Republicans...meet YOUR daddy

[Chris]

correct me if i'm wrong, but this ruling did not "now" establish corps as persons, this has already been established, this merely elevated their rights to include free speech....

Further the ruling simply puts as back to where we were in 2003 and before.

No, it doesn't.

It overturns 100 years of legal precedent.

The Opus Dei Catholics on the Supreme Court are trying to kill American democracy.

 

[Avatar4321]

correct me if i'm wrong, but this ruling did not "now" establish corps as persons, this has already been established, this merely elevated their rights to include free speech....

Further the ruling simply puts as back to where we were in 2003 and before.

No, it doesn't.

It overturns 100 years of legal precedent.

The Opus Dei Catholics on the Supreme Court are trying to kill American democracy.

McCain is old, but not that old.

 

[Big Fitz]

As was pointed out to me on the Jason Lewis show last week...

....foreign owned persons or corporations are already forbidden from spending money in US elections.

There are many restrictions STILL on who can give to elections. That has not changed.

But thanks for the red herring.

 

[Chris]

As was pointed out to me on the Jason Lewis show last week...

....foreign owned persons or corporations are already forbidden from spending money in US elections.

There are many restrictions STILL on who can give to elections. That has not changed.

But thanks for the red herring.

Sorry, bucko, but you are wrong.

Do foreigners own stock in any American corporations?

 

[Chris]

Although there have been many Supreme Court cases dealing with the subject of corporate personhood, the type of corporate personhood we’ve come to know and loathe today wasn’t the result of an actual decision, but rather was inserted ex post facto. Let me explain.

It started with the 1886 case Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad. In the interest of space, I won’t regurgitate every detail of the trial; however, I would strongly encourage you to look up the decision. You may notice one glaring problem: the written decision makes no mention of corporate personhood whatsoever.

So how did the case end up being cited as legal precedent for corporate personhood? The court reporter, a man by the name of J.C. Bancroft Davis, included in the headlines of his notes a quote by Chief Justice Waite which stated that all the Justices agreed with the idea that the 14th amendment applied equally to corporations.

That’s it.

Because of those extraneous notes, Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad became cited as precedent for what has become our modern conception of corporate personhood. There was no substantive debate on the matter, no written decision, and certainly no legal, moral or philosophical justification for it.

Court Ignores Precedent, Creates Corporate Monster | The Cornell Daily Sun

Rules of copyright and fair use prohibit the copy-n-pasting of entire pieces.

Forum policy on this matter is HERE.

P.S....You know better.

~Dude

 

[Chris]

For on that day five activist Supreme Court justices overturned over 200 years of precedent and previous Court decisions, supplanting democratic government “of the people, by the people, for the people” with a plutocracy dominated by corporations exclusively for their benefit.

The Constitution makes no mention of corporations or corporate “rights,” and deliberately reserves the right of self-government to the people. Thomas Jefferson echoed the common enmity against moneyed corporations challenging the strength of the government. Supreme Court decisions in 1809 and 1819 declared that a corporation is a mere legal entity, an artificial being, and therefore not a citizen. That position was reinforced in 1906 by a decision which declared that the liberty in the 14th Amendment applied to natural persons not inanimate objects, and by subsequent Court decisions in 1938, 1946, 1978, 1990, and as recently as 2003. In 1905, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt called for a ban on all contributions by corporations for any political process.

But just a week ago, five conservative justices, who loudly railed against judicial activism by others, have ignored both that distaste and legal precedent with a decision effectively legalizing corporate rule in America. Their argument is that they are supporting free speech; instead they are actually creating a major threat to free speech. Removing all limitations on corporate campaign spending will allow corporations to open their massive coffers and swamp the election process, putting it totally under their control. Corporations will lavish money on candidates who pledge to do their bidding, and their unmatched reservoirs of money will allow them to buy unlimited television time with potentially distorted messages for their candidate, drowning out the message of any candidate who dares to oppose them.

A day that will live in infamy | PostIndependent.com

 

[Big Fitz]

As was pointed out to me on the Jason Lewis show last week...

....foreign owned persons or corporations are already forbidden from spending money in US elections.

There are many restrictions STILL on who can give to elections. That has not changed.

But thanks for the red herring.

