Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Dante]

Shit on you dickless.

Just because I understand the ruling doesn't mean I necessarily agree with it.

understanding the ruling is not an issue. ignoring the dissenting opinions is.

stay stuck on stupid, because we all know it is bitchie/boys like you who will complain the most when the shit hist teh fan.

The dissenting opinion is still the dissenting opinion.

You lose, Buckwheat. And you refuse to understand why because you'd rather jump up and down like the spoiled little leftist moonbat brat that you are, than understand how the corporate state works.

Your loss numbnuts.

you were speaking about understanding. your lame attempts to strike out aren't amusing anymore.

The case overturned precedent. It was a very narrow win. It will be revisited at some point. The issue isn't winning or losing...the principe is.

Your hate gets in the way. That and your dope habit.

 

[Navy1960]

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in the contemplation of the law. It posses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it. The opinion of the Court after mature deliberation, is that this is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States." John Marshall

When I see a corporation or a Union walk into the nearest recruiters office and join the military and defend this nation then I will buy the argument that they are on equal footing with people under the constitution. One other thing here, that think this issue is just a free speech issue, think of it this way, Your Boeing and you have a contract your bidding on and need some friendly faces in the Senate and house, do you think that Boeing from this point forward will not exercise that so called free speech for candidates that will be friendly to them over say Lockheed Martin? Or perhaps SEIU wants to do the same for legislators that support getting rid of "right to work laws" or watering them down, do you think that from this point forward they will not exercise their free speech for candidate that support that effort? If not your sadly mistaken.

 

[Avatar4321]

Our Great President George W. Bush is back, even without being in office. With Massachushits and the Supreme Court decision, we can bury the Communist foreigner in the White House. We will now finish our great President Bush's agenda that the Communists stopped in his last two years in office. We will destroy the unions, support our great corporations with getting rid of those Communist regulations and taxes, and we will increase our solidarity contributions to them so they will prosper. Then we will finish off Iran, which our Great Vice President Dick Cheney wanted to do but the terrorist-lovers stopped. Finally, we will abolish the Communist Medicare and Socialist Security. Our corporations will help us privatize the highways, water systems and all of that, because free enterprise will always do what's right. God bless America. We will take back American from Barney Franke.

You do realize that Bush signed McCain Fiengold right? or area you just stupid?

 

[Oddball]

you were speaking about understanding. your lame attempts to strike out aren't amusing anymore.

The case overturned precedent. It was a very narrow win. It will be revisited at some point. The issue isn't winning or losing...the principe is.

Your hate gets in the way. That and your dope habit.

It overturned neither the 14th Amendment nor the Santa Clara ruling.

You're conveniently ignoring the legal precedents and laws of the land and projecting so you can throw your little leftist whacko hissy fit.

Better you than me.

 

[Avatar4321]

Meaning that shareholders could have the corporation hire someone for a hell of a lot of money, have that person kill whomever they wanted, and only the mass murderer and possibly the CEO would be liable, allowing the shareholders to get off scott free to start up another corporation.

This has got to be the dumbest scenario I've ever heard. Could you please cite an instance of this ever occuring?

It happens ALL THE TIME.

Corporations are constantly killing people through pollution of land, pollution of water supplies, harmful products being sold without testing.

And if a corporation is found to be criminally liable, meaning they did it on purpose to cut costs, none of the stockholders are held accountable.

At most the corporation faces a fine, or a civil settlement, and then MAYBE, once in a blue moon, some CEO goes to jail.

So you're saying that corporations hire hitmen to commit mass murder ALL THE TIME?????

You do realize that corporations dont actually have a mind of their own dont you?

 

[Dante]

Ya lets just have the Supreme Court ignore the LAW cause you guys don't like the results. Sounds familiar, that is why the Constitution is in tatters cause Congress has ignored it since at least 1936.

Activist judges favoring corporate interests? The true litmus test of the last four decades.

Thank you Ronald Reagan.

