PDA

View Full Version : Right Wing Supreme Ct Ushers In Fascism



Gayle in MD
01-21-2010, 04:13 PM
At long last, after years of the Reagan Fascist policies, followed by the Bush Corporate Pawns, along with their ties to terrorists from the Middle East, and the greedy CEO"s so beloved by the national Bubbas Association of the fly over states, the right wing Supreme Court, led by appointees mostly from the same right wing nuts who have destroyed our economy, our natural environment, our Middle Class wages, the Unions, as they allowed and subsidized corporate fascist pigs who sent our jobs out of the country, and Ponzied the public on Wall Street, under the nose of Fascist Leaders, Reagan/Bush/Bush/Cheney, it is now official. The Supreme Court has legalized corporate bribery in our country.

Scalia et al, will be proud when next he/they appoint another Bush to office, illegally.

No doubt, Republicans have finally made their way to a one party New World Order...

Democracy 1776 - 2010

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

wolfdancer
01-21-2010, 04:38 PM
do you have the link for the Scalia ruling? thanks!!

LWW
01-21-2010, 04:43 PM
<span style='font-family: Arial Black'><span style='font-size: 26pt'>My country 'tis of thee, sweet land of liberty, of thee I sing.

Land where my fathers died, land of the Pilgrim's pride,

From every mountainside, let freedom ring!

And if America is to be a great nation, this must become true.

And so let freedom ring from the prodigious hilltops of New Hampshire.

Let freedom ring from the mighty mountains of New York.

Let freedom ring from the heightening Alleghenies of Pennsylvania.

Let freedom ring from the snow-capped Rockies of Colorado.

Let freedom ring from the curvaceous slopes of California.

But not only that:

Let freedom ring from Stone Mountain of Georgia.

Let freedom ring from Lookout Mountain of Tennessee.

Let freedom ring from every hill and molehill of Mississippi.

From every mountainside, let freedom ring.

The constitution of this glorious republic has been upheld!</span></span>

LWW

Gayle in MD
01-21-2010, 05:48 PM
Link to the decision:

http://assets.sunlightfoundation.com/pdf/08-205.pdf


Excerpts of Stevens' dissent

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2010/01/stevens-accuses-supreme-court-conservatives-judicial-activism

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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.

</div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">This is one of the blackest days in U.S. history. On this date, the country has legally ceased to be a democratic republic and has been transformed into a corporate fascist state. Elections will continue to be conducted, but henceforth a candidate's success will be totally dependent on his/her ability to attract corporate sponserships. The Fox "News" perspective will prevail across the media spectrum and dissenting voices will be suppressed, and eventually threatened. Heil the corporation!

</span>

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the American people ever allow private banks
to control the issue of their money,
first by inflation and then by deflation,
the banks and corporations that will
grow up around them (around the banks),
will deprive the people of their property
until their children will wake up homeless
on the continent their fathers conquered. Thomas Jefferson

</div></div>

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/frown.gif

The Secretary
01-21-2010, 06:34 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how far should the justices go in equating corporations with citizens. </div></div>

About the same length the left goes to equate prisoners in Gitmo with citizens

Bobbyrx
01-21-2010, 06:41 PM
I have to agree with you on this one Gayle. There has to be more limitation on campaign spending, not less, imo.

pooltchr
01-21-2010, 06:44 PM
Yeah. I just hate it when the courts rule something that actually upholds freedom of speech. The ruling simply means that you, me or anyone else can buy air time to voice our opinions on various issues or candidates.

Steve

wolfdancer
01-21-2010, 09:08 PM
thanks, I saw something on that in another site.

Gayle in MD
01-21-2010, 11:11 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: The Secretary</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">how far should the justices go in equating corporations with citizens. </div></div>

About the same length the left goes to equate prisoners in Gitmo with citizens </div></div>

What do you suggest we do with them? Leave them all in limbo for the rest of their lives, in spite of the fact that some were and are innocent?

You might want to seek out the C-Span legal forum which included the lawyers who were appointed to represent the incarcerated people, in gitmo, some of whom were and are innocent. You might learn a few things, like just how horrendous the entire process was, and how many of those in Gitmo, never did a damn thing to anyone.

Gitmo has been a recruiting tool, according to our own 16 national security agencies, as stated in their national Security Estiumate.

The strength of our country is in our laws, and a court system which is fair and honorable. The military does not have the good record that our courts have in convicting terrorists. they have only managed to convict three from these recent wars.

You and others from the right, approved of torturing people? Not all of us believe that Americans should behave as barbarians.

We are human beings, first and foremost. Many of those people were turned in for money, by thugs. You believe that we should incarcerate people indefinitely, just on heresay?

Bush left this mess, now someone has to clean it up. Why? Because it is hurting our country, and because it is inherently wrong to imprison people when there is no evidence that they have ever committed a crime.

Simply parroting the buzz words of the RW pundits, and the Bush/Cheney neocons, does not offer a solution for the mess he created, and left in his wake.



We have an empty federal facility, in a town where the people want and need the jobs for running it, and no one has ever escaped from a federal prison.

Every prisoner has a right to be heard by a court, unless, of course, you think we should become like our barbaric enemies. Bush had us on that road, it did not prove to serve our interests well, at all.

