Call For Immediate Arrest Of 5 Supreme Court Justices For Treason

page: 3
87
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 11:52 AM
link   
United States Supreme Court Justices are appointed by the President FOR LIFE because this arrangement keeps a stranglehold on the system. An appointment guarantees the court's main purpose and objective of upholding capitalism, not some damn historic piece of paper.


Unelected and unaccountable corporations pretty much control every other aspect of a person's life, why should they not also control the vote? It's not like there is much of a choice out there anyway. Basically, you get to pick from two characters, who both represent the same foul odored pile of crap.

And for those who believe corporations have not controlled how people vote up to now, all you have to do is take a look at the corporately controlled mainstream media, which has been rigging the show for decades. If the outlet is not already owned by some large company, they rely on corporate advertising revenue to survive.

There is no escaping this capitalist reality. If you want a say in how things are run, grease the right wheels and off you go. If you're looking to hunt down some illusional ethical human behavior with regards to elections, corporations and contributions, you're barking up the wrong tree.

It's all about making the entities who pull off these dubious activities completely unaccountable for their actions. After some scamming activity, who better to hide behind than a faceless inculpable corporation?

The Supreme Court and every other court are in on the game - and have been for a very long time.




posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 11:57 AM
link   
Our judicial system has been owned for years just like our congress and our president.The constitution protects the people not corporations and that is why none in the government pay any attention to it unless it benefits them in some way or they are told to do by the powers that be who really run this government.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by neo5842
I have posted this mainly because I dont understand how a judge can override a decision made by government. Does this happen in the states a lot? and is it legal?

In the United States, under our Constitution, we have what is known as a system of checks & balances — meaning that each branch of government (Executive, Legislative and Judicial) has the power to override another branch of government.

So, if our legislators and president pass and sign an unconstitutional bill into law, the Judicial Branch of government can strike it down. The Legislative Branch can likewise override a Judicial or Executive action that is seen as unconstitutional, and the Executive Branch can, of course, veto legislation straight out of Congress.

So, in the USA, we have this 3-pronged protection against unconstitutional legislation and enforcement of unconstitutional laws (such as the McCain/Feingold Law).

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:27 PM
link   
I do hope this doesn't degrade into a partisan issue. Yes, the judges were all conservative and the opposition was all liberal, but I think this was a temporary moment of insanity from them for some ungodly reason.

I think this should be bipartisan (and I hate that word btw) agreed upon that this was a really dumb move. a corporation is not a labor union or some other non-profit representation of the people...and consider the slippery slope...why should a corporation have more rights than my home business? I should be allowed now the same bonuses that corps have because I am a business owner.

I dont think an arrest is in order, but a recall for the judgement most certainly...its not a popular thinking condemning it, this is a logical fallacy decision that 5 idiots made (would bet a paycheck these guys got some money out of the deal...very dirty dealing here)



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Sounds like a he said she said. What's the truth? I mean no one has commented on the banning book issue. Why is this such a hard issue to differentiate? I mean so far some of you have made great points on both sides of the issue. I tend NOT to trust the SCOTUS just like I don't trust government overall. And I sure as hell don't trust corporations.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 12:50 PM
link   

Originally posted by wiredamerican



and is it really treason committed by these judges, and can they really get put away for what i see as being a crime?


This is not treason. They are heroes.
Why?
Because they just stripped election funding from government control.
They gave more power to Corporations and Unions.
Corporations and Unions are made out of people.

This is more power to the people. And that is a good thing.

I find it confusing that people would rather have government control on election funding. I say let the people, fund it. And it is the people who make up the corporations and unions.

This is one step ahead toward a more perfect Union.


A VERY flawed argument! Corporations are run by a relatively SMALL group of people with specific self serving interests toward profit; and, with huge resources, can virtually control the whole outcome of the election process with ads, etc. And history has shown over and over that the motivation toward (quick) profit is not always kind toward the well being of the populations at large.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:07 PM
link   
This is NOT about Freedom of Speech. Freedom of Speech DOES NOT come with a price attached. Nobody is arguing that companies can't voice support for a particular candidate. That would be the 'free speech' part of this. This now allows companies to not only voice their support, but provides them with unlimited funds to advertise for said candidate -- that part just ended FREE speech.

If the CEO's want to stage rallies, use a bull horn, and stand on Capitol Hill preaching about whom THEY think should be elected -- no problem. But to give them the ability to SPEND whatever it takes to have said candidate elected -- HOGWASH.

Our entire election process has become based on whom can attract the companies with the largest wallets: BANKS, INSURANCE COMPANIES, OIL COMPANIES, ENERGY COMPANIES, and MEDIA COMPANIES -- just to name a few.

Next, you will have companies bargaining with media companies for the best price for said advertising. Media companies will then also be pushing for various candidates depending on whom they think they can make the most off of running their ad campaigns.

