CDZ Ruth Bader Ginsburg says her “impossible dream” is for Citizens United to be overturned

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
1,816
Reaction score
1,532
Points
1,908
With all the partisan discussion about replacing RBG, and Trump’s Biden-like promise that he will propose a conservative WOMAN, we forget other issues arguably more important.

While the media has emphasized RBG’s life and quotes about men and women and equal rights, it has barely touched on the eternal tendency of the Supreme Court to revert to being a gathering of old CORPORATE LAWYERS and trained pro-corporate jurists. Here we see another side of RBG — she was no radical on issues of “We the People” vs. “We the Corporations” government, but she at least saw the problem.

In July 2016 — even before Trump’s nomination — she expressed her (justified) pessimism that our system could rouse itself out of its stupor to realize her “impossible dream” that “the people” could wrench power from the corporations on even such a relatively narrow issue as direct campaign finance:


“Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has an ‘impossible dream’: Before she leaves the Court, she would like to see Citizens United v. FEC – the 2010 Supreme Court decision that removed the cap on outside spending on elections – overturned. It won’t happen," Ginsburg told the New York Times when asked what she would like done while on the Court. ‘It would be an impossible dream. But I’d love to see Citizens United overruled.’...

“It’s a hot-button issue. The ruling slackened restrictions on outside groups’ political expenditures, paving the way for Super PACs to accept unlimited contributions.“

Ruth Bader Ginsburg says her "impossible dream" is for Citizens United to be overturned

I’m no expert on Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s court rulings on corporate rights or her larger economic views. I assume they were in the main quite acceptable to Wall Street and pro-capitalist. Though basically a “liberal reformer” by ordinary standards, she is sometimes denounced as a “communist” by ultra-right-wing nuts. I personally agree with the view that the courts are not the place in which fundamental economic decisions can or should be made, especially when popular or Congressional will is lacking. What do people think of RBG’s attitude toward “Citizen’s United” and similar issues?
 
Last edited:

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
19,772
Reaction score
3,394
Points
215
Probably one of the worst decisions the SC ever handed down. If you want to see money removed from politics, this is not the way to do it.
C.U. didn't remove money from politics. The law that was overturned tried to allow some to participate while shutting others out.

People still were allowed to give millions and millions to campaigns and the parties.
 

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,785
Reaction score
935
Points
140
Corporations are obviously not persons.
Money is obviously not speech.
Hopelessly corrupt billionaires and self-hating corporate shills argue otherwise.

 

pknopp

Gold Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2019
Messages
19,772
Reaction score
3,394
Points
215
Corporations are obviously not persons.
Money is obviously not speech.
Hopelessly corrupt billionaires and self-hating corporate shills argue otherwise.

Corporations were still allowed to give money to the candidates and the parties. Politicians simply wanted to be able to control the message. They were fine with them getting the money and controlling the messages. What they didn't want was money spent that they could not control.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,452
Points
2,165
The "impossible dream" will come true if the Dems sweep the WH and both chambers of Congress.

The Dems will stack the court, too, and push through NPV.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,482
Reaction score
22,012
Points
2,180
Probably one of the worst decisions the SC ever handed down. If you want to see money removed from politics, this is not the way to do it.

Wrong......money is speech....it allows people to express their views.....the ones who want to limit money are the ones in power who can use their offices to their advantage and keep poor, outsiders from being a threat......

This was one of the best decisions by the Supreme Court.....it protects Free Speech from entrenched, slimy politicians.
 

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,482
Reaction score
22,012
Points
2,180
Corporations are obviously not persons.
Money is obviously not speech.
Hopelessly corrupt billionaires and self-hating corporate shills argue otherwise.


Corporations are made up of collections of people who have a Right to petition the government just like everyone else.....and money is Speech when you have to pay for ads, and halls, and everything else to get your "speech" out there.........anyone who says differently is supporting the politicians who are in power keeping their power ....
 

bear513

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 21, 2012
Messages
60,814
Reaction score
9,695
Points
2,030
Corporations are obviously not persons.
Money is obviously not speech.
Hopelessly corrupt billionaires and self-hating corporate shills argue otherwise.

