Ralph Nader commentary on the corporate Supreme Court Justices

[Throckmorton]

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

The form of speech is immaterial

How can a non-sentient entity "express itself"?

 

[Thump553]

Corporate money as protected free speech is an even bigger leap of logic by the Supreme Court since it deemed abortion protected under a right of privacy, it's just coming from the other extreme and a lot more harmful to American democracy.

I wish I could care what Nader says anymore, but to me he's like an old girlfriend that once broke your heart out of spite.

 

[Craig234]

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

No, you are being clueless. Radical because they hold views radically different than the history of legal views in this country's modern history (pretty much the last century).

But since you have no clue what legal views are, it's all just a mystery to you to post things like that making up things.

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.

You can't be that much of an idiot, that at the same time the rich have been fighting and winning a class war shooting up their income and wealth hugely while cutting the rest of society off at the knees, that YOU want to talk about 'class war' as if it's something the rich are having done to them?

No, you typed actual words, you can't be that much of an idiot.

But just to give you a pretty picture to learn from if that'll work better for you, here's one showing how the "class war" is going. Get a clue.

 

[Throckmorton]

Corporate money as protected free speech is an even bigger leap of logic by the Supreme Court since it deemed abortion protected under a right of privacy, it's just coming from the other extreme and a lot more harmful to American democracy.

I wish I could care what Nader says anymore, but to me he's like an old girlfriend that once broke your heart out of spite.

So you agree with Nader, and posted that you agree in a thread about his article, yet you don't care about what he says?

Oh I get it, it's really cool and it makes you feel awesome to bash Nader for no reason. You're so badass! High five bro!!

 

[ElFenix]

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

do you think that but for a special exception in the law that newspapers couldn't print their opinions on who to vote for?

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Woohoo!! Now Craig420 is frothing at the mouth.

 

[nick1985]

Craig what do you think of the radical left-wing Supreme Court appointees?

 

[Craig234]

Which is the same that Craig advocates.

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

You're a liar.

I might support CHANGING the law - that's not IGNORING the law.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Craig what do you think of the radical left-wing Supreme Court appointees?

Radicals from the left = Good

Radicals from the right = Bad

 

[Craig234]

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.

Well, we know where all the extra straw went now. Into your post.

 

[Thump553]

Craig what do you think of the radical left-wing Supreme Court appointees?

What radical left-wing Supreme Court appointees? The closest we have ever come to a radical left-wing Supreme Court justice is William O Douglas-who was nowhere near as radical when he was appointed as he was decades later-and it's been a long, long time since Douglas left the Court (1975).

 

[QuantumPion]

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

No? That's just a weird liberal strawman meme that keeps getting repeated, I don't know how it got started.

 

[Craig234]

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.

Our founding fathers wouldn't have dreamed of allowing one tyranny to be traded for another, for the democracy and rights of the people they created to be trashed.

Some of them could be some 'elitist' aristocrats - viewing 'the masses' as unfit to govern much directly, needing representatives.

But things were quite different then; the society was 90% farmers who were indeed in little position to 'govern directly' well. There was no such thing as a big corporation - much less the modern corruption of a 'corporatocracy' with huge corporations with interests at odds to society and power enough to threaten the people's power, with a finance industry massive and able to blackmail the national and even global economy.

Someone quoted John Adams on property rights - but the world he was speaking in was a very different one. He was speaking of very different issues than today's.

A more relevant quote for a taste of how founding fathers might view today's issues comes from Jefferson, reacting to just a tiny, tiny taste of a corporate world:

I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country.
Thomas Jefferson

No one is saying not to have big corporations and a thriving private sector. We're talking about the *abuse* of that concentrated wealth in a small group defeating democracy.

 

[woolfe9999]

No? That's just a weird liberal strawman meme that keeps getting repeated, I don't know how it got started.

Are you saying that conservatives did not, as a general rule, favor the majority position in the Citizens United case which ruled exactly as Throckmorton described?

 

[nick1985]

What radical left-wing Supreme Court appointees?

Ahh, so you subscribe to the same school of thought as Craigfail. There are only radical right wingers on the court, no left wingers.

Right = bad

Left = good


Gotcha.

 

[thraashman]

Ahh, so you subscribe to the same school of thought as Craigfail. There are only radical right wingers on the court, no left wingers.

Right = bad

Left = good


Gotcha.

The problem is that the court is divided currently. Of the 9 justices, you have 4 who are mostly lean left to center left, 1 who is moderate to lean right, and four who are far right to very far right.