Sorry, bucko, but you are wrong.

Do foreigners own stock in any American corporations?

Read your article. meh. You need to use the quote function when copying from an article.

McCain-Feingold is a piece of crap that should never have been passed in the first place, let alone defended by the supreme court. The whole thing is revolting. Should have been called the Incumbent Preservation Act.

As for the whole cash equals free speech, you can say that fuckup happened in an earlier supreme court decision who made that association.

Now corporations have the same ability as unions, 527s and other PACs, which of course freaks out the leftists.

Personally I have a very hard time believing the conspiracy theory foisted in the article on corporate personhood being given based on essentially a clerical error.

What I find most interesting about this article is who wrote it.

David Murdter is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences.

needless to say... I'm filled with a little incredulity.

 

[Contessa_Sharra]

"This advertisement paid for by Citgo".

Once again, you arrogantly fail to give the average Joe the credit for being as clever as you think you are.

The politically savvy know enough about who owns Citgo that 7-Eleven's gasoline sales were harmed by that knowledge. What makes you think that they won't see through such a mythical ad?

They only think they are savvy, in reality they are stupid.

 

[Chris]

As was pointed out to me on the Jason Lewis show last week...

....foreign owned persons or corporations are already forbidden from spending money in US elections.

There are many restrictions STILL on who can give to elections. That has not changed.

But thanks for the red herring.

Sorry, bucko, but you are wrong.

Do foreigners own stock in any American corporations?

Read your article. meh. You need to use the quote function when copying from an article.

McCain-Feingold is a piece of crap that should never have been passed in the first place, let alone defended by the supreme court. The whole thing is revolting. Should have been called the Incumbent Preservation Act.

As for the whole cash equals free speech, you can say that fuckup happened in an earlier supreme court decision who made that association.

Now corporations have the same ability as unions, 527s and other PACs, which of course freaks out the leftists.

Personally I have a very hard time believing the conspiracy theory foisted in the article on corporate personhood being given based on essentially a clerical error.

What I find most interesting about this article is who wrote it.

David Murdter is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences.

needless to say... I'm filled with a little incredulity.

I would call it naivete.

 

[DiveCon]

As was pointed out to me on the Jason Lewis show last week...

....foreign owned persons or corporations are already forbidden from spending money in US elections.

There are many restrictions STILL on who can give to elections. That has not changed.

But thanks for the red herring.

Sorry, bucko, but you are wrong.

Do foreigners own stock in any American corporations?

you prove you are a fucking idiot once again

 

[DiveCon]

Sorry, bucko, but you are wrong.

Do foreigners own stock in any American corporations?

Read your article. meh. You need to use the quote function when copying from an article.

McCain-Feingold is a piece of crap that should never have been passed in the first place, let alone defended by the supreme court. The whole thing is revolting. Should have been called the Incumbent Preservation Act.

As for the whole cash equals free speech, you can say that fuckup happened in an earlier supreme court decision who made that association.

Now corporations have the same ability as unions, 527s and other PACs, which of course freaks out the leftists.

Personally I have a very hard time believing the conspiracy theory foisted in the article on corporate personhood being given based on essentially a clerical error.

What I find most interesting about this article is who wrote it.

David Murdter is a sophomore in the College of Arts and Sciences.

needless to say... I'm filled with a little incredulity.

I would call it naivete.

because you are a fucking IDIOT

 

[WillowTree]

Didn't think you'd care to go there! Case Closed!

 

[code1211]

The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allows corporations, which are now 'people' the same rights as individuals in their ability to spend freely on political advertising, even if those advertisements explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate.

Meet a 'person'...Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo)
A United States-incorporated, Venezuela-owned refiner and marketer of gasoline, lubricants, petrochemicals, and other petroleum products.

CITGO Timeline - The 1990s
CITGO Becomes Wholly Owned by PDVSA

PDVSA - Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA [pronounced Peh-deh-VEH-sah]) [Petroleums of Venezuela] is the Venezuelan state-owned petroleum company.

Republicans...meet YOUR daddy...he's all YOURS now!

Is that guy behind Chavez Cosmo Kramer?

