Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Dante]

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.

People can disagree. There are people who agree with the results of Roe, who also think it makes bad law.

The decision now is the law of the land. The decision was more a political one than a judicially principled one.

It is a rallying cry of the dupes of the GOP that judicial activism is bad for America. If this wasn't judicial activism nothing is or ever was.

The GOP started seeding the courts for this day way back since Ronald Reagan was President.

------

The case... FindLaw | Cases and Codes

 

[Oddball]

Interpretations of law are equally valid.

I was right....You're actually trying to be stupid.

 

[Vast LWC]

Ooh here's a good point...

When combined with the prior SCOTUS ruling on corporate eminent domain a few years back...

Corporations can literally appoint people to steal your property, and then have them hand it over to them!

 

[Vast LWC]

AND, multinational corporations will allow endless funds to be funneled in from foreign entities!

Hello United States of China!

 

[goldcatt]

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.

An obvious fiction based, as you stated, on semantics and not jurisprudence and which was distinguished and eroded over and over again as it relates to political speech through the 20th Century - until now.

 

[Oddball]

Ooh here's a good point...

When combined with the prior SCOTUS ruling on corporate eminent domain a few years back...

Corporations can literally appoint people to steal your property, and then have them hand it over to them!

In that instance the corporation is known as "City of New London".

They didn't need to appoint an outside corporation.

Foo.

 

[Oddball]

An obvious fiction based, as you stated, on semantics and not jurisprudence and which was distinguished and eroded over and over again as it relates to political speech through the 20th Century - until now.

The ruling in Santa Clara is what it is.

I'd be good were it overturned and the 14th Amendment abolished.

 

[goldcatt]

An obvious fiction based, as you stated, on semantics and not jurisprudence and which was distinguished and eroded over and over again as it relates to political speech through the 20th Century - until now.

The ruling in Santa Clara is what it is.

I'd be good were it overturned and the 14th Amendment abolished.

I won't argue with you on Santa Clara.

The 14th is another matter altogether - but that's probably a different thread.

 

[Dante]

It will be interesting to see how much money Big Oil, Drug Companies and the huge Food Combines throw into elections.

Probably a lot, since the federal regulatory apparatus is essentially a huge protection racket.

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings.

"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.

A huge protection racket has just been created. I wonder how much money the Corp interests have pumped into the coffers of the GOP in order to get this flawed and controversial judgement?

If the decision were so right, it would never have been so spilt.

Ignore all you want. Quote the arguments of the proponents of the argument, but remember...there is huge disagreement over this.

Corporations are NOT human beings and the law does not say they are.

 

[Dante]

An obvious fiction based, as you stated, on semantics and not jurisprudence and which was distinguished and eroded over and over again as it relates to political speech through the 20th Century - until now.

The ruling in Santa Clara is what it is.

I'd be good were it overturned and the 14th Amendment abolished.

I won't argue with you on Santa Clara.

The 14th is another matter altogether - but that's probably a different thread.

It was a spilt decision. 5/4. Santa Clara was used by one side. Stay stuck on Santa Clara and you end up pullin' your prick. What Santa Clara says about Corporations being viewed as having the same rights as persons, in some instances, has always open to debate and always will be.

 

[Oddball]

It will be interesting to see how much money Big Oil, Drug Companies and the huge Food Combines throw into elections.

Probably a lot, since the federal regulatory apparatus is essentially a huge protection racket.

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings.

"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.

A huge protection racket has just been created. I wonder how much money the Corp interests have pumped into the coffers of the GOP in order to get this flawed and controversial judgement?

If the decision were so right, it would never have been so spilt.

Ignore all you want. Quote the arguments of the proponents of the argument, but remember...there is huge disagreement over this.

Corporations are NOT human beings and the law does not say they are.

blablablabla

I was right again...You're incapable of embarrassment.

 

[Dante]

Probably a lot, since the federal regulatory apparatus is essentially a huge protection racket.

Justice John Paul Stevens read a long dissent from the bench. He said the majority had committed a grave error in treating corporate speech the same as that of human beings.

"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.

A huge protection racket has just been created. I wonder how much money the Corp interests have pumped into the coffers of the GOP in order to get this flawed and controversial judgement?

If the decision were so right, it would never have been so spilt.

Ignore all you want. Quote the arguments of the proponents of the argument, but remember...there is huge disagreement over this.

Corporations are NOT human beings and the law does not say they are.

blablablabla

I was right again...You're incapable of embarrassment.

You've ignored the argument. You are stuck on stupid as usual.

There has always been debate over what Santa Clara said about corporations having ...sometimes...the rights of people.

 

[Vast LWC]

This overturns 100 years of precedent.

It's a sad, sad day for democracy.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Obama got $200MM from overseas corporations and individuals, why shouldn't American companies have the same ability to buy a candidate?

 

[blu]

doesn't suprise me to see the neocons backing this, they support any raping of 95% of the people by the top 5% of money holders all under their false sense of capitalism

 

[goldcatt]

The ruling in Santa Clara is what it is.

I'd be good were it overturned and the 14th Amendment abolished.

I won't argue with you on Santa Clara.

The 14th is another matter altogether - but that's probably a different thread.

It was a spilt decision. 5/4. Santa Clara was used by one side. Stay stuck on Santa Clara and you end up pullin' your prick. What Santa Clara says about Corporations being viewed as having the same rights as persons, in some instances, has always open to debate and always will be.

The key there is in "some" instances. And in "some" instances it's a necessity.

But they were never seen as full citizens or as enjoying the protection for political speech, only for corporate speech.

 

[Oddball]

This overturns 100 years of precedent.

It's a sad, sad day for democracy.

It upholds 124 years of legal precedent....You just don't like that it didn't go your way.

Foo.

 

[Intense]

AND, multinational corporations will allow endless funds to be funneled in from foreign entities!

Hello United States of China!

I bet Clinton would get a big laugh out of that, both of the Clinton's. LOL That thought really cracks me up!!!


China going Legitimate???

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Does the phrase "Congress shall make no law" mean anything??????

 

[Dante]

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.

never answered whether you agreed with this:
"The Supreme Court never reached the equal protection claims." in Santa Clara.

and

"Nonetheless, this case is sometimes incorrectly cited as holding that corporations, as juristic persons, are protected by the Fourteenth Amendment."