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

[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.

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.

Exactly. Before CU it was bad enough already.

 

[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.

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

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

Money = bad, remember? Or is it only money that is used to buy advertisements that's bad?

 

[pknopp]

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?

Money = bad, remember? Or is it only money that is used to buy advertisements that's bad?

McCain/Feingold (as it is known) made it bad for outside sources to buy advertising. Politicians were hating that they no longer could control the message.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

Citizens United, in essence, is a reaffirmation of the doctrine that the people are solely responsible for the good – or bad – government they get.

The people have only themselves to blame.

 

[pknopp]

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.

Citizens United, in essence, is a reaffirmation of the doctrine that the people are solely responsible for the good – or bad – government they get.

The people have only themselves to blame.

Yes and most are always seeking someone else to blame.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Citizens United, in essence, is a reaffirmation of the doctrine that the people are solely responsible for the good – or bad – government they get.

The people have only themselves to blame.

So you blame "The people"? As though the name "Citizen's United" wasn't mockery enough? You think "The people" decided "that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections"? That "While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections," "The people" concluded they should have even more free reign?

Come to think of it, I remember that vote where we were all asked "Does money equal speech in a 1st Amendment sense, Yes or No?" and "Yes" won in such a landslide! Yep, that was right around the time that black woman spoke up and blamed herself for our entire history of slavery and racism.. Ah, good times.. No worries. The billionaires are just people too. They'll surely save us.

 

[MAGAman]

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.

The ‘Citizens United’ decision and why it matters

>> Read all the Center for Public Integrity’s investigations on money and democracy. By now most folks know that the U.S. Supreme Court did something that changed how money can be spent in elections and by whom, but what happened and why should you care? The Citizens United ruling, released in...

publicintegrity.org

The 1st Amendment disagrees.

The idea that government would decide who can and who can't run ads criticizing government officials is pure Fascism.

 

[Billiejeens]

Corporations are obviously not persons.
Money is obviously not speech.
Hopelessly corrupt billionaires and self-hating corporate shills argue otherwise.

Citizens United Explained

The 2010 Supreme Court decision further tilted political influence toward wealthy donors and corporations.

www.brennancenter.org

Dumb

 

[Billiejeens]

“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.

Poor gip

 

[Billiejeens]

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.

What are you basing that on?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Citizens United, in essence, is a reaffirmation of the doctrine that the people are solely responsible for the good – or bad – government they get.

The people have only themselves to blame.

So you blame "The people"? As though the name "Citizen's United" wasn't mockery enough? You think "The people" decided "that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections"? That "While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections," "The people" concluded they should have even more free reign?

Come to think of it, I remember that vote where we were all asked "Does money equal speech in a 1st Amendment sense, Yes or No?" and "Yes" won in such a landslide! Yep, that was right around the time that black woman spoke up and blamed herself for our entire history of slavery and racism.. Ah, good times.. No worries. The billionaires are just people too. They'll surely save us.

Of course the people are solely responsible – they elected the presidents who appointed the majority of justices who ruled on Citizens United; Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, was appointed by Reagan.

Consequently, the people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get – and the likes of Reagan, Bush, and Trump, along with their dreadful Supreme Court appointments, are the epitome of bad government.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Citizens United, in essence, is a reaffirmation of the doctrine that the people are solely responsible for the good – or bad – government they get.

The people have only themselves to blame.

So you blame "The people"? As though the name "Citizen's United" wasn't mockery enough? You think "The people" decided "that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections"? That "While wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups have long had an outsized influence in elections," "The people" concluded they should have even more free reign?

Come to think of it, I remember that vote where we were all asked "Does money equal speech in a 1st Amendment sense, Yes or No?" and "Yes" won in such a landslide! Yep, that was right around the time that black woman spoke up and blamed herself for our entire history of slavery and racism.. Ah, good times.. No worries. The billionaires are just people too. They'll surely save us.

Of course the people are solely responsible – they elected the presidents who appointed the majority of justices who ruled on Citizens United; Justice Kennedy, who wrote the opinion, was appointed by Reagan.

Consequently, the people have only themselves to blame for the bad government they get – and the likes of Reagan, Bush, and Trump, along with their dreadful Supreme Court appointments, are the epitome of bad government.

Did you vote for Reagan, Bush, Trump? No? So you're not "The people" or what?

 

[Grumblenuts]

When you say

the people are solely responsible

, who else are you imagining? What are you talking about? Do you seriously believe "corporations" (like Citizens United) are somehow innocent or something?

 

[Grumblenuts]

Somehow I can't help concluding that this jerk and his financial backers are more responsible than most.

Brown is noteworthy for founding Citizens United in 1988 and for his introduction of the "Willie Horton" television ad during the Bush-Dukakis presidential race.

 

[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.

Poor gip

But I’m rich.

 

[Billiejeens]

“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.

Poor gip

But I’m rich.

Doubtful

 

[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.

Poor gip

But I’m rich.

Doubtful

I’m living like a king, baby!