah, you are a moonbat.

Anyone who seriously plays the trite Hegelian "my elitist corporate toadies can beat up your elitist corporate toadies" game definitely has several screws loose.

And quit PM-ing me....I don't want to go to the prom with you.
 
Yeah, you are a moonbat.

Anyone who seriously plays the trite Hegelian "my elitist corporate toadies can beat up your elitist corporate toadies" game definitely has several screws loose.

And quit PM-ing me....I don't want to go to the prom with you.
Quit sending me love vibes. I wouldn't go to the prom with you if my life depended upon it. I hear scabies and crabs might be good for Dudes, I'll pass.

I pm-ed you once. I asked you about being a believer in the corp agenda.


No one is playing a game like you imagine. It is clear: You are a dupe. You are deaf, dumber than dumb, and blind.
 
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and the prototype neocon, not an old line conservative.

Also, the democrats are just as big of willing slaves to the corporatized welfare/warfare/nanny/police state as are the republicans.

Despite all your shrieking bluster to the contrary, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the remocrats and depublicans, moonbat.

i really need to read ALL POSTS before posting ;)

BTW Dude is right about Teddy.

DanteNell you need to try another angle to attack the "GOP" with ;)
 
Last edited:
And BTW, yu asshats seem to have no problem with special interests like unions buying off candidates, like Obama.
 
Weird post.

All the court said was that the 1st Amendment still applies, even to people you don't care for.

Way back in the day, it was obvious it wasn't going to survive.


The court did say it was perfectly acceptable to require disclosure. Which is what should have happened, and I think still still should happen. Candidates who get more than 12 percent from a single source, should disclose that fact. Any advertisement that gets money from a single place should be obliged to report that.

As in "This add was 30% paid for by Screw You Corp."
 
Well, Even Obama's COS said the other day that the 1st AMendment was "highly overrated"
 
Teddy Roosevelt was a progressive and the prototype neocon, not an old line conservative.

Also, the democrats are just as big of willing slaves to the corporatized welfare/warfare/nanny/police state as are the republicans.

Despite all your shrieking bluster to the contrary, there's not a dime's worth of difference between the remocrats and depublicans, moonbat.

i really need to read ALL POSTS before posting ;)

BTW Dude is right about Teddy.

DanteNell you need to try another angle to attack the "GOP" with ;)

Not really. The GOP has claimed for a few decades, that it is not in the pockets of Big Biz. They will talk about how Democrats..when in power....take corporate monies. Fair enough....but taking their money and doing their bidding in the courts is all together a different kind of animal.

The 5 justices who did this crime, come out of a school of judicial activism that had this kind of activism as a litmus test.
 
Weird post.

All the court said was that the 1st Amendment still applies, even to people you don't care for.

Way back in the day, it was obvious it wasn't going to survive.


The court did say it was perfectly acceptable to require disclosure. Which is what should have happened, and I think still still should happen. Candidates who get more than 12 percent from a single source, should disclose that fact. Any advertisement that gets money from a single place should be obliged to report that.

As in "This add was 30% paid for by Screw You Corp."
The ACLU says this kind of thing all the time. Yet people attack the ACLU for it's principles.

The first amendment is said here to apply to non persons. The courts had ruled that a corp was a person IN SOME INSTANCES.
Justice William O. Douglas wrote in 1949, "the Santa Clara case becomes one of the most momentous of all our decisions.. Corporations were now armed with constitutional prerogatives."

Justice Hugo Black wrote "in 1886, this Court in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, decided for the first time that the word 'person' in the amendment did in some instances include corporations...The history of the amendment proves that the people were told that its purpose was to protect weak and helpless human beings and were not told that it was intended to remove corporations in any fashion from the control of state governments...The language of the amendment itself does not support the theory that it was passed for the benefit of corporations."
I believe that decision to be wrong. And I believe the interpretation that allows the decision to apply here is wrong.

Unlike Dude, the dope...I am not ignoring things. I understand the Santa Clara case..I just disagree how to apply what it means....as do many lawyers, academics and intellectuals.

The issue of this is addressed in the minority opinion.
 
"Activist GOP Court Reveals True GOP Agenda"

ROFLMAO! now I've seen it all, progressives complaining about activist courts? what's next on the progressive whine list, bitching about too much government interference in the free market?

I guess that's new progressive plan, now that the American People have seen them for the repugnant people they really are they're going to put on a new disguise and pretend to be libertarians.. :D
 
And BTW, yu asshats seem to have no problem with special interests like unions buying off candidates, like Obama.

Buying off Obama? When Bill Clinton left office, he made over a hundred and seven million dollars in speaking fees. THAT'S ONE MILLION TIMES ONE HUNDRED PLUS SEVEN MILLION.

Which is why it was so stupid for Republicans to spend 40 million dollars in taxpayer money to keep going after him and finding nothing except Monica giving him BJs.

Obama will make three times that much AT LEAST. Yet Republicans accuse him of being "bought off"?

Gawd you guys are dumb.
 
"Activist GOP Court Reveals True GOP Agenda"

ROFLMAO! now I've seen it all, progressives complaining about activist courts? what's next on the progressive whine list, bitching about too much government interference in the free market?

I guess that's new progressive plan, now that the American People have seen them for the repugnant people they really are they're going to put on a new disguise and pretend to be libertarians.. :D
Actually, Ruprecht likes to stomp his feet over the supposedly "free market" fostered be the Federal Reserve.

He's one lefty moonbat who's truly in his own little world.
 
"Activist GOP Court Reveals True GOP Agenda"

ROFLMAO! now I've seen it all, progressives complaining about activist courts? what's next on the progressive whine list, bitching about too much government interference in the free market?

I guess that's new progressive plan, now that the American People have seen them for the repugnant people they really are they're going to put on a new disguise and pretend to be libertarians.. :D

I am not a progressive. I am only pointing out that the conservatives rallying cry has been against activist courts.

Liberals like me are not libertarians pretending to be anything.

The decision today was twisted into a coherent argument by 5 Corporate Shills. 5 corp shills who are all GOP appointments since the days of Reagan.

The contract on America has been fulfilled.
:cool:

Just make sure you don't go smoke some dope with that Dude guy. I hear he has roman hands when one is under the influence around him. :eusa_whistle:
 

Forum List

Back
Top