 

[CMike]

The 5-4 Supreme Court ruling in the Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission allows corporations, which are now 'people' the same rights as individuals in their ability to spend freely on political advertising, even if those advertisements explicitly advocate the election or defeat of a federal candidate.

Meet a 'person'...Citgo Petroleum Corporation (or Citgo)
A United States-incorporated, Venezuela-owned refiner and marketer of gasoline, lubricants, petrochemicals, and other petroleum products.

CITGO Timeline - The 1990s
CITGO Becomes Wholly Owned by PDVSA

PDVSA - Petróleos de Venezuela, S.A. (PDVSA [pronounced Peh-deh-VEH-sah]) [Petroleums of Venezuela] is the Venezuelan state-owned petroleum company.

Republicans...meet YOUR daddy...he's all YOURS now!

That is completely inaccurate.

The ruling was talking about political issues, not political candidates.

I started a thread on this, where I posted the actual ruling.

Liberals consistently never let the truth get in the way of their opinons.

 

[CMike]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/1955580-post1.html

 

[CMike]

For on that day five activist Supreme Court justices overturned over 200 years of precedent and previous Court decisions, supplanting democratic government “of the people, by the people, for the people” with a plutocracy dominated by corporations exclusively for their benefit.

The Constitution makes no mention of corporations or corporate “rights,” and deliberately reserves the right of self-government to the people. Thomas Jefferson echoed the common enmity against moneyed corporations challenging the strength of the government. Supreme Court decisions in 1809 and 1819 declared that a corporation is a mere legal entity, an artificial being, and therefore not a citizen. That position was reinforced in 1906 by a decision which declared that the liberty in the 14th Amendment applied to natural persons not inanimate objects, and by subsequent Court decisions in 1938, 1946, 1978, 1990, and as recently as 2003. In 1905, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt called for a ban on all contributions by corporations for any political process.

But just a week ago, five conservative justices, who loudly railed against judicial activism by others, have ignored both that distaste and legal precedent with a decision effectively legalizing corporate rule in America. Their argument is that they are supporting free speech; instead they are actually creating a major threat to free speech. Removing all limitations on corporate campaign spending will allow corporations to open their massive coffers and swamp the election process, putting it totally under their control. Corporations will lavish money on candidates who pledge to do their bidding, and their unmatched reservoirs of money will allow them to buy unlimited television time with potentially distorted messages for their candidate, drowning out the message of any candidate who dares to oppose them.

A day that will live in infamy | PostIndependent.com

Once again, totally inaccurate, and nothing to do with the actual ruling.

 

[Wry Catcher]

As was pointed out to me on the Jason Lewis show last week...

....foreign owned persons or corporations are already forbidden from spending money in US elections.

There are many restrictions STILL on who can give to elections. That has not changed.

But thanks for the red herring.

Where in the majority opinion is it spelled out that "...foreign owned persons (?) or corporations are already forbidden from spending money in US elections"? What is the difference between GM and Honda? Both build cars in the US, both use American labor (does Honda have contracts with the UAW?), both sell stock to Americans and to investors in other countries, and both (presumably) make political contributions.

 

[LibocalypseNow]

You still have the right to not vote for any candidate who takes money from the "Evil Corporations." No rights have been taken away from you with this ruling. Free Speech is always a tricky issue. This was a Free Speech ruling. It is what it is.

 

[The Rabbi]

As was pointed out to me on the Jason Lewis show last week...

....foreign owned persons or corporations are already forbidden from spending money in US elections.

There are many restrictions STILL on who can give to elections. That has not changed.

But thanks for the red herring.

Where in the majority opinion is it spelled out that "...foreign owned persons (?) or corporations are already forbidden from spending money in US elections"? What is the difference between GM and Honda? Both build cars in the US, both use American labor (does Honda have contracts with the UAW?), both sell stock to Americans and to investors in other countries, and both (presumably) make political contributions.

It isn't spelled out in the decision because American law is clear on the matter. Corporations can not contribute to political campaigns. Period.
Or did you not get that memo?

 

[Big Fitz]

The same way I have the right to not vote for union represented parties.

BTW, since George Soros funds a lot of 527's, and he's not an American, does this mean that those 527's shouldn't be allowed to spend on elections either? oh oh. Bubye ACORN, ACT and Moveon.org.

Nice logic trap there.