The law is clear. Congress can not just usurp rights. Dude has already provided you with the basis of the law involved.

The basis of the law stood for a century. Bad decisions will and are overturned. This one will be.

You cannot argue so well with the dissenting opinion, so you just stuck your head in the sand.

an argument made at wikipedia...

Decision

The court's actual decision was uncontroversial. A unanimous decision issued by Justice ruled on the matter of fences -- in that the state of California illegally included the fences running beside the tracks in its assessment of the total value of the railroad's property. As a result, the county could not collect taxes from Southern Pacific that it was not allowed to collect in the first place.

The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Significance
As such, it did not technically - in the view of most legal historians - have any legal precedential value.[14] However, the Supreme Court is not required by Constitution or even precedent to limit its rulings to written statements.

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."

Justices disagree all the time on the meanings of things. This ruling is not only flawed., it was a political fight for the Corporations, fought by the GOP.

This ruling will be overturned at some point.

 

[blu]

whoever supports this shit really hates the country. hundreds of millions will be now be used to legally bribe officials and there isn't shit you can do about it. voting is now only useful for the exercise

 

[Oddball]

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in the contemplation of the law. It posses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it. The opinion of the Court after mature deliberation, is that this is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States." John Marshall

That was spoken before the advent of the 14th Amendment and the Santa Clara ruling.

Even though I agree with the sentiment expressed, the law of the land has stood that America on its head.

 

[Dante]

you were speaking about understanding. your lame attempts to strike out aren't amusing anymore.

The case overturned precedent. It was a very narrow win. It will be revisited at some point. The issue isn't winning or losing...the principe is.

Your hate gets in the way. That and your dope habit.

It overturned neither the 14th Amendment nor the Santa Clara ruling.

You're conveniently ignoring the legal precedents and laws of the land and projecting so you can throw your little leftist whacko hissy fit.

Better you than me.

I'm not ignoring those things and neither are 4 Justices.


then again, your great legal mind...

 

[Annie]

Activist judges favoring corporate interests? The true litmus test of the last four decades.

Thank you Ronald Reagan.

The law is clear. Congress can not just usurp rights. Dude has already provided you with the basis of the law involved.

The basis of the law stood for a century. Bad decisions will and are overturned. This one will be.

You cannot argue so well with the dissenting opinion, so you just stuck your head in the sand.

an argument made at wikipedia...

Decision

The court's actual decision was uncontroversial. A unanimous decision issued by Justice ruled on the matter of fences -- in that the state of California illegally included the fences running beside the tracks in its assessment of the total value of the railroad's property. As a result, the county could not collect taxes from Southern Pacific that it was not allowed to collect in the first place.

The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

Significance
As such, it did not technically - in the view of most legal historians - have any legal precedential value.[14] However, the Supreme Court is not required by Constitution or even precedent to limit its rulings to written statements.

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."

Justices disagree all the time on the meanings of things. This ruling is not only flawed., it was a political fight for the Corporations, fought by the GOP.

This ruling will be overturned at some point.

Bad decisions? Bad law? Bad law is Roe v Wade. Bad decisions: Plessy.

 

[Oddball]

whoever supports this shit really hates the country. hundreds of millions will be now be used to legally bribe officials and there isn't shit you can do about it. voting is now only useful for the exercise

Really?

What if the corporation known as "New York Times" endorses a political candidate?

Cuts both ways, dude.

 

[del]

Apparently not the conglomerates, you chattering chimp.

See my prior post.

yeah, verizon et al have no influence over the feds now.

this will change everything.

del, the influence will be over the electoral process. Do you think the corporate interests care about what is good for Americans or democracy?

What about foreign based multinationals? Do they get to speak with money in our elections? Never before has a Democratic or Republican appointed court side so much with the corporations against the interests of the people.

"Corporations are not human beings. They can't vote and can't run for office," Stevens said, and should be subject to restrictions under the election laws.

do you really think that the corps, including the multis, don't influence the electoral process now?

i don't. if i did, i'd feel differently about this.

