It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by SyphonX
reply to post by ziggystrange
First of all, these lawmakers and justices are not "conservatives" they are neo-cons, wolves in sheep costumes. I though this is made abundantly clear throughout many ATS posts.
There are not many conservatives or libertarians these days, especially on ATS, that would ever support this or anything like it. So please, stop acting like anyone here is "responsible" by some grand notion that because the justices say they are conservative, that they are anything like us. It's like Glenn Beck calling himself a libertarian... No libertarian worth their salt would ever follow that.
Originally posted by David9176
reply to post by ziggystrange
You need to stop lashing out everyone. i'm a conservative/libertarian...and there is no way in hell I would ever support this...I don't know how anyone could.
People don't understand what we just gave international corporations. They now have the power to EASILY corrupt/blackmail politicians. Corporations that do not care at all for the United States and it's sovereignty...let alone the middle class which has all but disappeared.
Cool it some. I know u are angry...I am as well.
Just because someone is conservative does not mean they support this.
Where are the other conservatives besides you expressing their outrage and targeting it appropriately?
I quote "you can now basically buy a president". He also said, this can't be good.
John G. Roberts (chief injustice) - Appointed by: President George W. Bush Clarence Thomas - Appointed by: President George H. W. Bush Anthony Kennedy - Appointed by: President Reagan Antonin Scalia - Appointed by: President Reagan Samuel A. Alito, Jr. - Appointed by: President George W. Bush
Originally posted by Cowgirlstraitup7
reply to post by ziggystrange
Oh, God!!!!!!!!! The world is coming to an end!!!!!! Bill Fox O'reilly and Olbermann of all people agree as well!
For sh@t's and giggles I turned to O'Reilly tonight to hear him bloviate about how great this ruling is and low and behold he said and I quote "you can now basically buy a president". He also said, this can't be good.
The world is truly ending now.
* In 2001, "Critics point[ed] to Roberts' representation of big business and his role in cases attacking the ADA, affirmative action, and labor interests as possible causes for opposition."  Roll Call reported, "The lobbying resume of Supreme Court nominee John Roberts is longer than it initially seemed. Even before he lobbied the Office of Management and Budget on behalf of the Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, Roberts worked on behalf of two clients in the peanut industry" (Tory Newmyer and Kate Ackley, "K Street Files," Roll Call, July 25, 2005).
* In 2003, Alliance for Justice said that "John Roberts’ legal career and professional writings reveal that he is out of the mainstream in his legal views in a number of areas, most prominently civil rights and the right to choose. His record as a member of the Bush and Reagan administrations reflects opposition to the rights of women and minorities, as well as a restrictive view of the proper role of federal courts in protecting the environment and the rights of criminal defendants. His comments about the Rehnquist Court reveal Roberts’ extremist ideology, a view confirmed by his membership in and connections to ultra-conservative legal groups.
"Mr. Roberts has been nominated to a federal court with tremendous influence. The Washington Times said of the nomination of Roberts (along with that of Miguel Estrada) to the D.C. Circuit that it, 'offer[s] business the best opportunity in years to free itself from government regulations ... A victory for conservatives on the appellate court could cut deeply into the aspirations of environmentalists, labor groups, and other social activists. They depend on federal regulations to carry out their advocacy efforts.'"
Upon his graduation, many firms tried to recruit Thomas by hinting at opportunities to do pro bono work. This tactic, however, served only to offend Thomas and he turned every offer down. Thomas decided to return to Missouri to work in the office of then State Attorney General John Danforth. The job allowed him to work in the tax division and did not force his involvement in any civil rights cases. When Danforth won an election to the U.S. Senate three years later in 1977, Thomas left the attorney general's office and became a corporate lawyer in the pesticide and agriculture division of the Monsanto Company.
Since becoming a justice, Thomas has aligned closely with the far right of the Court. He votes most frequently on the same side as the conservative camp of Rehnquist and Scalia. When Thomas began his tenure on the Court, many observers perceived him as a junior version of Scalia. Since then, Thomas has emerged from Scalia's shadow offering hints at his own conservative thinking.
In January 2004, Scalia spent time duck hunting with Vice President Dick Cheney at a private camp (guests of Wallace Carline, owner of Diamond Services in Amelia, St. Mary Parish,) in southern Louisiana (reportedly travelling on Air Force 2) just three weeks after the court agreed to take up the vice president's appeal in lawsuits over his handling of Vice President Cheney's Energy Task Force. ,
* While Scalia and Cheney are avid hunters and longtime friends, several experts in legal ethics questioned the timing of their trip and said it raised doubts about Scalia's ability to judge the case impartially.
* But Scalia rejected that concern, saying, "I do not think my impartiality could reasonably be questioned."
In April 2004, "Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia ordered U.S. Marshals to seize the tapes of reporters who recorded his speeches before two religious schools in Mississippi. Ironic in that the man who fancies himself the sole authority on the Constitution would believe that reporters should not be able to talk about what he says." , 
Samuel A. Alito, Jr. was nominated October 31, 2005, by President George W. Bush to be an Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States. Alito would replace Associate Justice Sandra Day O'Connor who was to retire this fall. Alito's nomination came four days after White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers withdrew her nomination.
The White House has appointed Ed Gillespie, the co-chairman of Quinn Gillespie & Associates to help win Senate support for Alito's confirmation. 
"It's interesting to note that when Sam became U.S. Attorney in New Jersey, and needed to appoint his First Assistant U.S. Attorney (his top deputy), he looked outside the office and brought on board a highly experienced prosecutor from the Southern District of New York by the name of Michael Chertoff. --Eric, Is That Legal?, October 31, 2005.
"Three years ago Alito drew conflict-of-interest accusations after he upheld a lower court's dismissal of a lawsuit against the Vanguard Group. Alito had hundreds of thousands of dollars invested with the mutual fund company at the time. He denied doing anything improper but recused himself from further involvement in the case." --Christopher Lee, Washington Post, October 28, 2005.
Originally posted by Blaine91555
I don't think some of you understand. The Supreme Court just ruled that a Corporation or a Union is equal to a citizen and has the same rights. This is dangerous in many ways. That's why both Parties are upset over this. It was perhaps the worst decision ever made by the Supreme Court. It's is giving citizenship rights to an entity that is not human or even alive.
Originally posted by ventian
All the mouth breathers that voted for Obama to stop the way Washington does business just got their wish.
Today, however, there are no economic populists on the court, even on the liberal wing. And ever since John Roberts was appointed chief justice in 2005, the court has seemed only more receptive to business concerns. Forty percent of the cases the court heard last term involved business interests, up from around 30 percent in recent years. While the Rehnquist Court heard less than one antitrust decision a year, on average, between 1988 and 2003, the Roberts Court has heard seven in its first two terms — and all of them were decided in favor of the corporate defendants.