Jump to content

Horrible decision by the Supreme Court


Guest One of Five

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 509
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Somewhere back in the deep recesses of my memory I remember some politician or lobbyist saying: “ the problem with buying a politician is making sure he stays bought.” Robert Heinlein in “Strange

No, it landed here because you put it here.  If I wanted it to be here, I would have done so myself.  If you want to keep this thread alive by quoting others, there's plenty in this thread.  And

And that is exactly why so many of us have Tom on ignore.

Posted Images

So far I have seen only one compelling argument for treating corporate speech differently than other organizations and that is when there is foreign ownership involved. Anyone have other rational justifications for discriminating against corporations. I'm not impressed by emotional hatred for evil corporations.

 

your signature says, "power corupts"

 

giving something that cannot vote, but can influence elections more power than the people of this country (who gave the corps any power to begin with) is a slippery slope that we are now tumbling down full on. This is like watching the roman empire fall.

 

remember, power corupts

 

Power does corrupt. Unions topping the top 20 in political donations, by a huge amount, and then sitting at the table during secret health care reform meetings and negotiating a deal with our elected representatives.

 

We really need to do something about the influence unions have on our Gov't.

 

well, the supreme court just gave them more polt. power. You happy about that?

Link to post
Share on other sites
So far I have seen only one compelling argument for treating corporate speech differently than other organizations and that is when there is foreign ownership involved. Anyone have other rational justifications for discriminating against corporations. I'm not impressed by emotional hatred for evil corporations.

 

your signature says, "power corupts"

 

giving something that cannot vote, but can influence elections more power than the people of this country (who gave the corps any power to begin with) is a slippery slope that we are now tumbling down full on. This is like watching the roman empire fall.

 

remember, power corupts

 

Power does corrupt. Unions topping the top 20 in political donations, by a huge amount, and then sitting at the table during secret health care reform meetings and negotiating a deal with our elected representatives.

 

We really need to do something about the influence unions have on our Gov't.

 

well, the supreme court just gave them more polt. power. You happy about that?

 

I'm not happy with either, but I agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation. Any control of free speech, whether election related or otherwise, opens the door to further attempts to regulate speech (exception to restricting speech would be the fire in a movie theater kind -- had to toss that in so AK doesn't toss out that challenge and call me a regressive, hypocritical RepubliCUNT).

 

I do have a problem with Obama's response to the ruling. After all - he struck a deal with Pharma and locked Republicans out of the room when he struck a $60 billion deal with unions on HCR.

 

Obama is a bit hypocritical on this issue as well if you look at the sources for his campaign war chest in his run for President --

 

4295640331_ffd7dbc1f4_o.jpg

Link

 

Seems silly for him to get his panties in a bunch over this issue.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So far I have seen only one compelling argument for treating corporate speech differently than other organizations and that is when there is foreign ownership involved. Anyone have other rational justifications for discriminating against corporations. I'm not impressed by emotional hatred for evil corporations.

 

your signature says, "power corupts"

 

giving something that cannot vote, but can influence elections more power than the people of this country (who gave the corps any power to begin with) is a slippery slope that we are now tumbling down full on. This is like watching the roman empire fall.

 

remember, power corupts

 

Power does corrupt. Unions topping the top 20 in political donations, by a huge amount, and then sitting at the table during secret health care reform meetings and negotiating a deal with our elected representatives.

 

We really need to do something about the influence unions have on our Gov't.

 

well, the supreme court just gave them more polt. power. You happy about that?

 

I'm not happy with either, but I agree with the Supreme Court's interpretation. Any control of free speech, whether election related or otherwise, opens the door to further attempts to regulate speech (exception to restricting speech would be the fire in a movie theater kind -- had to toss that in so AK doesn't toss out that challenge and call me a regressive, hypocritical RepubliCUNT).

 

I do have a problem with Obama's response to the ruling. After all - he struck a deal with Pharma and locked Republicans out of the room when he struck a $60 billion deal with unions on HCR.

 

Obama is a bit hypocritical on this issue as well if you look at the sources for his campaign war chest in his run for President --

 

4295640331_ffd7dbc1f4_o.jpg

Link

 

Seems silly for him to get his panties in a bunch over this issue.

 

I am well aware of Obama's corporate monies. He was taking money like this when he was a state senator. This is what indicated he was merely another tepid, mainstream politician. Or maybe all those banks and mega corps wanted to fund a commie?

 

So right now

Teacher gets 1 vote for self an 1 vote for union= 2 votes!

Mr. Johnson gets 1 vote for self and one for corporation= 2 votes

Non, union, none share holder. . . . 1 quiet vote.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five

THIS IS NOT A DEM V. REPUBLICAN ISSUE.

 

This is about fictional people called corporations enjoying the same rights as real people.

 

Please folks

 

GOOGLE Robber Barons.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You really have to love the sheer balls of this move. It is something close to a coup d'état by judicial means. I think its chances of legislative reversal are very small, given that the Court has granted its beneficiaries the means to smash any attempt.

 

Democracy was already under great pressure in this country. This is going to accelerate the slide into something different.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is unconstitutional to restrict the free speech of any organization because you disagree with them even if you think their speech is damaging. The appropriate response to speech you disagree with is not censorship but more free speech.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are.” Chief Justice Roberts

Link to post
Share on other sites
You really have to love the sheer balls of this move. It is something close to a coup d'état by judicial means. I think its chances of legislative reversal are very small, given that the Court has granted its beneficiaries the means to smash any attempt.

 

Democracy was already under great pressure in this country. This is going to accelerate the slide into something different.

 

The Constitution as Holy Scripture, it must be interpreted

literally. Sort of the Supreme Courts job, if they define

their role as such.

 

The founders made provisions to amend it for

that very reason. So The Scripture couldn't

completely dominate the national interest,

should conflicts arise. But in our current situation,

the government is disfunctional, so dogma trumps.

 

That the propaganda is so effective worries me

more though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is unconstitutional to restrict the free speech of any organization because you disagree with them even if you think their speech is damaging. The appropriate response to speech you disagree with is not censorship but more free speech.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are.” Chief Justice Roberts

 

In theory, the second amendment gives citizens the right

to keep and bear nuclear weapons too, Judge Bob.

Please keep it real.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Constitution as Holy Scripture, it must be interpreted

literally. Sort of the Supreme Courts job, if they define

their role as such.

I went to college with a lot of very bright people, some of whom had conservative politics and used to make arguments like this one to infuriate their liberal friends over coffee after dinner. Some of the most annoying became prominent legal academics because they would clearly never have a useful thought in their lives and this was the way to cause the most misery.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Constitution as Holy Scripture, it must be interpreted

literally. Sort of the Supreme Courts job, if they define

their role as such.

I went to college with a lot of very bright people, some of whom had conservative politics and used to make arguments like this one to infuriate their liberal friends over coffee after dinner. Some of the most annoying became prominent legal academics because they would clearly never have a useful thought in their lives and this was the way to cause the most misery.