 

[Avatar4321]

The framers had no fucking idea what a private corporation or multinational corp was.

They knew what government backed business interests were...that founded the colonies, and they gave no rights to them. Why? They didn't consider the monied infulences of businesses to be speech

Corporations have existed since the 14th century. Im pretty sure they knew what they were.

I also am pretty sure when they said Congress shall pass no law abridging the freedom of speech, they meant it.

 

[Alpha1]

I cant believe people are happy with corporations having more influence on an election than any voters.

What bullshit....

Media Corporations, as in, MSNBC featuring Kieth Olbernman have free speech and air left wing propaganda on a nightly basis....so why not give the same freedom of speech to non media corporations.....

 

[Baruch Menachem]

The colonists did know about multinational corporations. That was the big grievance that the tea party in 1774 was all about. the government sold a monopoly on several products (not just tea, but that is the one that got the most agnst for some reason)

Madison and Adams and Jefferson knew all about corporations abusing their ability to grab the ear of the governing class. Washington's letters were full of grief over the problems he had with monopoly power granted byt the state over those who had no voice.


Still, freedom of speech is freedom of speech. Not just I get to talk and you get to listen

 

[Oddball]

The framers had no fucking idea what a private corporation or multinational corp was.

They knew what government backed business interests were...that founded the colonies, and they gave no rights to them. Why? They didn't consider the monied infulences of businesses to be speech

Good God...You have to be this fucking stupid on purpose.

Dutch East India Company was established in 1602. Adam Smith wrote extensively about corporations in "Wealth of Nations", which was published in 1776.

Do you possess the ability for embarrassment?

 

[goldcatt]

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in the contemplation of the law. It posses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it. The opinion of the Court after mature deliberation, is that this is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States." John Marshall

That was spoken before the advent of the 14th Amendment and the Santa Clara ruling.

Even though I agree with the sentiment expressed, the law of the land has stood that America on its head.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it. Nobody in any court at any time has ruled that legal constructs have full citizenship rights. Santa Clara was not overturned, but was being eroded slowly over time by the multple lines of cases drawing and highlighting the distinctions between corporate and political speech.

All I can say is if any of the Justices who voted for this or the people cheering it on claim to be Originalist, they don't have the slightest understanding what the term means.

 

[Modbert]

Either way you look at it, whether you agree with it or not, Pandora's Box has been opened. The floodgates have been sprung and the results are going to be devastating.

 

[Dante]

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in the contemplation of the law. It posses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it. The opinion of the Court after mature deliberation, is that this is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States." John Marshall

That was spoken before the advent of the 14th Amendment and the Santa Clara ruling.

Even though I agree with the sentiment expressed, the law of the land has stood that America on its head.

Interpretations of law are equally valid.

How do you disagree with this statement:

The court's actual decision was uncontroversial. A unanimous decision issued by Justice ruled on the matter of fences -- in that the state of California illegally included the fences running beside the tracks in its assessment of the total value of the railroad's property. As a result, the county could not collect taxes from Southern Pacific that it was not allowed to collect in the first place.

The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims. Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[Oddball]

"A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible and existing only in the contemplation of the law. It posses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it. The opinion of the Court after mature deliberation, is that this is a contract, the obligation of which cannot be impaired without violating the Constitution of the United States." John Marshall

That was spoken before the advent of the 14th Amendment and the Santa Clara ruling.

Even though I agree with the sentiment expressed, the law of the land has stood that America on its head.

The 14th Amendment has nothing to do with it. Nobody in any court at any time has ruled that legal constructs have full citizenship rights. Santa Clara was not overturned, but was being eroded slowly over time by the multple lines of cases drawing and highlighting the distinctions between corporate and political speech.

All I can say is if any of the Justices who voted for this or the people cheering it on claim to be Originalist, they don't have the slightest understanding what the term means.

The 14th Amendment has everything to do with it, as the key component in Santa Clara was the semantic distinction of the word "person" as it relates to corporate strawmen and equal protection.