 

[MovingTarget]

Ahh, so you subscribe to the same school of thought as Craigfail. There are only radical right wingers on the court, no left wingers.

Right = bad

Left = good


Gotcha.

He has a point if you'd take your blinders off for two seconds. Who are the radical left-wingers on the court? What positions make them that way? People denounce the SCOTUS for being left-wing, but that is hardly true of the current court.

 

[QuantumPion]

Are you saying that conservatives did not, as a general rule, favor the majority position in the Citizens United case which ruled exactly as Throckmorton described?

No, where did I say that? What does the right of corporations to spend money on political advertisements during an election have to do with defining corporations as real actual people? I've never heard liberals claim unions or non-profit political organizations are real actual people either.

 

[MotF Bane]

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!

I think you ran out of straw.

 

[Craig234]

No, where did I say that? What does the right of corporations to spend money on political advertisements during an election have to do with defining corporations as real actual people? I've never heard liberals claim unions or non-profit political organizations are real actual people either.

You're really unaware of the issue of corporate personhood? Where do you think that 'right of corporations' comes from?

It's the people of the United States, wanting to say the institution of corporations cannot use its massive wealth to corrupt elections, being told by the Supreme Court "you can't".

Why? Because the Supreme Court has decided that corporations are legal (not actual) 'persons' for some constitutional rights, and extended that to the 14th amendment.

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling in 2010 extended that legal ruling more strongly than it ever had been, overturning long-standing laws limiting corporate spending.

As usual, it was a 5-4 ruling.

After that ruling, in the election that year Republicans got twice the spending of Democrats, reversing previous elections when they got less.

Now, the people of the US are unable to restrict the spending of corporations by passing any laws restricting their donating to 'third party' political groups like Karl Rove's.

Those third party groups are now starting to take in more money than the parties.

http://reclaimdemocracy.org/personhood/

 

[JeffreyLebowski]

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.

Unlike the Liberal Judges that would hand over our freedom to a few elite in the government?

Take any gun related case to the Supreme court and you'll see the liberal justices all vote against any rights the common pleabian has to own a gun. Even though it's clearly stated in the 2nd Amendment. Some think it must have been important to the founding fathers or they wouldn't have made it the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Thump553]

No? That's just a weird liberal strawman meme that keeps getting repeated, I don't know how it got started.

A recent decision previously discussed here (Arizonia Free Enterprise PAC v. Bennett) is a June, 2011 5-4 decision overruleing AZ election laws squarely upon the money=free speech doctine. That's the one where the Supreme Court threw out a two-tier public campaign financing system on the dubious conclusion that private campaign financiers were withholding contributions so as to not trigger the higher tier of public financing.

 

[Craig234]

A recent decision previously discussed here (Arizonia Free Enterprise PAC v. Bennett) is a June, 2011 5-4 decision overruleing AZ election laws squarely upon the money=free speech doctine. That's the one where the Supreme Court threw out a two-tier public campaign financing system on the dubious conclusion that private campaign financiers were withholding contributions so as to not trigger the higher tier of public financing.

Not only an election law, but a ballot measure directly passed by the voters. IN ARIZONA.

The argument was it violated the big spenders' 'free speech rights' by discouraging them.

 

[QuantumPion]

The Citizens United Supreme Court ruling in 2010 extended that legal ruling more strongly than it ever had been, overturning long-standing laws limiting corporate spending.

The Citizens Untied case overturned part of McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform, which wasn't particularly long-standing and was widely held to be unconstitutional when it was originally passed.

After that ruling, in the election that year Republicans got twice the spending of Democrats, reversing previous elections when they got less.

I chalk that up to the Democrats failed and unpopular policies resulting in a record landslide election. Blaming the Dem's defeat in 2010 on corporate spending on campaign ads is a bit naive, even for you.

 

[Craig234]

The Citizens Untied case overturned part of McCain/Feingold campaign finance reform, which wasn't particularly long-standing and was widely held to be unconstitutional when it was originally passed.

It went beyond that to also overturn law in place since the early 20th century.

I chalk that up to the Democrats failed and unpopular policies resulting in a record landslide election. Blaming the Dem's defeat in 2010 on corporate spending on campaign ads is a bit naive, even for you.

I didn't discuss election results, I discussed money. Bad reading, even for you.

So as you tell us what you 'chalk it up to', let's hear about your research into the growth of corporate funding as a result of this ruling to the third-party groups.

Oh, ya, you didn't do any, you make up facts.