 

"OK...fair warning. Anybody that says that

we must allow the corporations to use their

vast sums of cash to tout the political favorites

of the Chairman of the Board or newspapers

will be banned is NOT getting ANY ice

cream.......Mr. ROBERTS."

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Constitution as Holy Scripture, it must be interpreted

literally. Sort of the Supreme Courts job, if they define

their role as such.

I went to college with a lot of very bright people, some of whom had conservative politics and used to make arguments like this one to infuriate their liberal friends over coffee after dinner. Some of the most annoying became prominent legal academics because they would clearly never have a useful thought in their lives and this was the way to cause the most misery.

 

"OK...fair warning. Anybody that says that

we must allow the corporations to use their

vast sums of cash to tout the political favorites

of the Chairman of the Board or newspapers

will be banned is NOT getting ANY ice

cream.......Mr. ROBERTS."

How about actually making a rational case for censorship of corporations?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Constitution as Holy Scripture, it must be interpreted

literally. Sort of the Supreme Courts job, if they define

their role as such.

I went to college with a lot of very bright people, some of whom had conservative politics and used to make arguments like this one to infuriate their liberal friends over coffee after dinner. Some of the most annoying became prominent legal academics because they would clearly never have a useful thought in their lives and this was the way to cause the most misery.

 

"OK...fair warning. Anybody that says that

we must allow the corporations to use their

vast sums of cash to tout the political favorites

of the Chairman of the Board or newspapers

will be banned is NOT getting ANY ice

cream.......Mr. ROBERTS."

How about actually making a rational case for censorship of corporations?

Wasn't it Sol who pointed out that they don't shit or fuck? You want to hear the opinion of a "person" who doesn't have normal body functions?

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Constitution as Holy Scripture, it must be interpreted

literally. Sort of the Supreme Courts job, if they define

their role as such.

I went to college with a lot of very bright people, some of whom had conservative politics and used to make arguments like this one to infuriate their liberal friends over coffee after dinner. Some of the most annoying became prominent legal academics because they would clearly never have a useful thought in their lives and this was the way to cause the most misery.

 

"OK...fair warning. Anybody that says that

we must allow the corporations to use their

vast sums of cash to tout the political favorites

of the Chairman of the Board or newspapers

will be banned is NOT getting ANY ice

cream.......Mr. ROBERTS."

How about actually making a rational case for censorship of corporations?

 

It's the way things have been for the last 100 years

or so. How about that? Damn activist justices...

 

Want more? See Stevens dissenting opinions (Mother Jones)

 

By ruling today that corporations and unions can independently spend as much money as they want to back or trash congressional and presidential candidates, the conservative Supreme Court justices are throwing out over a century of jurisprudence that backed the regulation of corporate involvement in elections. Yet will the right denounce the five-to-four decision as an act of judicial overreach? That's not likely. But Justice John Paul Stevens, in a stinging dissent written for the minority, argues that the right wing of the court has engaged in a brazen act of activism--and has done so to award corporations more legal rights than they have previously been afforded.

 

A few excerpts:

 

* Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

 

* The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

 

* Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.

 

* The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

 

* The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress hasplaced special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907....We have unanimously concluded [in 1982] that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process"...and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation...The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaignspending as an invidious novelty born [in a 1990 opinion].

 

* The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.

 

With this dissent, Stevens is scoffing at Chief Justice John Roberts' self-proclaimed fancy for "judicial modesty" and waging battle on one of the major fronts in the court's history: how far should the justices go in equating corporations with citizens. You can read the decision here. (warning 183 page PDF file).

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Constitution as Holy Scripture, it must be interpreted

literally. Sort of the Supreme Courts job, if they define

their role as such.

I went to college with a lot of very bright people, some of whom had conservative politics and used to make arguments like this one to infuriate their liberal friends over coffee after dinner. Some of the most annoying became prominent legal academics because they would clearly never have a useful thought in their lives and this was the way to cause the most misery.

 

"OK...fair warning. Anybody that says that

we must allow the corporations to use their

vast sums of cash to tout the political favorites

of the Chairman of the Board or newspapers

will be banned is NOT getting ANY ice

cream.......Mr. ROBERTS."

How about actually making a rational case for censorship of corporations?

 

It's the way things have been for the last 100 years

or so. How about that? Damn activist justices...

 

Want more? See Stevens dissenting opinions (Mother Jones)

 

By ruling today that corporations and unions can independently spend as much money as they want to back or trash congressional and presidential candidates, the conservative Supreme Court justices are throwing out over a century of jurisprudence that backed the regulation of corporate involvement in elections. Yet will the right denounce the five-to-four decision as an act of judicial overreach? That's not likely. But Justice John Paul Stevens, in a stinging dissent written for the minority, argues that the right wing of the court has engaged in a brazen act of activism--and has done so to award corporations more legal rights than they have previously been afforded.

 

A few excerpts:

 

* Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

 

* The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

 

* Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.

 

* The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

 

* The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress hasplaced special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907....We have unanimously concluded [in 1982] that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process"...and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation...The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaignspending as an invidious novelty born [in a 1990 opinion].

 

* The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.

 

With this dissent, Stevens is scoffing at Chief Justice John Roberts' self-proclaimed fancy for "judicial modesty" and waging battle on one of the major fronts in the court's history: how far should the justices go in equating corporations with citizens. You can read the decision here. (warning 183 page PDF file).

How it has been done in the past is irrelevant. I do agree with the non- resident point but the rest is weak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
The Constitution as Holy Scripture, it must be interpreted

literally. Sort of the Supreme Courts job, if they define

their role as such.

I went to college with a lot of very bright people, some of whom had conservative politics and used to make arguments like this one to infuriate their liberal friends over coffee after dinner. Some of the most annoying became prominent legal academics because they would clearly never have a useful thought in their lives and this was the way to cause the most misery.

 

"OK...fair warning. Anybody that says that

we must allow the corporations to use their

vast sums of cash to tout the political favorites

of the Chairman of the Board or newspapers

will be banned is NOT getting ANY ice

cream.......Mr. ROBERTS."

How about actually making a rational case for censorship of corporations?

 

It's the way things have been for the last 100 years

or so. How about that? Damn activist justices...

 

Want more? See Stevens dissenting opinions (Mother Jones)

 

By ruling today that corporations and unions can independently spend as much money as they want to back or trash congressional and presidential candidates, the conservative Supreme Court justices are throwing out over a century of jurisprudence that backed the regulation of corporate involvement in elections. Yet will the right denounce the five-to-four decision as an act of judicial overreach? That's not likely. But Justice John Paul Stevens, in a stinging dissent written for the minority, argues that the right wing of the court has engaged in a brazen act of activism--and has done so to award corporations more legal rights than they have previously been afforded.

 

A few excerpts:

 

* Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

 

* The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

 

* Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.

 

* The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

 

* The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress hasplaced special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907....We have unanimously concluded [in 1982] that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process"...and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation...The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaignspending as an invidious novelty born [in a 1990 opinion].