It's easy to be critical. Anyone can do that. Finding solutions is far more effective and efficient, than simply pointing ones' finger.

Too bad the entire process was so completely mishandled, we wouldn't have to be dealing with it now, would we?

George Bush f-ed up this country, our legal system, our honor, our treaty agreements, the process of taking prisoners, his unfinished war on lies, the economy, domestic and global, then walked away smiling and bragging about what a grand job he did.

Some of us live in the real world. President Obama, is one of those.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
01-21-2010, 11:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Bobbyrx</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I have to agree with you on this one Gayle. There has to be more limitation on campaign spending, not less, imo. </div></div>

Yes, it is absurd to think that we could ever have equal representation for all voters, when corporations will surely spend billions more to buy the representation they want, so they can rule this country with their money, while the common man has nothing but one vote.

Public financing is the only way to protect our democracy. This decision takes all contribution limits away. The result will be that a handful of wealthy, greedy people, who don't give a rat's ass about the rest of us, will decide for all of us, with their money.

A devastating day for democracy.

g.

sack316
01-21-2010, 11:29 PM
This also means Unions can enter the fray too.

Not sure how I feel on the decision yet. Could be a slippery slope. Could also turn out that many large corporations won't want to take a "side" in fear of alienating part of a customer base.

On one hand, I do feel it upholds the first amendment. On the other hand, I don't particularly care to see money rule any more than it already does, nor do I care to see more negative campaign ads (which this will likely bring).

Guess I'm fencing this one for now /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack

Gayle in MD
01-21-2010, 11:46 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: sack316</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This also means Unions can enter the fray too.

Not sure how I feel on the decision yet. Could be a slippery slope. Could also turn out that many large corporations won't want to take a "side" in fear of alienating part of a customer base.

On one hand, I do feel it upholds the first amendment. On the other hand, I don't particularly care to see money rule any more than it already does, nor do I care to see more negative campaign ads (which this will likely bring).

Guess I'm fencing this one for now /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif

Sack </div></div>


<span style="color: #000066">I can respect that decision. </span> /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/wink.gif
<span style="color: #000066">Although, I do think, "The Love Of Money Is The Root Of All Evil" so be worried.</span>

G. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/smile.gif

eg8r
01-22-2010, 09:35 AM
I am pretty much in agreement also.

eg8r

eg8r
01-22-2010, 09:38 AM
Where I have a problem is the you, me or ANYONE else. What bothers me is the rate of US companies sold to foreign investors and then those foreign entities having a major stake in the game with respect to our elected leaders.

eg8r

pooltchr
01-22-2010, 11:42 AM
I'm not thrilled that foreign groups would have the same options available to them, but freedom of speech can't be selective.

During the last campaign, there was a movie about Hillary that was not allowed to air. At the time, I thought it was wrong. I'm not ready to change my stand because I may not personally like some of what happens. I think the overall good of allowing free speech oughtweighs the potential downfalls.

Steve

LWW
01-22-2010, 11:56 AM
The COTUS is so clear that only a partisan left wing fanatic could be confused by it:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It doesn't mention "PEOPLE" until it gets to the right to assemble and protest.

If the congress doesn't like it the way it is, they should follow the COTUS process for amendment and take the courts out of the loop entirely by codifying it into the COTUS.

LWW

Alfie
01-22-2010, 09:08 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">If the congress doesn't like it the way it is, they should follow the COTUS process for amendment and take the courts out of the loop entirely by codifying it into the COTUS.
LWW </div></div>I want that to happen. How about the rest of you?

LWW
01-23-2010, 08:08 AM
I would have to see the actual amendment to render an opinion ... but the far left has no interest in pursuing this path.

To them the COTUS is a prop they wrap themselves in when it's convenient and then toss in the dustbin when the show is over.

LWW

Alfie
01-23-2010, 01:50 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">I would have to see the actual amendment to render an opinion LWW </div></div>I would like to see the role of money reduced greatly in elections and lawmaking. It's too corrupting, imo.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> ... but the far left has no interest in pursuing this path.</div></div>Let's pray the centrists will save us. /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> To them the COTUS is a prop they wrap themselves in when it's convenient and then toss in the dustbin when the show is over. LWW </div></div>Where's a SCOTUS when you need one?

DickLeonard
01-23-2010, 02:04 PM
lww i think those Freedoms include a womens right to her own body. Take a look around Billions of stars,planets etc.

The odds of there being a God gets pretty slim. ####

pooltchr
01-23-2010, 03:17 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: DickLeonard</div><div class="ubbcode-body">lww i think those Freedoms include a womens right to her own body. </div></div>

Do you think prostitution should be legalized? After all, laws against it are nothing more than the government telling a woman what she can't do with her own body.

Steve

LWW
01-23-2010, 03:45 PM
Yes I do.

I think the state has a genuine public interest in regulating it from a safety standpoint, but banning it is IMHO an abomination.

Now, does this mean that I morally approve of prostitution? No, it does not.

LWW

eg8r
01-23-2010, 05:31 PM
Our freedom of speech is not passed on to foreigners. That is a right for US citizens.

eg8r