Anybody that was looking forward to ever having a more fair, non-two party system should be outraged by this since it is common knowledge that Independents and other smaller party candidates DO NOT HAVE the funds available to them on as large of a scale as Republicans and Democrats.

You know how everyone was outraged that Obama worked a deal with the unions -- and everybody made a point about how the Unions supported him so now "he owes" them payback. That was nothing compared to what this can turn out to become.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Well now the Corporations get to take the bailout money
Use our tax dollars to purchase the next set of politicians
to further their agenda!
Boy we fell for that one, hook, line, and sinker!



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX
fallacy decision that 5 idiots made

No, it was a long-overdue rectification of a profoundly unconstitutional piece of lawmaking, a BAD LAW that was designed to silence political dissent in the final months before an election.

Like it or not, Corporate America signs all of your paychecks, and corporate interests have as much right to pour money into political campaigns as any of you do.

Liberals loved McCain/Feingold because it restricted and/or removed large corporate contributions (seen as GOP-biased) to political campaigns; but it did nothing to curtail the Federal Government from pouring hundreds of millions into incumbent re-election campaigns; so incumbents such as the brain-damaged Ted Kennedy could remain in office for 40 years despite his poor thinking skills and exceedingly bad judgment, and despicable old farts such as Robert "White Nigger" Byrd (a Ku Klux Klansman) could remain in the Senate against all logic and all challengers.

The Federal Government should never be allowed to finance incumbent campaigns, any more than they should be allowed to give themselves annual raises while putting the screws to the private citizen. Period.

The defeat of McCain/Feingold will additionally empower America to "kick the bums out" of Washington this November, including the socialist ass-kissers such as John McCain.

Good riddance to unconstitutional rubbish.

— Doc Velocity





[edit on 1/23/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:22 PM
link   
this just gives more power to increase government size.

I wonder how much money these judges made on this ruling. I bet there was a lot of back door dealings, bribes, etc. to make these judges vote this way.

Who am i kidding? This country is run by corporations, the media is run by corporations, we were sold off by the corporations. this ruling isn't a surprise. the ruling elite now have a complete monopoly over America now. Nationalized banks, media, and more.

This just seals the deal in the next election. we all should know by now that the POTUS is bought and paid for, and this ruling just makes it easier to set their agendas.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by empireoflizards
A VERY flawed argument! Corporations are run by a relatively SMALL group of people with specific self serving interests toward profit; and, with huge resources, can virtually control the whole outcome of the election process with ads, etc. And history has shown over and over that the motivation toward (quick) profit is not always kind toward the well being of the populations at large.


Hmmm. Seems to make sense when you replace 'Unions' or 'Media Companies' for 'Corporations' in the above. Funny that, and yet nobody is arguing about banning Unions or Media Companies from sponsoring and financing election campaigns, such as Clinton's and Obama's in the recent past. Wonder why that is?



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:32 PM
link   

Originally posted by Doc Velocity


Like it or not, Corporate America signs all of your paychecks, and corporate interests have as much right to pour money into political campaigns as any of you do.


[edit on 1/23/2010 by Doc Velocity]


There is a difference between the finances of an individual and the overall finances of an entire company. They, as individuals have the right to pour money into a candidate just as we do. They should not have the right to use an entire company that makes its profits from its workers with DIFFERING political views to further ANY candidate. What about the people that helped MAKE that money but don't want to endorse that particular candidate? Is that fair?

Why should I help support a candidate that I don't approve of because I need a job? They provide me with a paycheck because I earn it. It is not a gift.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   
It took a few days but the right wingers on ATS finally got their talking points. I just want to know who you got them from. Where were you two days ago? Couldn't think for yourself, could you? This is %100 right wing SCOTUS ruling. It's a travesty. Let's look very carefully how this works out in the next election. I think sadly, until another Bush Sr., Reagan, or Bush Jr. appointee passes on this country is doomed. They have always been in favor of big business.

"Let the free market prevail" - in elections too? Do you all really think this is okay?



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:33 PM
link   

Originally posted by ugie1028
This country is run by corporations, the media is run by corporations, we were sold off by the corporations. this ruling isn't a surprise. the ruling elite now have a complete monopoly over America now. Nationalized banks, media, and more.

You're a little ass-backwards here. Last time I looked, it wasn't the big bad corporations running the government — it was exactly the opposite, with socialist legislators and a Marxist president taking over the economic system, bailing out and nationalizing banks and corporations.

FYI, this nation was "sold out" to socialism about a hundred years ago, and they emerged shamelessly into broad daylight under the socialist FDR administration, which is what landed America in the ridiculous socialist mess it's in today.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627

Originally posted by wiredamerican

This is not treason. They are heroes.
Why?
Because they just stripped election funding from government control.
They gave more power to Corporations and Unions.
Corporations and Unions are made out of people.