 

* The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.

 

With this dissent, Stevens is scoffing at Chief Justice John Roberts' self-proclaimed fancy for "judicial modesty" and waging battle on one of the major fronts in the court's history: how far should the justices go in equating corporations with citizens. You can read the decision here. (warning 183 page PDF file).

How it has been done in the past is irrelevant. I do agree with the non- resident point but the rest is weak.

 

But you don't seem to have a problem with slippery

slopes that have existed for a century that no one

has slid down?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moe's got nothing. How about you Mark?

Seriously, the idea that the law is unable to distinguish between live people and legal constructs is just a bunch of clever silliness. Can corporations argue insanity when they kill someone? Can they be incarcerated or executed, if they're found to be sane? Can we require that they attend school? None of this is any sillier than the idea that their political "opinions" which, after all, are no more than the opinions of the individuals involved, require protection as such.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moe's got nothing. How about you Mark?

Seriously, the idea that the law is unable to distinguish between live people and legal constructs is just a bunch of clever silliness. Can corporations argue insanity when they kill someone? Can they be incarcerated or executed, if they're found to be sane? Can we require that they attend school? None of this is any sillier than the idea that their political "opinions" which, after all, are no more than the opinions of the individuals involved, require protection as such.

If the distinction is between live people and legal constructs why not treat all groups the same?

Link to post
Share on other sites
A solution: FCC uses their federal authority to mandate free or equivalent rationed time for radio and television advertising during political campaigns.

 

What federal authority would that be? Wait, let me guess: the commerce clause?

 

Radio and television are the modern press, but I don't think "freedom of the press" should mean "we all get to take whatever we want from whoever actually owns the press."

 

Darn owners with their silly property rights, always getting in the way of grand plans.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This decision makes a pretty good argument for reinstating the fairness doctrine for public airwaves.

Hooah! Ker-PLUNK goes the turd in the punch bowl. Interesting.

 

Oh yeah, so we can hear both the tax and spend welfare-warfare state Dem side of an issue AND the borrow and spend warfare-welfare Rep side.

 

That's all the sides, right? There are no libertarians who should be heard, no socialists or greens either. Just two sides, and they're sides of the same coin. That's "fairness." <_<:rolleyes:

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five
Oh yeah, so we can hear both the tax and spend welfare-warfare state Dem side of an issue AND the borrow and spend warfare-welfare Rep side.

 

That's all the sides, right? There are no libertarians who should be heard, no socialists or greens either. Just two sides, and they're sides of the same coin. That's "fairness." <_<:rolleyes:

 

The fairness doctrine was only a tool so that the Democrats could be heard.

 

When they achieved majority/hegemony, it went away.

 

Now they need it.

 

Not terribly "progressive".

 

But we digress.

 

This ruling puts in place the right of a fictional person to influence the US electorate and thereby the US government.

 

The opinions may sound correct within their context, but the principles are tossed out the windows.

 

BAD decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites
This ruling puts in place the right of a fictional person to influence the US electorate and thereby the US government.

 

The opinions may sound correct within their context, but the principles are tossed out the windows.

 

BAD decision.

Not only that, but it puts a disproportionate level of access to the few. Corporations do not speak for the opinions of the share holders per say, they will speak for the board room. And with a voice 100,000 times louder than the individual.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The way this story is spun by the left and leftist narratives is the interesting part .

 

Think for a momement --- Obama rejected campaign finance reform and took record 10s of millions in from large labor unions --trial lawyers -- corperations --special interests of all types in Washington -etc etc etc .

 

McCain obided by the limits of reform .

 

The political spin and left framing the issue now in media is --{ USA today headline ie} --{It is a new Era in campaign spending } paraphrasing -

 

No --it is not a "new era " when Obama ignored the reform and took in record amounts of money as the tingly legged media failed to inquire and ask basic questions --they were just too busy promoting him .

 

Also the left narrative has people only focused on "evil corperations " that "might" be manipulating the system in their favor . Good spin --it is a common leftist narrative to deflect from others .

 

What we have actually seen in the Pelosi Obama Reid attempt at care reform was --{not a fictisious "evil corp boogyman " --but ACTUAL bribes and payoffs to a long list of money power political cronie blocks of the D party .

 

Union bosses and unions were bribed with exemption from taxes on their cadillac care plans ---it was a 60 billion dollar bribe to appease them .

 

Trial lawyers were exempt from any legal reform in the care bill --- real legal reform would save us all billions in care costs .

 

The list goes on and on of political power money blocks getting payoffs for their "contributions" IN THE CLOSED DOOR D PARTY MEETINGS --yet the spin is very selective--such is the power of leftist narratives and the media spin machine thast frames the debate and pushes them 24 /7

 

We must be smarter than this and see through it .

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is unconstitutional to restrict the free speech of any organization because you disagree with them even if you think their speech is damaging. The appropriate response to speech you disagree with is not censorship but more free speech.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are.” Chief Justice Roberts

 

Did the writers of the Constitution intend Corporations be entitled to the same rights as individuals?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is unconstitutional to restrict the free speech of any organization because you disagree with them even if you think their speech is damaging. The appropriate response to speech you disagree with is not censorship but more free speech.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are.” Chief Justice Roberts

 

Did the writers of the Constitution intend Corporations be entitled to the same rights as individuals?

The writers of the constitution did not want politicians regulating political speech for obvious reasons.

 

"...when Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." Justice Kennedy

 

 

The court got it right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It is unconstitutional to restrict the free speech of any organization because you disagree with them even if you think their speech is damaging. The appropriate response to speech you disagree with is not censorship but more free speech.

“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as the major ones are.” Chief Justice Roberts

 

Did the writers of the Constitution intend Corporations be entitled to the same rights as individuals?

The writers of the constitution did not want politicians regulating political speech for obvious reasons.

 

"...when Government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves." Justice Kennedy

 

 

The court got it right.

 

We'll see how overturning 100 years of judicial precedent plays out in about five months. What's your prediction?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moe's got nothing. How about you Mark?

Seriously, the idea that the law is unable to distinguish between live people and legal constructs is just a bunch of clever silliness. Can corporations argue insanity when they kill someone? Can they be incarcerated or executed, if they're found to be sane? Can we require that they attend school? None of this is any sillier than the idea that their political "opinions" which, after all, are no more than the opinions of the individuals involved, require protection as such.

If the distinction is between live people and legal constructs why not treat all groups the same?

 

A large organization representing financial or even foreign interests now has the means to completely shut out other less well-financed voices in a sea of public advertising. As such, the strict interpretation obviates original protections of free speech that were the spirit of the framers.

 

IMHO, an amendment would be necessary to reflect the changed modern playing field as while the interpretation is historically correct, the outcome adversely affects the republic and free speech.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest One of Five
A large organization representing financial or even foreign interests now has the means to completely shut out other less well-financed voices in a sea of public advertising. As such, the strict interpretation obviates original protections of free speech that were the spirit of the framers.