Money talks , bullshit walks.

Of course money is free speech and corporation is made up of people who have a collective voice
 
Last edited:

justinacolmena

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 9, 2017
Messages
2,864
Reaction score
637
Points
140
Location
alaska, usa
Money talks , bullshit walks.
Whenever you need such an expensive defense attorney to get out of jail, there had better be some significant civil liability for all the slander, libel, false arrests, malicious prosecutions, mental health insinuations, and endless denials and confiscations of guns, passports, and birth certificates.
 

JakeStarkey

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 10, 2009
Messages
168,037
Reaction score
16,452
Points
2,165
Not to get excited, Bush92: that won't happen again. This RBG death only helps the Dems and that a lot
 
Last edited:
OP
Tom Paine 1949

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
1,816
Reaction score
1,532
Points
1,908
Wrong......money is speech....
If “money is speech,” and the Constitution guarantees “free speech,” does that mean the Constitution guarantees us all ... “free money” ???

Forgive my wise-guy retort, but I could think of nothing else considering the low level of argument here.

From the rise of great trusts and interstate corporations in the last decades of the 19th Century there was a public awareness that corporate big money could corrupt “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” That awareness is now being lost. The “populist” and “progressive” anti-trust movements of earlier generations of Americans were widely influential. That is why federal laws were passed from the start of the 20th Century to try to limit the corrupting influence of corporate money in political elections.

Of course such corporations were originally given special legal rights in state charters, but these corporations were supposed to fill an economic and never a political purpose. Today corporate trained lawyers and corporate money dominates the country almost completely, be it through the military industrial complex or Wall Street or in elections to state and federal government. Corporations’ “personhood” has been extended from original narrow chartered purposes (for economic corporations primarily legal rights to sue and engage in contracts) to embrace even real people’s “liberty rights” and “political rights.” The failure to separate these more clearly in law is at the root of many problems of our society.
 
Last edited:

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
83,482
Reaction score
22,012
Points
2,180
Wrong......money is speech....
If “money is speech,” and the Constitution guarantees “free speech,” does that mean the Constitution guarantees us all ... “free money” ???

Forgive my wise-guy retort, but I could think of nothing else considering the low level of discussion here.

From the rise of great trusts and interstate corporations in the last decades of the 19th Century there was a public awareness that corporate big money could corrupt “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” That awareness is now being lost. The “populist” and “progressive” anti-trust movements of earlier generations of Americans were widely influential. That is why federal laws were passed from the start of the 20th Century to try to limit the corrupting influence of corporate money in political elections.

Of course such corporations were originally given special legal rights in state charters, but these corporations were supposed to fill an economic and never a political purpose. Today corporate trained lawyers and corporate money dominates the country almost completely, be it through the military industrial complex or Wall Street or in elections to state and federal government. Corporations’ “personhood” has been extended from original narrow chartered purposes (for economic corporations primarily legal rights to sue and engage in contracts) to embrace even real people’s “liberty rights” and “political rights.” The failure to separate these more clearly in law is at the root of many problems of our society.

You are just wrong....... corporations are composed of people...people have the right to free assembly and the Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances....you can't say they can't act as a group simply because they are a corporation.....that is unConstitutional.

Money is like bullets for a gun.....a gun can't be a gun without bullets, and you can't exercise free speech if the government can limit how much freedom you have to spend money to support your cause.....
 
OP
Tom Paine 1949

Tom Paine 1949

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 15, 2020
Messages
1,816
Reaction score
1,532
Points
1,908
Wrong......money is speech....
If “money is speech,” and the Constitution guarantees “free speech,” does that mean the Constitution guarantees us all ... “free money” ???

Forgive my wise-guy retort, but I could think of nothing else considering the low level of discussion here.

