Ralph Nader commentary on the corporate Supreme Court Justices

[Craig234]

I've long said that the radical right-wing appointees to the Supreme Court are one of the most important problems our nation faces. They're making radical changes to the country.

Nader has written an article that's a reminder of the issue; for the first time, he calls for impeaching them.

Rather than excerpt issues from his article, I'll excerpt a couple quotes from conservative Justices that contrast to the current radical members.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/18-12

To see how extreme the five corporate justices are, consider the strong contrary view of one of their conservative heroes, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a case where a plurality of justices threw out a California regulation requiring an insert in utility bills inviting residential ratepayers to band together to advance their interests against Pacific Gas and Electric. The prevailing justices said--get this--that it violated the electric company monopoly's first amendment right to remain silent and not respond to the insert's message.

Conservative Justice Rehnquist's dissent contained these words--so totally rejected by the present-day usurpers: "Extension of the individual freedom of conscience decisions to business corporations strains the rationale of those cases beyond the breaking point. To ascribe to such artificial entities an "intellect" or "mind" for freedom of conscience purposes is to confuse metaphor with reality."

It was left to another conservative jurist, the late Justice Byron White, dissenting in the corporatist decision First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti (1978) to recognize the essential principle.

Corporations, Justice White wrote, are "in a position to control vast amounts of economic power which may, if not regulated, dominate not only the economy but also the very heart of our democracy, the electoral process." The state, he continued, has a compelling interest in "preventing institutions which have been permitted to amass wealth as a result of special advantages extended by the State for certain economic purposes from using that wealth to acquire an unfair advantage in the political process... The state need not permit its own creation to consume it."

This radical ideology has taken hold of many Americans. The state is above corporations. But ask a lot of right-wingers, and they'll say it's not.

Earlier today before seeing this, I was considering asking right-wingers what comes first - the interests of the people, or the property rights of the rich, if they had to choose.

This fits that question pretty well. Some would say the needs of the people come second - if the corporate creations take over government and destroy democracy and the 'more perfect union' and 'welfare' of the people, that's not a problem - that's the ideology they support.

I've said, apart from any issues, that the Supreme Court appointments alone are enough to base a vote for the President on. I stand by that.

Republicans went from less in donations than Democrats in our democracy in 2006 and 2008 to double the amount as Democrats in 2010 under the activist court's 5-4 ruling.

One justice different and our democracy would still have the modest protections against corporate domination.

The issue gets very little attention in the media, of the radical changes being made to our laws and constitutional interpretation.

Whatever Obama has done wrong, while he has not appointed liberal Justices, he has appointed moderates, and that's kept bad 5 vote rulings from being 6 or 7.

It's not enough to prevent the 5 from winning all kinds of bad cases, but it might help in coming decades.

 

[Atreus21]

Nevermind. I was being an asshole.

 

[a777pilot]

What has Ralph ever got right about anything in his public life?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Yet another Craig420 thread

 

[QuantumPion]

Earlier today before seeing this, I was considering asking right-wingers what comes first - the interests of the people, or the property rights of the rich, if they had to choose.

We live in a free society with the rule of law. Not a dictatorship of a political elite in the name of "the people". Or at least I would like to think we still do. Property rights must come before the "interests of the people" (read: socialism) as you put it. Socialism depends on the wealth created by capitalism. Without property rights and rule of law, there will be no wealth creation to begin with.

 

[MovingTarget]

What has Ralph ever got right about anything in his public life?

Early versions* of the Chevrolet Corvair?

I appreciate him for his work as a consumer advocate, but thats about it.

*I say early because the problems addressed in Unsafe at Any Speed were largely addressed in later models. I'd love to have a Corvair, or a modern RR layout Chevrolet very badly...

 

[QuantumPion]

"The moment the idea is admitted into society that property is not as sacred as the laws of God, and that there is not a force of law and public justice to protect it, anarchy and tyranny commence." --John Adams

 

[Anarchist420]

I've long said that the radical right-wing appointees to the Supreme Court are one of the most important problems our nation faces. They're making radical changes to the country.