 

IMHO, an amendment would be necessary to reflect the changed modern playing field as while the interpretation is historically correct, the outcome adversely affects the republic and free speech.

 

BINGO. This is stunningly bad law.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Moe's got nothing. How about you Mark?

Seriously, the idea that the law is unable to distinguish between live people and legal constructs is just a bunch of clever silliness. Can corporations argue insanity when they kill someone? Can they be incarcerated or executed, if they're found to be sane? Can we require that they attend school? None of this is any sillier than the idea that their political "opinions" which, after all, are no more than the opinions of the individuals involved, require protection as such.

If the distinction is between live people and legal constructs why not treat all groups the same?

 

A large organization representing financial or even foreign interests now has the means to completely shut out other less well-financed voices in a sea of public advertising. As such, the strict interpretation obviates original protections of free speech that were the spirit of the framers.

 

IMHO, an amendment would be necessary to reflect the changed modern playing field as while the interpretation is historically correct, the outcome adversely affects the republic and free speech.

 

 

We already have had that for some time now --but they seem to be in financial trouble themselves as result

 

The NYTs --MSNBC -- ABC -aIR aMERICA --WAPO -- etc .among them .

 

RECALL the NYTs providing a full page ad for MOVE ON at discount rates so the left could slander general Patraues as general "betray us " ie

 

The money power and damages to the nation are awfull at times but the censorship by the political faction in power would be much worse .

 

slander of the commanding general in time of war --it gets people killed and doesn't get much worse .

 

They have no remorse over it either --just more phony self rightious false blame of others .

 

General Patraeus is now command central in the ME AND TOP ADVISOR TO THE CURRENT PREZ .

 

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

 

General Petraeus or General Betray Us?

 

View the ad (PDF)Cooking the books for the White House moveon .org

 

General Petraeus is a military man constantly at war with the facts. In 2004, just before the election, he said there was “tangible progress“ in Iraq and that “Iraqi leaders are stepping forward.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

http://pol.moveon.org/petraeus.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despite the D party having huge sums of money and supermajority it lost in Mass.

 

Somehow our system works things out over time and we eventually do the right thing ,--but as Winston Churchill noted "not until we exhaust every other possibilty first ".

 

He was funny guy --drank a lot =smoked stogies --farted alot too .

 

bestof.Kit_Nickel_slideshow_604x500.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

Everyone needs to read Robert Dahl before running off to their elected representatives in search of more 'protection' from evil corporations. A snippet.

 

When Robert Dahl initiated the power debate in the late fifties, he began a debate which was firmly couched within the language of democratic theory. In essence, Dahl’s analysis of power entails a defence of the workings of American democracy against the critique by left-wing elite theorist - especially Floyed Hunter and C. Wright Mills. While Dahl acknowledges that power was not distributed equally, he argues that competition between a plurality of competing power blocks delivers relatively democratic outcomes in the long run. Bachrach and Baratz, and Lukes critique of critique of Dahl was essentially critique of the latter’s optimistic pluralist reading. According to Bachrach and Baratz non-decisions, and according to Lukes, false consciousness, renders the appearance of pluralism essentially an illusion, which serves as a legitimation of democracy, but which does not correspond to reality. In Dahl’s latter work, for instance Democracy and it Critics (1989), Dahl would appear to accept much of this criticism, as he would appear advocate a radicalization of democracy in which the old ‘public’ ‘private’ distinctions of traditional liberal pluralism and his earlier work are transcended. Following Lukes’ third dimension of power, Foucault’s work can be conceptualized as a fourth dimension which has generally been interpreted as being a yet more radical critique of pluralist democracy.

 

No cite. Do your own Google search.

 

Hroth

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone needs to read Robert Dahl before running off to their elected representatives in search of more 'protection' from evil corporations. A snippet.

 

When Robert Dahl initiated the power debate in the late fifties, he began a debate which was firmly couched within the language of democratic theory. In essence, Dahl’s analysis of power entails a defence of the workings of American democracy against the critique by left-wing elite theorist - especially Floyed Hunter and C. Wright Mills. While Dahl acknowledges that power was not distributed equally, he argues that competition between a plurality of competing power blocks delivers relatively democratic outcomes in the long run. Bachrach and Baratz, and Lukes critique of critique of Dahl was essentially critique of the latter’s optimistic pluralist reading. According to Bachrach and Baratz non-decisions, and according to Lukes, false consciousness, renders the appearance of pluralism essentially an illusion, which serves as a legitimation of democracy, but which does not correspond to reality. In Dahl’s latter work, for instance Democracy and it Critics (1989), Dahl would appear to accept much of this criticism, as he would appear advocate a radicalization of democracy in which the old ‘public’ ‘private’ distinctions of traditional liberal pluralism and his earlier work are transcended. Following Lukes’ third dimension of power, Foucault’s work can be conceptualized as a fourth dimension which has generally been interpreted as being a yet more radical critique of pluralist democracy.

 

No cite. Do your own Google search.

 

Hroth

 

Ah, but he also wrote: "Rather we are dealing with a plural self who, unlike the Enlightenment self, does not seek the perfection of singularity but views their very inconsistency as a source of emancipation."

 

So, is he merely engaging in pseudo-truculent demagoguery,

or is he really seeking the profundity of egalitarian pathos?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone needs to read Robert Dahl before running off to their elected representatives in search of more 'protection' from evil corporations. A snippet.

 

When Robert Dahl initiated the power debate in the late fifties, he began a debate which was firmly couched within the language of democratic theory. In essence, Dahl's analysis of power entails a defence of the workings of American democracy against the critique by left-wing elite theorist - especially Floyed Hunter and C. Wright Mills. While Dahl acknowledges that power was not distributed equally, he argues that competition between a plurality of competing power blocks delivers relatively democratic outcomes in the long run. Bachrach and Baratz, and Lukes critique of critique of Dahl was essentially critique of the latter's optimistic pluralist reading. According to Bachrach and Baratz non-decisions, and according to Lukes, false consciousness, renders the appearance of pluralism essentially an illusion, which serves as a legitimation of democracy, but which does not correspond to reality. In Dahl's latter work, for instance Democracy and it Critics (1989), Dahl would appear to accept much of this criticism, as he would appear advocate a radicalization of democracy in which the old 'public' 'private' distinctions of traditional liberal pluralism and his earlier work are transcended. Following Lukes' third dimension of power, Foucault's work can be conceptualized as a fourth dimension which has generally been interpreted as being a yet more radical critique of pluralist democracy.

 

No cite. Do your own Google search.

 

Hroth

 

Ah, but he also wrote: "Rather we are dealing with a plural self who, unlike the Enlightenment self, does not seek the perfection of singularity but views their very inconsistency as a source of emancipation."

 

So, is he merely engaging in pseudo-truculent demagoguery,

or is he really seeking the profundity of egalitarian pathos?

