What the Supreme Court got right

reply to post by skunknuts


Thanks for sharing that. I tend to agree with the sentiment and in fact just recently started a thread about the law complaining that too much legislation today is far too confusing and ambiguous. It is emphatic that someone say what the law is, and if not our judicial system then why have one at all? If there is not a branch of the government demanding that the other branches behave in the way the Constitution mandates, why even have a Constitution?

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


Yeah, I'm not saying I totally disagree, by any means. I would feel MUCH better about the courts power if we managed to find ways to insert a bit more democracy into our republic, you know? On the other hand, democracy sure can be dangerous in the hands of the uneducated, uninformed, and apathetic. I don't know, I just want our country to be better and fairer. Simple sentiments.

Originally posted by skunknuts
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux

 

Yeah, I'm not saying I totally disagree, by any means. I would feel MUCH better about the courts power if we managed to find ways to insert a bit more democracy into our republic, you know? On the other hand, democracy sure can be dangerous in the hands of the uneducated, uninformed, and apathetic. I don't know, I just want our country to be better and fairer. Simple sentiments.

We share many of the same sentiments my friend. I would suggest that Congress has the ability to re-write the laws in an attempt to address some of your concerns and can even attempt to pass an Amendment that would place great restrictions on the doctrine of corporate person hood, whether or not they write it in a way that can withstand Constitutional muster remains to be seen, but this SCOTUS ruling is not the end all and be all of how our government works. It is a ruling I agree with, and Congress would be well advised to stop legislating in ways they are expressly forbidden from doing so, but Congress hands are far from tied on this and they can act to fix whatever problems may arise from this ruling.

Originally posted by skunknuts
reply to post by yellowcard

 

Sounds like the author is scared to tackle the issue of corporations equaling person-hood. He repeatedly states he is sympathetic to that argument, but also repeatedly side-steps the issue by saying that the court would have to overturn its own precedent.

One more Obama supreme court justice, and maybe we can finally get to the heart of the issue....

Let me ask you, yellow card: If the US officially and objectively becomes a fascist state, validated by SCOTUS rulings, will you still be arguing that, technically, such and such an argument is technically 'constitutional?

The goal of a modern society should be to increase individual liberty, freedom, and to further the pursuit of happiness and self-actualization. Smart lawyers can always make smart arguments, but it's us little guys that have to deal w/ the ramifications.

Best,
Skunknuts

Let me ask you this, if we keep ignoring what the Constitution says, and instead apply what we or the government want it to say...will our Republic even exists? Did you not see in the article (I have said this elsewhere before this article was published) that:

But the speech restrictions struck down by Citizens United do not only apply to Exxon and Halliburton; they also apply to non-profit advocacy corporations, such as, say, the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, as well as labor unions, which are genuinely burdened in their ability to express their views by these laws. I tend to take a more absolutist view of the First Amendment than many people, but laws which prohibit organized groups of people -- which is what corporations are -- from expressing political views goes right to the heart of free speech guarantees no matter how the First Amendment is understood. Does anyone doubt that the facts that gave rise to this case -- namely, the government's banning the release of a critical film about Hillary Clinton by Citizens United -- is exactly what the First Amendment was designed to avoid? And does anyone doubt that the First Amendment bars the government from restricting the speech of organizations composed of like-minded citizens who band together in corporate form to work for a particular cause?

You realize that prior to the ruling people like "Campaign for Liberty" or "Move On" couldn't (prior to the ruling) run political ads within 60 days of an election over a certain budget amount? How is that not a violation of the 1st Amendment?

...and he doesn't side step the issue, if you actually read it he says that he sympathizes with the people against the ruling because gays don't have some freedoms. The only reason he said they would have to overturn a corporations legal status was for comparison, the whole point of becoming a corporation is to limit your liability.

[edit on 26-1-2010 by yellowcard]

It is a ridiculous proposition even criticizing the supreme court. After the New Deal, the supreme court quit being a relevant factor, the whole damn government quit being relevant. We are owned. The Democrats engineered the perfect coup. When FDR threatened to stack the Supreme Court, the Constitution became a worthless piece of paper.
The only way out is a balkan style civil war to eliminate all Democrat DNA from our country and only then we can then start calling ourselves free again and have it actually ring true.
The Federal Reserve Act, the new Deal, the Great Society and anything Obama comes up with must be eliminated if we want to get back to the country the founding fathers created.
Democrats are the counter revolutionaries to the American Revolution, they deserve to be treated like the Tories they are.

reply to post by Flidais


Yeah, Repubs are great huh?
Dems are evil, huh?
Step up your game CIP.