Nader has written an article that's a reminder of the issue; for the first time, he calls for impeaching them.

Rather than excerpt issues from his article, I'll excerpt a couple quotes from conservative Justices that contrast to the current radical members.

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2011/07/18-12



This radical ideology has taken hold of many Americans. The state is above corporations. But ask a lot of right-wingers, and they'll say it's not.

Earlier today before seeing this, I was considering asking right-wingers what comes first - the interests of the people, or the property rights of the rich, if they had to choose.

This fits that question pretty well. Some would say the needs of the people come second - if the corporate creations take over government and destroy democracy and the 'more perfect union' and 'welfare' of the people, that's not a problem - that's the ideology they support.

I've said, apart from any issues, that the Supreme Court appointments alone are enough to base a vote for the President on. I stand by that.

Republicans went from less in donations than Democrats in our democracy in 2006 and 2008 to double the amount as Democrats in 2010 under the activist court's 5-4 ruling.

One justice different and our democracy would still have the modest protections against corporate domination.

The issue gets very little attention in the media, of the radical changes being made to our laws and constitutional interpretation.

Whatever Obama has done wrong, while he has not appointed liberal Justices, he has appointed moderates, and that's kept bad 5 vote rulings from being 6 or 7.

It's not enough to prevent the 5 from winning all kinds of bad cases, but it might help in coming decades.

You're kind of right and kind of wrong.

Rehnquist actually had the true conservative opinion, because he was siding with states' rights. Corporatism is centrist, states' rights is conservative.

No rational person would deny that the 14th Amendment's original intent was to take away power from the states and individuals and to give power to well-connected corporations. That's why democracy sucks.

I'm fine with corporations being treated as people, but no one should be given higher treatment than the states and no one should have the right to violate anothers' property.

 

[DominionSeraph]

Property rights must come before the "interests of the people" (read: socialism) as you put it.

So we should get rid of all laws against fraud, and laws dictating truth in labeling and advertising? All laws in regards to product/food safety? Laws that dictate that you must be covered by insurance to use public roads, as that places the protection of others' property over your free use of yours? Actually, get rid of all liability for use of a product -- shooting someone would simply be your right as a property owner of a gun? Setting someone's house on fire would simply be the free exercise of your rights to use your matches?

BRB, starting a meth lab, and gonna sell to school children as candy. Mah corporate rights!

 

[thraashman]

We live in a free society with the rule of law. Not a dictatorship of a political elite in the name of "the people". Or at least I would like to think we still do. Property rights must come before the "interests of the people" (read: socialism) as you put it. Socialism depends on the wealth created by capitalism. Without property rights and rule of law, there will be no wealth creation to begin with.

See the problem with this attitude is that society only functions as a whole. When you have a society focused on being individualist like some Ayn Rand objectivist hell then you lead towards wealth concentration. Which itself leads to an oligarchy and an eventual fascist state with a ruling elite and poor mass. Which is the same thing that socialism leads to. The problem is that you can't really say that either the interests of the people or property of the rich is more important, they're equally important in a capitalist society. The issue we have today is that the people are becoming less important than the corporation. The far right is trying to increase the power of the corporations while decreasing the power of the people to stand up to them (union busting). The current right keeps loving to throw around the word socialism, but if you look objectively the current right is far closer to allowing a fascist state to take over than they are a socialist one.

 

[fskimospy]

What has Ralph ever got right about anything in his public life?

We could ask the same of you.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Radical is in the mind of the beholder. Because they do not rubber stamp the progressive liberal ideas; they are radical.

They act as a counter balance for all the handouts that the liberals want to destroy the country during the class warfare that is being encouraged.