 

 

 

:huh: I stopped getting high years ago, otherwise I might like to join the discussion. I'll have a couple drinks, read up on my WF Buckley and try again later. I'd like to prearrange George Will as my lifeline phone-a-friend.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Congress shall make no law abridging free speech… means, well, congress shall make no law abridging free speech.

 

The ACLU concurs. “The ACLU has consistently taken the position that section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech, and our amicus brief takes that position again.”.

http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/citizens-u...tion-commission

Link to post
Share on other sites
This ruling puts in place the right of a fictional person to influence the US electorate and thereby the US government.

 

The opinions may sound correct within their context, but the principles are tossed out the windows.

 

BAD decision.

Not only that, but it puts a disproportionate level of access to the few. Corporations do not speak for the opinions of the share holders per say, they will speak for the board room. And with a voice 100,000 times louder than the individual.

 

I initially shared these views, taking issue with legal entities being treated as human...wondering where that might eventually lead (e.g. right of entire corporations to free, taxpayer funded counsel during expensive, Enron type criminal trials?). KMcCabe is also on target..."corporate" views will often represent 1-2 corporate assholes burning company and shareholder funds to pad their own pockets, power, and egos...very much like those in union "leadership" positions presently do.

 

That said, I got over it....after considering the opposite possible outcome: Backlash, if and when corporations push their "free-speech" luck.

 

Consider the state of the US today, on nearly any issue. Odds of a company taking a public position on any topic and pissing off at least 50% of their customers, shareholders, and potential investors are roughly 100%. The co-founder and CEO of Whole Foods learned that the hard way, despite stating a coherent and relatively tame position on health care reform (WSJ- The Whole Foods Alternative to ObamaCare) . Customers on both sides of the universal health debate went ballistic, calling for Whole Foods boycotts etc.

 

Bottom line, companies ultimately answer to somebody other than CEO's...namely Consumers, who vote with pocketbooks, as well as Investors, who can buy or dump stock with the click of a mouse, driving the CEO's personal wealth up or down accordingly. If corporations have a clue, they will use their "right" to free political speech sparingly and factually (e.g. to correct whatever factual errors the lazy press pulled out of its ass that week). That as opposed to obviously coming across as entirely pro-Dem or pro-Pub...which will tend to 50% backfire, roughly 100% of the time. Their safest option may very well be to continue doing what they have been doing....funding lobbiests to quietly walks the halls of Congress, bribing politicians.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, an amendment would be necessary to reflect the changed modern playing field as while the interpretation is historically correct, the outcome adversely affects the republic and free speech.

 

And what might that amendment say? Remember, it's going to have to say something almost everyone agrees with, or it will have no shot at the necessary Congressional support or the necessary state ratifications. So we're going to need a restriction on speech that is broadly appealing to Americans. I think the one we already have is as close as it's going to get.

 

Carl is right that the outrage on the left here is amusing in light of the fact that Obama went around campaign finance reform laws in his campaign, to no screeching and wailing from those who are screeching and wailing now about how people might do that very thing.

 

I also find it funny that people are worried that corporations might suddenly get political influence. These people don't know a thing about K street, is my guess.

 

The funniest of all are expressions of wonderment that this interpretation might fall outside the original intent of the founders, expressed by saxdog among others. Sax, do you know who Angel Raich is? Or Suzette Kelo?

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, an amendment would be necessary to reflect the changed modern playing field as while the interpretation is historically correct, the outcome adversely affects the republic and free speech.

 

And what might that amendment say? Remember, it's going to have to say something almost everyone agrees with, or it will have no shot at the necessary Congressional support or the necessary state ratifications. So we're going to need a restriction on speech that is broadly appealing to Americans. I think the one we already have is as close as it's going to get.

 

Carl is right that the outrage on the left here is amusing in light of the fact that Obama went around campaign finance reform laws in his campaign, to no screeching and wailing from those who are screeching and wailing now about how people might do that very thing.

 

I also find it funny that people are worried that corporations might suddenly get political influence. These people don't know a thing about K street, is my guess.

 

The funniest of all are expressions of wonderment that this interpretation might fall outside the original intent of the founders, expressed by saxdog among others. Sax, do you know who Angel Raich is? Or Suzette Kelo?

 

 

Exactly T

 

Obama promised to abide by campaign finance reform --then broke his pledge .

 

---Obama got 10s of millions more money from all the usual special interst cronies .

 

When politicians like Obama can't honor and abide by reform they agreed to and instead break their word why should any believe they have any intent to do anything but corrupt the democratic process as much as they can in their favor .

 

Obama now points to "a bad Supreme Court decision ?? --what a fucking hypocrite this guy is .

 

Beyond Obama's failure to keep his word on reform is the corruption bribes payoffs secret meetings and political machinations at every level .

 

It has bred distrust and disbelief in him and the D party --rightly so .

 

 

 

The only solution to stop the corruption and endless campaign, the dirty money power influence peddling ,the bribes payoffs and special exemptions from taxes is to limit the power and scope of government itself .

 

Cut the power government has over our lives and the opportunity for the graft fraud waste corruption and influence peddling , the bribes payoffs and dirty backrooms deals deminishes proportionately .

 

We really need smaller more effient honest Govt and to throw out the corrupted tax system we have that allows corrupted politicians to influence peddle as they do .

 

example --the 60 billion bribe to unions Obama care had in it to not tax them on their cadillac care plans --everyone else would pay --but they would be exempt and pocket 60 billion more .

 

 

YOU TUBES of Obama breaking his promise on reform that others honored .

 

There is no chance of any meaningfull reform now --and they know it .

 

Obama just conjures up the usual villans to deflect from his failures --"evil --add your evil capitolist consdtruct here -- evil corps --evil banks --evil mortgage cos --evil insurance cos --etc etc etc .

 

What a total failure and idiots collectivist ideologues are once you see they are selling you other peoples money that they don't have{the nation is 20 trillion in debt from these types } but will take bribes and do the same corrupt secret deals and payoffs . Hell politicians on the left are proud of the bribes they got .

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, an amendment would be necessary to reflect the changed modern playing field as while the interpretation is historically correct, the outcome adversely affects the republic and free speech.

 

And what might that amendment say? Remember, it's going to have to say something almost everyone agrees with, or it will have no shot at the necessary Congressional support or the necessary state ratifications.

 

 

 

Doing the right thing can be so difficult. Dredd Scott? Anyone? It took awhile but the 14th amendment wasn't so bad was it?

 

But I guess for the corporate interests, we should just sell out the country to the high bid. Sheep do like predictability, after all. (Unfortunately,they make lousy citizens.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, an amendment would be necessary to reflect the changed modern playing field as while the interpretation is historically correct, the outcome adversely affects the republic and free speech.

 

And what might that amendment say? Remember, it's going to have to say something almost everyone agrees with, or it will have no shot at the necessary Congressional support or the necessary state ratifications.

 

 

 

Doing the right thing can be so difficult. Dredd Scott? Anyone? It took awhile but the 14th amendment wasn't so bad was it?