This is more power to the people. And that is a good thing.



Corporations are run by a very small, often rich, elite group of people that are also responsible for cutting major deals in saving THEIR particular company money in taxes, benefits, worker's comp., etc. You know -- save on the things that the government demands companies pay. The same types of things that we as INDIVIDUALS are required to pay.

So now you have a situation where companies can give any amount of money to candidates in order to get them elected. Said candidate will then be in a "bribe" type situation and need to "re-pay" said contributions once elected.

Notice how nowhere in any of those negotiations are WE -- the common worker that actually makes the company the money to fund said candidate? Further, said company will not be asking the workers -- again, this is YOU and ME -- whom to support. You will therefore be contributing passively to supporting a candidate you may not want elected simply by still working for that company. The more money you make for the company the more money they have to support said candidate.

Have you picked up on the blatant conflict of interest problem yet? Further, all a candidate will need to do to win an election is to go to bed with the largest companies with the deepest pockets. More politicians buying elections. How is that better for the Union? How does that encourage democracy?


Well said, I couldn't have said it better myself.

The US being labeled a democracy is a disgrace if you apply the word to any modern day (and much of the 20th century and further back even) governing going on. We are slaves to the system, and the system is winning more and more every day, and it's blatantly obvious which makes it extremely upsetting to realists such as myself that the country has been, and always will be more than likely, a failing government. The founding fathers had the right idea, but there is always going to be people finding and creating loopholes. What makes it even worse is that many of the people who abuse the system aren't even directly part of it, but more or less are these "corporations" which have the money & power to do what they please.

I sincerely hope these 5 men are held accountable for what they are attempting to do. It makes me sick to think about how many people care more about themselves than the greater good of all man kind; although lack of humanity seems to be a never ending trend.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by ChrisCrikey
"Let the free market prevail" - in elections too? Do you all really think this is okay?

Absolutely. The free market made the USA the greatest economic powerhouse in the history of the world, and it still is, in spite of the corrupt and rotting Welfare State and free-handout mentality created by the socialist Left in our government.

Do you think the Federal Government should be allowed to fund incumbent re-election campaigns? If you say "yes," you're a monumental hypocrite. Where was McCain/Feingold on eliminating Federal funding of incumbent campaigns?

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by lpowell0627
Nobody is arguing that companies can't voice support for a particular candidate. That would be the 'free speech' part of this.

Corporations are the engine of wealth in America. When they "voice their support," they do so in the language they speak — MONEY.

But you totally miss the "anti-free-speech" aspect of McCain/Feingold — the dirty part of the law was not preventing Corporations from donating to campaigns.

The dirty part of McCain/Feingold was outlawing negative campaigning by anyone in the last two months before a general election. That means even a grassroots organization cannot campaign AGAINST a candidate in the last 60 days before an election is held.

That's an obstruction of the First Amendment to the Constitution. McCain/Feingold was utterly unconstitutional.

— Doc Velocity







[edit on 1/23/2010 by Doc Velocity]



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:57 PM
link   
It's definately another swipe at the future stability of our financial/economic/legal system and further downgrade of freedom. It's been disasterous enough to have big money (domestic corporate, union, and other special interest along with foreign government and corporate) influence U.S. government policy, laws, and regulations for many years now, and now that power has been increased even more. I have the feeling the line doesn't stop here and that more and more influence and control will be handed over to the economically advantaged - like money itself, the more you have the more you want and it corrupts more and more.
Politicians will be much more nervous around election time and distracted full-time by this ruling. I assume that, like the media itself which the court gave total free speech to without having to account for honesty, integrity, and truth, the coming tsunami of special interest political advertising will follow suit (no pun intended) in "little or no truth in advertising".

Side note:
Interesting how Republican Boehner was just jumping for joy at this ruling when most other politicians were dumbstruck or silent.



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 01:59 PM
link   

Originally posted by TypeSH2001
It's been disasterous enough to have big money (domestic corporate, union, and other special interest along with foreign government and corporate) influence U.S. government policy, laws, and regulations for many years now, and now that power has been increased even more.

No, the power has been restored. There's a difference.

— Doc Velocity



posted on Jan, 23 2010 @ 02:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by wiredamerican



and is it really treason committed by these judges, and can they really get put away for what i see as being a crime?


This is not treason. They are heroes.
Why?
Because they just stripped election funding from government control.
They gave more power to Corporations and Unions.
Corporations and Unions are made out of people.

This is more power to the people. And that is a good thing.

I find it confusing that people would rather have government control on election funding. I say let the people, fund it. And it is the people who make up the corporations and unions.

This is one step ahead toward a more perfect Union.


So you would rather a Chinese corporation make decisions for out government than say...any AMERICAN?




top topics
 
87
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join