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

[whitehall]

Apparently Ginsberg couldn't live with the majority decision of eight fellow Justices. It proves that she wasn't a judge or a justice, but rather a political activist and that's not good for America. We need Justices who base their decisions on the Constitution and not political expediency.

 

[gipper]

“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.

The SC is nothing if not an institution designed to uphold the status quo. It’s primary job is to make sure the wealthy elite continue to run the nation. It doesn’t matter who gets to make the nomination. Nothing will change.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Overturning Citizens United vs. FEC would empower the giant media corporations even more!

'Citizens United,' media corporations and other corporations

Excerpted, by permission of Yale University Press, from "The Soul of the First Amendment" by Floyd Abrams, 2017. Citizens United held that the fact that a

reason.com

Does anyone want that?

This is an interesting point. But as I said earlier many different sorts of organizations (profit making, non-profit, educational (e.g. universities), professional, religious organizations, charities, even unions and political associations) exist as corporations. They are “legal persons” with specific rights, and are often treated differently under the law. Such was the case for our famous “freedom of the press” — whether owned individually, by a partnership or a corporation.

The “press” has historically rightly been extended special prerogatives. Our Constitution and Courts with great difficulty carved out rights for “freedom of the press” which were steadily expanded over time. Individuals, lacking corporate money to hire expensive lawyers, also have over generations fought for and won “free speech” rights over the mail, on phones, and on the internet, which must be protected.

In truth many rights won by corporations were only later extended to people. “Laws” like the 14th Amendment specifically meant to help freed slaves were used primarily by corporations to win due process and other rights over a century during which these rights were denied to the very individuals the Amendment was passed to help. And yet distinctions between individuals and corporations remained in many respects, as I outlined. It is a fascinating history.

Personally, I don’t think there is any danger whatever that Citizens United being overthrown would effect our “free press” and “free speech” rights. Of course a semi-fascist or populist dictatorship or corporatist or communist government could certainly threaten or remove these historical achievements. But that is a different matter altogether.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Impossible dream, indeed.

Needless to say, that dream won’t be realized in the next 30 or 40 years, if ever.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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?

The problem with Citizens United is that it requires voters to be engaged and informed, to objectively examine the issue-based facts and documented information, and to reject fearmongering, lies, and partisan misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Something voters are clearly unwilling – or even unable – to do.

 

[Natural Citizen]

The constitution is pretty clear with regard to lobbying congress in that it should not be restricted.

When corporate lobbyists start penning legilation, however, we get into a fascist form of governance. Thats something else.

Off-topic relevant reading - The Santa Clara Blues: Corporate Personhood versus Democracy by William Meyers

 

[Natural Citizen]

The root of the debate really should be Individual rights versus collective rights. There are no such things as collective rights. Constitutionally speaking. There are only Individual rights. Rights don't come as groups, they come as individuals.

That is to say that there are no such things as women's rights or black rights or gay rights or corporate rights as a collective. There are only Individual rights. Again, constitutionally speaking.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Ideally, it shouldn’t make any difference if corporations and unions made financial contributions to Federal elections, if the people are informed and involved, seeking out the truth of political issues, ignoring the lies and misinformation that might be propagated by such entities, in this case the Citizens United conservative organization.

But realizing that the political process is far from ideal, Congress enacted legislation intended to place limits and restrictions on corporate contributions to political campaigns – limits and restrictions the Citizens United Court held to be in violation of the First Amendment’s right to free speech.

As a consequence, campaign finance reform cannot be realized through the legislative process, as any reform measure would be rendered un-Constitutional.

 

[sartre play]

Thanks, nice to see both sides giving informed info instead of swearing & name calling

 

[Natural Citizen]

Thanks, nice to see both sides giving informed info instead of swearing & name calling

OP's one of the better new posters. Agree or disagree, he makes his case in a mature, intellectual way which does tend to stimulate civil discourse and to draw people who enjoy that kind of thing into threads. It's not often discussion is initiated in a way that can be expanded upon. It certainly stimulates me to put more effort/thought into discussion. Which is something I stopped doing long ago in the general wild of the www.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Off-topic relevant reading - The Santa Clara Blues: Corporate Personhood versus Democracy by William Meyers

It should easily be considered central to the topic, imo, and that's an excellent explanatory link. Thanks.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The problem with Citizens United is that it requires voters to be engaged and informed, to objectively examine the issue-based facts and documented information, and to reject fearmongering, lies, and partisan misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Something voters are clearly unwilling – or even unable – to do.