 

But I guess for the corporate interests, we should just sell out the country to the high bid. Sheep do like predictability, after all. (Unfortunately,they make lousy citizens.)

Agreed

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone needs to read Robert Dahl before running off to their elected representatives in search of more 'protection' from evil corporations. A snippet.

 

When Robert Dahl initiated the power debate in the late fifties, he began a debate which was firmly couched within the language of democratic theory. In essence, Dahl’s analysis of power entails a defence of the workings of American democracy against the critique by left-wing elite theorist - especially Floyed Hunter and C. Wright Mills. While Dahl acknowledges that power was not distributed equally, he argues that competition between a plurality of competing power blocks delivers relatively democratic outcomes in the long run. Bachrach and Baratz, and Lukes critique of critique of Dahl was essentially critique of the latter’s optimistic pluralist reading. According to Bachrach and Baratz non-decisions, and according to Lukes, false consciousness, renders the appearance of pluralism essentially an illusion, which serves as a legitimation of democracy, but which does not correspond to reality. In Dahl’s latter work, for instance Democracy and it Critics (1989), Dahl would appear to accept much of this criticism, as he would appear advocate a radicalization of democracy in which the old ‘public’ ‘private’ distinctions of traditional liberal pluralism and his earlier work are transcended. Following Lukes’ third dimension of power, Foucault’s work can be conceptualized as a fourth dimension which has generally been interpreted as being a yet more radical critique of pluralist democracy.

 

No cite. Do your own Google search.

 

Hroth

 

Ah, but he also wrote: "Rather we are dealing with a plural self who, unlike the Enlightenment self, does not seek the perfection of singularity but views their very inconsistency as a source of emancipation."

 

So, is he merely engaging in pseudo-truculent demagoguery,

or is he really seeking the profundity of egalitarian pathos?

 

That second thing.

 

This is some good shit...

 

Hroth

Link to post
Share on other sites

Constitutional amendment? Why not start with the preamble?:

 

We the people corporations of the United States, China, Saudia Arabia, (and whatever country has some handy cash), in order to form a more perfect union public opinion to our liking, establish justice our agenda, insure domestic tranquility our seat in congress, provide for the common defense lucrative contracts, promote the our general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty financial and political security to ourselves and our posterity shareholders, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Everyone needs to read Robert Dahl before running off to their elected representatives in search of more 'protection' from evil corporations. A snippet.

 

When Robert Dahl initiated the power debate in the late fifties, he began a debate which was firmly couched within the language of democratic theory. In essence, Dahl’s analysis of power entails a defence of the workings of American democracy against the critique by left-wing elite theorist - especially Floyed Hunter and C. Wright Mills. While Dahl acknowledges that power was not distributed equally, he argues that competition between a plurality of competing power blocks delivers relatively democratic outcomes in the long run. Bachrach and Baratz, and Lukes critique of critique of Dahl was essentially critique of the latter’s optimistic pluralist reading. According to Bachrach and Baratz non-decisions, and according to Lukes, false consciousness, renders the appearance of pluralism essentially an illusion, which serves as a legitimation of democracy, but which does not correspond to reality. In Dahl’s latter work, for instance Democracy and it Critics (1989), Dahl would appear to accept much of this criticism, as he would appear advocate a radicalization of democracy in which the old ‘public’ ‘private’ distinctions of traditional liberal pluralism and his earlier work are transcended. Following Lukes’ third dimension of power, Foucault’s work can be conceptualized as a fourth dimension which has generally been interpreted as being a yet more radical critique of pluralist democracy.

 

No cite. Do your own Google search.

 

Hroth

 

Ah, but he also wrote: "Rather we are dealing with a plural self who, unlike the Enlightenment self, does not seek the perfection of singularity but views their very inconsistency as a source of emancipation."

 

So, is he merely engaging in pseudo-truculent demagoguery,

or is he really seeking the profundity of egalitarian pathos?

 

That second thing.

 

This is some good shit...

 

Hroth

 

Dahl's thesis was shot to shit by his peers too.

 

He based his research on the New Haven community and the

power of it's various gentlemans "clubs" and their

politcial "suck". Somebody checked and found

out those clubs had massive membership overlap.

Most all the members of these supposedly

competing clubs belonged to more than one,

and a near majority belonged to at least 4 of them.

 

The presumption that these clubs balanced each

other out and therefore served the interests

of a plurality (except their own) just didn't

hold water Perrier...

Link to post
Share on other sites
Constitutional amendment? Why not start with the preamble?:

 

We the people corporations of the United States, China, Saudia Arabia, (and whatever country has some handy cash), in order to form a more perfect union public opinion to our liking, establish justice our agenda, insure domestic tranquility our seat in congress, provide for the common defense lucrative contracts, promote the our general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty financial and political security to ourselves and our posterity shareholders, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

Not far from the mark ... especially wrt the foreign influences. Righties on the bench made it safe for every frenemy of the USA to pour millions into upcoming elections.

 

The irony. The Republican Supreme Court opens the door to a One World Government, except that government would only rule one nation - the USA. Way to go!

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Dredd Scott ruled that people were property.

Now we have declared property is people. Strange little world we live in.

 

Next thing you know, they will be a-clammering

to be allowed to marry each other, even when

they have the same equipment.

It's a slippery slope, I tell ya.

 

What really bothers me is the same justices

that took a fundimentalist approach to this

had no problem with suspending the 4th

and habeas corpus because it was for

the public good...no problem at all when

it comes to executive power.

 

It stinks.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Dredd Scott ruled that people were property.

Now we have declared property is people. Strange little world we live in.

 

Next thing you know, they will be a-clammering

to be allowed to marry each other, even when

they have the same equipment.

It's a slippery slope, I tell ya.

 

What really bothers me is the same justices

that took a fundimentalist approach to this

had no problem with suspending the 4th

and habeas corpus because it was for

the public good...none at all.

 

It stinks.

 

Just another case in point that demonstrates that the whole 'activist judges' claptrap is nothing but pablum for the dumb-asses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok, so now the SCOTUS has declared constitutional rights to corporations, just like citizens.

Does the corporation have to be made up of 100% US citizens? Share holders, officers, employees? Or can it be a mixture of foriegn and domestic?

What about multi-national corps? Or wholly foriegn entities like Halliburton (based in Dubai)?

Did the SCOTUS just give US Constitutional rights to those who might not be citizens? Isn't this the entire argument against trying terrorists on US soil? Those terrorists have no rights in the US, but if they own stock in GE, they do?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have to wholly agree with Gaytor, Chuck D, and the ilk on this one (although I do currently have a 102.5 fever). Piss poor decision. The SC completely disregarded that the "members" of corporations or other entities are NOT in any way prevented from exhibiting free speech. Has any group of people ever agreed on 100% of anything?

 

 

What in the case of unions.......Do ALL of the constituents whom forceably contribute to a union agree with the Unions choice in politicians/causes to support or with a Union's "message" at all? What of free speech then? Is free speech expendable for individuals in favor of corporations?