From the rise of great trusts and interstate corporations in the last decades of the 19th Century there was a public awareness that corporate big money could corrupt “government of the people, by the people and for the people.” That awareness is now being lost. The “populist” and “progressive” anti-trust movements of earlier generations of Americans were widely influential. That is why federal laws were passed from the start of the 20th Century to try to limit the corrupting influence of corporate money in political elections.

Of course such corporations were originally given special legal rights in state charters, but these corporations were supposed to fill an economic and never a political purpose. Today corporate trained lawyers and corporate money dominates the country almost completely, be it through the military industrial complex or Wall Street or in elections to state and federal government. Corporations’ “personhood” has been extended from original narrow chartered purposes (for economic corporations primarily legal rights to sue and engage in contracts) to embrace even real people’s “liberty rights” and “political rights.” The failure to separate these more clearly in law is at the root of many problems of our society.
You are just wrong....... corporations are composed of people...people have the right to free assembly and the Right to petition the government for a redress of grievances....you can't say they can't act as a group simply because they are a corporation.....that is unConstitutional.

Money is like bullets for a gun.....a gun can't be a gun without bullets, and you can't exercise free speech if the government can limit how much freedom you have to spend money to support your cause.....
Corporations are LEGAL persons under the law, given specific rights — but not all rights of living breathing citizens. Every corporate lawyer understands this perfectly.

The allowed rights (and power) of legal (fictional) corporate “persons” has expanded mightily since the early 20th century. Corporations are by definition legal entities granted specific rights, NOT simply “groups of citizens” gathered for political purposes like a political party or for religious purposes like a Church.

There are many legal classifications of different kinds of corporations — profit seeking and non-profit being just two — which are already treated very differently under law, for tax purposes, etc.

The great majority of the most powerful corporations which issue stock have thousands or even millions of non-citizen shareholders who obviously are not entitled to vote or allowed to freely influence elections.

Ordinary stockholders/investors/savers/retirees, just as the workers in corporations or the communities in which they function, have no effective influence over corporate management’s use of their money in politics, or even over CEO salaries.

The corrupting influence of corporations, as of immensely rich individuals, over our political system, has long been recognized by law. It was for this reason that it became established legal precedent to limit the amount of money individuals could contribute. Citizen’s United was passed (5-4) in large part because a few justices argued or believed mistakenly that there would be no increase in big money’s corrupting influence, or that “transparency” (which has only declined) would vitiate any negative effects.
 
Last edited:

Grumblenuts

Gold Member
Joined
Oct 16, 2017
Messages
4,785
Reaction score
935
Points
140
“We are a nation of laws, not of men.” - John Adams (lawyer).
Corporations are LEGAL persons under the law, given specific rights — but not all rights of living breathing citizens. Every corporate lawyer understands this perfectly.

The allowed rights (and power) of legal (fictional) corporate “persons” has expanded mightily since the early 20th century. Corporations are by definition legal entities granted specific rights, NOT simply “groups of citizens” gathered for political purposes like a political party or for religious purposes like a Church.
To me, given "Corporations are by definition legal entities granted specific rights" immediately begs the question "Why then are they described as any sort of 'person'?" Whose great idea was it to start the perfectly predictable slide down that slope? Better yet, what idiot(s) neglected to slam that door and keep it shut? The Revolutionary War resulted from corporate corruption. We became a new nation to rid ourselves of unfair competitors being rammed down our throats such as the Dutch East India Company.
Citizen’s United was passed (5-4) in large part because a few justices argued or believed mistakenly that there would be no increase in big money’s corrupting influence, or that “transparency” (which has only declined) would vitiate any negative effects.
To say, in effect, they were asleep at the wheel is being far too kind, imho.
 

Eric Arthur Blair

Platinum Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2015
Messages
15,748
Reaction score
6,326
Points
400
Corporations are obviously not persons.
Money is obviously not speech.
Hopelessly corrupt billionaires and self-hating corporate shills argue otherwise.
Corporations represent the opinions and political views of people
Money buys speech.

Is this too hard to figure out?
 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top