Judicial Activism?

  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 22, 2010 11:48 AM GMT
    In a stunning reversal of nearly a century's worth of campaign finance laws
    The Court in a usual 5-4 vote removed all limits on special interest (corporate)
    funding of politicians
    This means that any corporate interest can give millions or even Billions of dollars to a candidate or an election
    so if you think sending a check for a few hundred dollars for a candidate that you like is going to make a difference .... don't bother

    Because your going to be drowned out
    In one fell swoop this court opened the flood gates for corruption on a National Scale unseen in America since the 19th century
    Now government from the local town counsel to the United States Presidency can be brought and paid for out in the open with the blessing of the United States Supreme Court


    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/21/supreme-court-sides-hillary-movie-filmmakers-campaign-money-dispute/?test=latestnews

    <object width=">

    <object width=">
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 3:02 PM GMT
    The Constituiton, and its guarantee of free speech, applies to corporations as well as individuals. It's that simple.

  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 3:03 PM GMT
    for we hold these truths to be self evident, that all men and corporations are created equal
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 4:17 PM GMT
    Hoosierbud saidThe Constituiton, and its guarantee of free speech, applies to corporations as well as individuals. It's that simple.



    I'm sorry, but if you can't understand that our country is now run only by those with big money I feel sorry for you.

    This is NOT a liberal vs. conservative issue here.
  • rdberg1957

    Posts: 661

    Jan 22, 2010 4:20 PM GMT
    Defining corporations as persons with rights is ludicrous. Corporations are not citizens; they don't vote, individuals do. There is nothing wrong with free speech applying to corporations, but the decision by the Supreme Court equating money and speech is ludicrous in a democratic republic.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 4:26 PM GMT
    "I pledge allegiance to the coalition of corporate citizens..."

    http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01/supreme-court-gives-corporatio.html

    Now, go rent "Capitalism: A Love Story."
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 4:29 PM GMT
    Hoosierbud saidThe Constituiton, and its guarantee of free speech, applies to corporations as well as individuals. It's that simple.

    The US Constitution does not mention corporations, only people. The concept of a corporation as a person is one that the Court itself created in the 19th Century.

    Heretofore that corporate concept did not apply to free speech, particularly in political matters; now it suddenly does. Listen to the Barney Frank video and Keith Olbermann's comments above, where much of this is explained.

    As this thread title suggests, it would be the height of hypocrisy if right-wingers ever again complain about judicial activism. It actually works in their favor more times than for liberals, and they are the first to head to the courts, as in this case, when they can't get something they want done through the electoral or legislative process.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 22, 2010 4:39 PM GMT
    Hoosierbud saidThe Constituiton, and its guarantee of free speech, applies to corporations as well as individuals. It's that simple.



    There is no "corporation" in "for the people, by the people." It's that simple!
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 4:39 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidPlease do not overlook the fact that the unions also benefit from yesterday's decision, as they are no longer prohibited from advertising for candidates 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days before the general election.


    Manifestly a bad idea. We need union funding for candidates as much as we need corporate funding, i.e. not at all.

    There are plenty of people on here who try for intellectual consistency.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 22, 2010 4:40 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidGentlemen,

    Please do not overlook the fact that the unions also benefit from yesterday's decision, as they are no longer prohibited from advertising for candidates 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days before the general election.

    Did anybody on here know that?

    Judging by how everybody on here is so up in arms about how corporations are affected by the SCOTUS decision, I would hazard a guess to say the answer is no.

    So, perhaps this will calm all of you down a bit.... all the unions will be right up there with the corporations flooding the airwaves.



    No one benefits, regardless of political affiliation. This is fascism. plain & simple.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 22, 2010 4:41 PM GMT
    GwgTrunks said,

    This is NOT a liberal vs. conservative issue here.




    Quoted for the ever-loving truth! Liberals and Libertarians have to work together on this one!!!
  • CuriousJockAZ

    Posts: 19119

    Jan 22, 2010 4:43 PM GMT
    As far as advertising on TV for candidates goes, it's all become so ridiculously false, mean-spirited, and negative from both sides that I almost feel like Americans have become numb to it and don't even pay them much attention anyway.
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 4:45 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 saidGentlemen,

    Please do not overlook the fact that the unions also benefit from yesterday's decision, as they are no longer prohibited from advertising for candidates 30 days prior to a primary and 60 days before the general election.

    Did anybody on here know that?

    Judging by how everybody on here is so up in arms about how corporations are affected by the SCOTUS decision, I would hazard a guess to say the answer is no.

    So, perhaps this will calm all of you down a bit.... all the unions will be right up there with the corporations flooding the airwaves.