 

[Jaskalas]

So we should get rid of all laws against fraud, and laws dictating truth in labeling and advertising? All laws in regards to product/food safety? Laws that dictate that you must be covered by insurance to use public roads, as that places the protection of others' property over your free use of yours? Actually, get rid of all liability for use of a product -- shooting someone would simply be your right as a property owner of a gun? Setting someone's house on fire would simply be the free exercise of your rights to use your matches?

BRB, starting a meth lab, and gonna sell to school children as candy. Mah corporate rights!

WTF are you going to do with all that left over straw? He said nothing of the sort, but THAT tirade making up imaginary positions is your response to the notion of property rights?

FFS, the people are NOT owned by their government. Our rights, including our property, are supreme to whatever mob rule you have in mind.

 

[thraashman]

What has Ralph ever got right about anything in his public life?

We could ask the same of you.

Oooh, I think he's got you there.

 

[thraashman]

Radical is in the mind of the beholder. Because they do not rubber stamp the progressive liberal ideas; they are radical.

They act as a counter balance for all the handouts that the liberals want to destroy the country during the class warfare that is being encouraged.

Actually if you define activist as legislating from the bench and ruling against case law and established law, then the current conservative justices of the Supreme Court are the most activist in the history of the US.

 

[DominionSeraph]

He said nothing of the sort

Oh, but he did. The absence of qualification = no qualification assigned. Nonspecific = general.
Your inability to process the ramifications of what he actually wrote is not my problem.

It is up to him to properly express his position with all relevant qualifications. He probably can't, though, as his mind is probably just a conglomeration of absolutist positions with arbitrary crossover points.
I am quite free to take issue with each and every one of those absolutist positions as individually expressed, and in doing so demand that he create a singular model that can account for all the evidence.
If you have a collection of models, all of which will fail at some point in the realm they purport to describe... you need to find better models.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Actually if you define activist as legislating from the bench and ruling against case law and established law, then the current conservative justices of the Supreme Court are the most activist in the history of the US.

Which is the same that Craig advocates.

Ignore the law; do what he feels should be done.

 

[a777pilot]

We could ask the same of you.

I'm not a public figure and I never ran for elective office.

I'm just a retiree posting from my basement that happens to be a known fucking liar, extremely stupid, and with more moral failings than your average bear.

...so don't ask.

 

[QuantumPion]

So we should get rid of all laws against fraud, and laws dictating truth in labeling and advertising? All laws in regards to product/food safety? Laws that dictate that you must be covered by insurance to use public roads, as that places the protection of others' property over your free use of yours? Actually, get rid of all liability for use of a product -- shooting someone would simply be your right as a property owner of a gun? Setting someone's house on fire would simply be the free exercise of your rights to use your matches?

BRB, starting a meth lab, and gonna sell to school children as candy. Mah corporate rights!

Way to deliberately misquote me, take my misquote out of context, and then argue against that out of context misquote. Please reread the first and last sentences of my original unaltered post and then realize how stupid you are.

 

[QuantumPion]

The issue we have today is that the people are becoming less important than the government. The far left is trying to increase the power of the government while decreasing the power of the people to stand up to them (business busting). The current left keeps loving to throw around the word corporatism, but if you look objectively the current left is far closer to allowing a fascist state to take over than they are a socialist one.

FTFY.

 

[thraashman]

FTFY.

Cute, but the difference is what I said is true. So

 

[Throckmorton]

Wow. 20 replies and all of them are bullshit nothing posts.

Ralph Nader is spot on here. These conservative justices are hijacking America and turning it over to big business. We're now well on our way to a third world Libertopia.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

What the world needs is more My Little Ponies and Smurfs.

 

[Throckmorton]

Do conservatives really believe that corporations have the rights of citizens, including free speech, and that money = speech?

 

[EagleKeeper]

Do conservatives really believe that corporations have the rights of citizens, including free speech, and that money = speech?

If you are going to tax the corporation, the corporation has the right to express itself.

The form of speech is immaterial