Of course they're unwilling. Who would vote to sift through tons of special interest misinformation every day? Our civic duty is to keep watch on government through leveraging the fourth estate. No corporate entity exists to present an unbiased presentation of currently important facts outside of the press. And of course the voters are largely unable. Corruption is generally about monopolizing every possible pulpit and spotlight to mislead everyone for private gain rather than offer any sort of public service. Wasting everyone's time and money.

 

[gipper]

The problem with Citizens United is that it requires voters to be engaged and informed, to objectively examine the issue-based facts and documented information, and to reject fearmongering, lies, and partisan misinformation and conspiracy theories.

Something voters are clearly unwilling – or even unable – to do.

Of course they're unwilling. Who would vote to sift through tons of special interest misinformation every day? Our civic duty is to keep watch on government through leveraging the fourth estate. No corporate entity exists to present an unbiased presentation of currently important facts outside of the press. And of course the voters are largely unable. Corruption is generally about monopolizing every possible pulpit and spotlight to mislead everyone for private gain rather than offer any sort of public service. Wasting everyone's time and money.

The problem is much of the press are controlled by wealthy oligarchs and dark forces within government. It’s almost impossible to find the truth from the corporate media. Not only do they misrepresent, but they also purposely inflame and divide Americans.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Any politician against Citizens United due to the corrupting influence of money should not vote on or propose any spending. Deal?

 

[Care4all]

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?

Any politician against Citizens United due to the corrupting influence of money should not vote on or propose any spending. Deal?

Just the opposite!

Any representative that approved of The C U decision, should not be allowed to spend our money as a favor to the PAC supporters.... those who disagreed with the SC Decision, should be trusted with our money!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

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?

Any politician against Citizens United due to the corrupting influence of money should not vote on or propose any spending. Deal?

Just the opposite!

Any representative that approved of The C U decision, should not be allowed to spend our money as a favor to the PAC supporters.... those who disagreed with the SC Decision, should be trusted with our money!

Money is too powerful and corrupts politicians. If you want to keep money out of politics by railing against CU, please be consistent and refrain from spending our money, lest you be corrupted.

 

[Care4all]

We were smarter and less corrupt in our early history, regarding corporations and their power to influence...


Our Hidden History of Corporations in the United States

https://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate

...
Corporations could not make any political or charitable contributions nor spend money to influence law-making. For 100 years after the American Revolution, legislators maintained tight control of the corporate chartering process. Because of widespread public opposition, early legislators granted very few corporate charters, and only after debate.

 

[Care4all]

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?

Any politician against Citizens United due to the corrupting influence of money should not vote on or propose any spending. Deal?

Just the opposite!

Any representative that approved of The C U decision, should not be allowed to spend our money as a favor to the PAC supporters.... those who disagreed with the SC Decision, should be trusted with our money!

Money is too powerful and corrupts politicians. If you want to keep money out of politics by railing against CU, please be consistent and refrain from spending our money, lest you be corrupted.

Hello? It's the congress's constitutional duty to appropriate....

They, have the power of the purse, to spend our money?

 

[Redcurtain]

“The whole city celebrates when the godly succeed; they shout for joy when the wicked die.”
‭‭Proverbs‬ ‭11:10‬ ‭NLT‬‬

 

[gipper]

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?

Any politician against Citizens United due to the corrupting influence of money should not vote on or propose any spending. Deal?

Just the opposite!

Any representative that approved of The C U decision, should not be allowed to spend our money as a favor to the PAC supporters.... those who disagreed with the SC Decision, should be trusted with our money!

CU just further empowered the ultra wealthy in controlling our elections and ultimately legislation. It’s well documented that the wealthy run the show. 70-80% of Americans know the system unfairly favors the wealthy, but nothing will be done to stop it.
70% of Americans say U.S. economic system unfairly favors the powerful