    Yes, we're aware, but do you seriously think that unions have anywhere near the level resources available to conglomerates like Exxon, GE, Comcast, etc.?
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 22, 2010 4:46 PM GMT
    The title of this thread, "Judicial Activism?" is spot on. I found it interesting and refreshing that Keith Olberman claimed that this decision just trumped the damage that Supreme Court Justice Taney's decision did in Dred Scott, which put America on the inevitable path towards the Civil War and that his decision was judicial activism to the core.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 22, 2010 4:54 PM GMT
    Consider how the defense industry wasted and abused contracts over the last decade. If you think the Iraq war was a debacle, wait until we play GI Joe in other places like Somalia (again) or Iran or Korea or Canada...get ready to be drafted young homos because it will be all too easy to repeal DADT and expend your lives for corporate fascism!!


    HAIL TO THE SHELL!!

    shell.jpg
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 22, 2010 5:03 PM GMT
    These assholes are writing the sequels to Orwell's "1984" AND "Animal Farm"!!! Napoleon is going to be a saint!
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 22, 2010 5:03 PM GMT
    where did everybody go??
  • Posted by a hidden member.
    Log in to view his profile

    Jan 22, 2010 5:19 PM GMT
    Smaller government, lesser taxes, stronger defense. Sounds ideal right?

    Hooray for republicans.

    Except that for some reason, they forgot to tell you that they meant smaller, easier-to-control governments with a horribly crippled system of wealth redistribution so they get to keep all the moneys they earned from sweatshops; and by lesser taxes they meant tax breaks for multinational gigacompanies and rich people; and the stronger defense bit is the primer for a more insidious form of imperialism, of course - the economic kind.

    NOT for your average starving joe in the streets.

    It's the politics of greed.
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 22, 2010 5:21 PM GMT
    Yeah, the Republicans involved in this fiasco think they are doing themselves a favor, but they're going to find out real quick that they just created a monster of a beast...one they cannot ever control.
  • victor8

    Posts: 237

    Jan 22, 2010 5:28 PM GMT
    it makes me sad and disheartened...and while i try to write my elected officials to tell them my views...it doesn't seem we're making any headway on important issues...without a liberal agenda in play...big corp's will continue to pollute and destroy out planet and leave it a sticky mess for future generations..all for instant $$...;-(
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 22, 2010 6:22 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said
    coolarmydude saidThe title of this thread, "Judicial Activism?" is spot on. I found it interesting and refreshing that Keith Olberman claimed that this decision just trumped the damage that Supreme Court Justice Taney's decision did in Dred Scott, which put America on the inevitable path towards the Civil War and that his decision was judicial activism to the core.

    Did Mr. Olberman mention how the unions would also be beneficiaries of this decision?




    First of all, I was already thinking what I'm saying now before I tuned in to hear Keith's opinion. And though he didn't mention specifically how unions would benefit, (another program did for that matter), he mentioned that no one wins, including FOX News and whoever else. I don't agree with him; he agrees with me!!
  • coolarmydude

    Posts: 9190

    Jan 22, 2010 6:24 PM GMT
    Some people "forget" when the bailouts began...icon_rolleyes.gif
  • yogadudeSEATT...

    Posts: 373

    Jan 22, 2010 6:33 PM GMT
    southbeach1500 said

    And the only thing they have done so far is run up several trillion dollars in additional debt which you should also add to your list of problems being passed on to future generations.


    Obama only continued what George Bush started. For the record, I don't think any of the big banks should have been bailed out with tax payer money. But it never ceases to amaze me how conservatives are just fine with debt as long as it comes from tax cuts or killing people.
  • TR_Latitude10

    Posts: 206

    Jan 22, 2010 8:10 PM GMT
    I guess they'll have to create a new video... This decision just sickens me.

    [url][/url]
  • GQjock

    Posts: 11649

    Jan 23, 2010 12:16 AM GMT
    Cosmic ..... Obama had no choice but to continue with the bailouts
    The economic system as we knew it would have just ceased up and it would have collapsed this is why His plan to fine and divide up some of the larger banks is important right now

    The term "Too Big to Fail" cannot ever be allowed in our banking or our Financial system ever again

    And The gentleman who are stating that a "Corporation" or a "Union" need to be protected by the First Amendment
    You need to have your collective heads mined for some heavy metal objects because there is absolutely no rationale for what you're saying

    Editorial
    The Court’s Blow to Democracy
    Jan 21'10
    NYT
    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?ref=opinion

    Also ...... Take careful note of the timing of this ruling
    NOW when Obama is poised to battle with the healthcare corporations and the banking corporations
    and the financial institutions
    SUDDENLY they are given a great big whopping get out of jail free card

    The court elevated that case to a forum for striking down the entire ban on corporate spending and then rushed the process of hearing the case at breakneck speed. It gave lawyers a month to prepare briefs on an issue of enormous complexity, and it scheduled arguments during its vacation

    You never have to ever bring up the term Judicial Activism ... because you just got the very definition of it yesterday with this decision

    Oh and SB? are you really kidding me? Like giving this power to the unions is supposed to somehow offset the damage that a Merck or a Goldman-Sachs can do with their deep pockets?
    There isn't a union on earth who can go toe to toe with their possible media power .... and you should be able to put that much togther