 

This was not a matter of free speech but a way in which to perpetuate corruption on a much grander scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...
  • 5 months later...
Moe's got nothing. How about you Mark?

Seriously, the idea that the law is unable to distinguish between live people and legal constructs is just a bunch of clever silliness. Can corporations argue insanity when they kill someone? Can they be incarcerated or executed, if they're found to be sane? Can we require that they attend school? None of this is any sillier than the idea that their political "opinions" which, after all, are no more than the opinions of the individuals involved, require protection as such.

 

Let's apply that reasoning to NAACP vs Button, shall we?

 

In that case, the State of Virginia had basically outlawed the practice of hunting for a good client to bring a civil rights lawsuit, and they disbarred lawyers who violated the law. The law was clearly aimed at crippling the activities of the NAACP, which it was doing.

 

The court held that the NAACP, even though it is a corporation, has a right of expression that is protected by the first amendment, and that in this context, solicitation of legal business was a form of expression that effected political change.

 

Did the NAACP not require that protection? Could individuals, acting alone, have accomplished the same things?

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, an amendment would be necessary to reflect the changed modern playing field as while the interpretation is historically correct, the outcome adversely affects the republic and free speech.

 

And what might that amendment say? Remember, it's going to have to say something almost everyone agrees with, or it will have no shot at the necessary Congressional support or the necessary state ratifications. So we're going to need a restriction on speech that is broadly appealing to Americans. I think the one we already have is as close as it's going to get.

 

Carl is right that the outrage on the left here is amusing in light of the fact that Obama went around campaign finance reform laws in his campaign, to no screeching and wailing from those who are screeching and wailing now about how people might do that very thing.

 

I also find it funny that people are worried that corporations might suddenly get political influence. These people don't know a thing about K street, is my guess.

 

The funniest of all are expressions of wonderment that this interpretation might fall outside the original intent of the founders, expressed by saxdog among others. Sax, do you know who Angel Raich is? Or Suzette Kelo?

 

I am aware of Kelo but not expert in the subtleties of the case. However, having been on the receiving end of an eminent domain case, Eminent domain power is absolutely abused by the government acting in behalf of private corporations. I remember one afternoon at a hearing in front of the special master who was appointed to hear my case.

I questioned the terms a utility sub service company offered for an easement. The special master (perhaps he was irritated that he might have to miss getting home in time to watch the Fox and friends) threatened to lock me up if I did not accept the ridiculous offer on the table. Fortunately, I had decent legal representation and did not spend the night in the slammer. Eminent Domain use should be severely restricted and almost never used by the government in behalf of private business.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My biggest problem with this decision is that the individuals who make up these corporations and unions don't get any say where the money goes. It is the reason I refuse to join a union, or work for a large corporation. To be more specific; if I am paying union dues so that I can keep my job, I don't want my union dues(my hard earned money) being donated to some political campaign that I personally do not support. When I was younger I did work for a large corporation, and had a union job. In both cases I quit when I figured out how fucked up they are politically.

Link to post
Share on other sites
IMHO, an amendment would be necessary to reflect the changed modern playing field as while the interpretation is historically correct, the outcome adversely affects the republic and free speech.

 

And what might that amendment say? Remember, it's going to have to say something almost everyone agrees with, or it will have no shot at the necessary Congressional support or the necessary state ratifications. So we're going to need a restriction on speech that is broadly appealing to Americans. I think the one we already have is as close as it's going to get.

 

Carl is right that the outrage on the left here is amusing in light of the fact that Obama went around campaign finance reform laws in his campaign, to no screeching and wailing from those who are screeching and wailing now about how people might do that very thing.

 

I also find it funny that people are worried that corporations might suddenly get political influence. These people don't know a thing about K street, is my guess.

 

The funniest of all are expressions of wonderment that this interpretation might fall outside the original intent of the founders, expressed by saxdog among others. Sax, do you know who Angel Raich is? Or Suzette Kelo?

 

I am aware of Kelo but not expert in the subtleties of the case.

 

In a nutshell, the courts decided as far back as the 50's (1954 in Washington, I believe it was) that "blighted" areas could be condemned for the greater collective good, even though certain parts (a supermarket, in Washington) were clearly profitable and not blighted at all. One popular way to identify "the greater collective good" was by examining tax revenues. If revenues go up, that means all property is more valuable and the government has more money to spend, so it's good for everyone! (Uh, except the supermarket owner and people like Suzette Kelo.)

 

Once it was decided that clearing out blighted areas to increase tax revenue was a "public use" of land, and that private property could be taken for that public use, we saw an orgy of urban redevelopment. Many downtowns became nicer, many black people found new homes elsewhere. I thought Clarence Thomas put it best in his dissent:

 

The consequences of today’s decision are not difficult to predict, and promise to be harmful. So-called “urban renewal” programs provide some compensation for the properties they take, but no compensation is possible for the subjective value of these lands to the individuals displaced and the indignity inflicted by uprooting them from their homes. Allowing the government to take property solely for public purposes is bad enough, but extending the concept of public purpose to encompass any economically beneficial goal guarantees that these losses will fall disproportionately on poor communities. Those communities are not only systematically less likely to put their lands to the highest and best social use, but are also the least politically powerful.

 

But he's just a stupid buffoon, so I'm sure wabbit or Mr. Fab will be along to shoot some holes in his silliness any time now. Cue crickets.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Kelo vs. City of New London was a travesty of mis-justice. I live 20 minutes away and own rental properties nearby. Pfizer built a giant office "campus" about ten years ago, with huge tax benefits, credits, or abatements, I've been told. The city wanted to demolish an entire neighborhood of nearby homes that had been around for a hundred years or so, some occupied by generations of progeny of their original owners. When a few of the owners refused to sell out so the town could build commercial developments for enhanced tax revenue, the Eminent Domain action began. SCOTUS decided that the city could take peoples homes and give or sell to private developers to better the tax rolls of the city. Now, ten years later, Pfizers has abandoned their huge office campus and moved the jobs elsewhere, and the homes taken by the city are still standing, mostly empty. Fortunately for the city and neighborhood, General Dynamics Electric Boat division is taking over the Pfizer space so the offices will be filled with workers again soon.....

Link to post
Share on other sites

http://www.10sigma.com/files/Borrowing%20from%20the%20Rich%2006-30-2011.pdf

 

supreme court is bought. Irrelevant in the big picture of things.

 

the only thing that matters is the 18000 lb ape in the corner......our DEBT.

 

tell the investment bankers to fuck off, devalue the debt, or else.

 

dismantle the fed reserve.

 

fire all "club" (NY banks) members from posts in the gov.

 

elect a potus (ron paul) who will turn away from the bankers instead of kissing their ass for their own personal gain at the taxpapers expense.

 

obama had his chance to reform banking and punted.

 

the game continues but for not much longer.

 

 

have a nice day

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Kelo stood for the proposition that it was legal for government to use the power of eminent domain to take property from a private owner Looter and transfer it to a nother private owner Producer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Kelo stood for the proposition that it was legal for government to use the power of eminent domain to take property from a private owner Looter and transfer it to a nother private owner Producer.

 

It seemed to me like Suzette Kelo was a private owner, but if you want to cast her in Atlas Shrugged terms, I'm going to assume she worked and paid for that home they took, so she would be cast as a producer.

 

Pfizer and the City of New London, who took her home, would be cast as looters.

 

No wonder you hate Ayn Rand so much! You are too stupid to understand even the basics and have it exactly backwards!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Kelo stood for the proposition that it was legal for government to use the power of eminent domain to take property from a private owner Looter and transfer it to a nother private owner Producer.

 

It seemed to me like Suzette Kelo was a private owner, but if you want to cast her in Atlas Shrugged terms, I'm going to assume she worked and paid for that home they took, so she would be cast as a producer.

 

Pfizer and the City of New London, who took her home, would be cast as looters.

 

No wonder you hate Ayn Rand so much! You are too stupid to understand even the basics and have it exactly backwards!

 

Unless she belonged to a union or worked for a school

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Kelo stood for the proposition that it was legal for government to use the power of eminent domain to take property from a private owner Looter and transfer it to a nother private owner Producer.

 

It seemed to me like Suzette Kelo was a private owner, but if you want to cast her in Atlas Shrugged terms, I'm going to assume she worked and paid for that home they took, so she would be cast as a producer.

 

Pfizer and the City of New London, who took her home, would be cast as looters.

 

No wonder you hate Ayn Rand so much! You are too stupid to understand even the basics and have it exactly backwards!

 

Unless she belonged to a union or worked for a school

 

You may think that, but I would never say it about my union school teacher grandmother, who worked her ass off for her home. She'd pinch my head off! ;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Kelo stood for the proposition that it was legal for government to use the power of eminent domain to take property from one private owner and transfer it to another private owner.

 

Eminent Domains intent has always been the taking of private property for the general public good, ie: to build a public school, or land for highway construction. SCOTUS decided that transferring the homes of an entire neighborhood to private developers for construction of private commercial development to expand the citys' tax rolls met that definition. BAD RULING!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Kelo stood for the proposition that it was legal for government to use the power of eminent domain to take property from a private owner Looter and transfer it to a nother private owner Producer.

 

It seemed to me like Suzette Kelo was a private owner, but if you want to cast her in Atlas Shrugged terms, I'm going to assume she worked and paid for that home they took, so she would be cast as a producer.

 

Pfizer and the City of New London, who took her home, would be cast as looters.

 

No wonder you hate Ayn Rand so much! You are too stupid to understand even the basics and have it exactly backwards!

 

Unless she belonged to a union or worked for a school

 

You may think that, but I would never say it about my union school teacher grandmother, who worked her ass off for her home. She'd pinch my head off! ;)

 

Must have forgotten to wrap that comment in sarcasm tags. There are more than a few who think that anyone who collects a paycheck rather is a moocher and only ceos and biz owners are producers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Kelo stood for the proposition that it was legal for government to use the power of eminent domain to take property from one private owner and transfer it to another private owner.

 

Eminent Domains intent has always been the taking of private property for the general public good, ie: to build a public school, or land for highway construction. SCOTUS decided that transferring the homes of an entire neighborhood to private developers for construction of private commercial development to expand the citys' tax rolls met that definition. BAD RULING!

 

It was actually a good ruling in the sense that it upheld long-established law, contrary to what most of the dissenters said. Kelo was, at its heart, very similar to the precedent cases Berman and Midkiff.

 

That's why I think Clarence Thomas was the only one to get it right. He recognized that the cases were similar, and suggested revisiting the reasoning in those cases as a remedy.

 

These two misguided lines of precedent converged in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984). Relying on those lines of cases, the Court in Berman and Midkiff upheld condemnations for the purposes of slum clearance and land redistribution, respectively. “Subject to specific constitutional limitations,” Berman proclaimed, “when the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive. In such cases the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation.” 348 U.S., at 32. That reasoning was question begging, since the question to be decided was whether the “specific constitutional limitation” of the Public Use Clause prevented the taking of the appellant’s (concededly “nonblighted”) department store. Id., at 31, 34. Berman also appeared to reason that any exercise by Congress of an enumerated power (in this case, its plenary power over the District of Columbia) was per se a “public use” under the Fifth Amendment. Id., at 33. But the very point of the Public Use Clause is to limit that power. See supra, at 3—4.

 

More fundamentally, Berman and Midkiff erred by equating the eminent domain power with the police power of States. See Midkiff, 467 U.S., at 240 (“The ‘public use’ requirement is … coterminous with the scope of a sovereign’s police powers”); Berman, 348 U.S., at 32. Traditional uses of that regulatory power, such as the power to abate a nuisance, required no compensation whatsoever, see Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U.S. 623, 668—669 (1887), in sharp contrast to the takings power, which has always required compensation, see supra, at 3, and n. 1. The question whether the State can take property using the power of eminent domain is therefore distinct from the question whether it can regulate property pursuant to the police power. See, e.g., Lucas v. South Carolina Coastal Council, 505 U.S. 1003, 1014 (1992); Mugler, supra, at 668—669. In Berman, for example, if the slums at issue were truly “blighted,” then state nuisance law, see, e.g., supra, at 5—6; Lucas, supra, at 1029, not the power of eminent domain, would provide the appropriate remedy. To construe the Public Use Clause to overlap with the States’ police power conflates these two categories.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought Kelo stood for the proposition that it was legal for government to use the power of eminent domain to take property from one private owner and transfer it to another private owner.

 

Eminent Domains intent has always been the taking of private property for the general public good, ie: to build a public school, or land for highway construction. SCOTUS decided that transferring the homes of an entire neighborhood to private developers for construction of private commercial development to expand the citys' tax rolls met that definition. BAD RULING!

 

It was actually a good ruling in the sense that it upheld long-established law, contrary to what most of the dissenters said. Kelo was, at its heart, very similar to the precedent cases Berman and Midkiff.

 

That's why I think Clarence Thomas was the only one to get it right. He recognized that the cases were similar, and suggested revisiting the reasoning in those cases as a remedy.

 

These two misguided lines of precedent converged in Berman v. Parker, 348 U.S. 26 (1954), and Hawaii Housing Authority v. Midkiff, 467 U.S. 229 (1984). Relying on those lines of cases, the Court in Berman and Midkiff upheld condemnations for the purposes of slum clearance and land redistribution, respectively. "Subject to specific constitutional limitations," Berman proclaimed, "when the legislature has spoken, the public interest has been declared in terms well-nigh conclusive. In such cases the legislature, not the judiciary, is the main guardian of the public needs to be served by social legislation." 348 U.S., at 32. That reasoning was question begging, since the question to be decided was whether the "specific constitutional limitation" of the Public Use Clause prevented the taking of the appellant'