Did Supreme Court Justices conspire to give corporations the upper hand in this election?

I have often admired Justices Thomas and Scalia of the Supreme Court but, some of their recent rulings have made me wonder about whether they are really standing up for originalist interpretation of the Constitution or if they are slaves to corporate interests.

A Citizens United Conspiracy – Were Supreme Court Justices Involved?


It’s time to demand answers to the most troubling questions since the Nixon Era.

The New York Times is reporting that the billionaire Koch Brothers (pronounced like the soft drink) regularly convene secret conclaves of industrialists aiming to prevent government from regulating business. That wouldn’t be unusual, or even unexpected. But the attendees also include two Supreme Court justices, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, and three news agencies which never report on the meetings.

In 2009, the Supreme Court found that a video demonizing candidate Hillary Clinton was protected speech – and also ruled that corporate political donations were protected, private, and unlimited. The court – by a vote of five to four – gutted the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform law. Justices Scalia and Thomas voted with the bare majority. Thomas even wrote that the ruling didn’t go far enough. Arguably, no decision in modern times has given such a big political advantage to the rich. Now that we know Supreme Court justices attended Koch’s political planning meetings, it is time to ask some important questions…

What if the purpose of Citizens United’s video wasn’t to damage Clinton, as claimed by the producers, but to give a conservative Supreme Court the opportunity to overturn campaign finance reform and open the floodgates to unlimited, secret funding in time for the 2010 election?

And what if the funders of Citizens United knew that the conclusion of the SCOTUS was reasonably forgone, because they had been privately told how at least two Justices would vote on such a case?

Sounds crazy right? But these are just some of the questions raised by revelations that the Koch Brothers hosted industrialists, media types, US Chamber of Commerce reps, and Supreme Court justices to “review strategies for combating the multitude of public policies that threaten to destroy America as we know it” and “change the balance of power in Congress this November.”


Why would two Supreme Court Justices attend meetings aiming to subvert public policy?

And what if a conspiracy was planned? Would it then be possible to engineer a court case on which those two justices could influence a desired outcome?

Read more: Technorati.com


Supreme Court Justices have no business attending secret meetings with powerful industrialists. It makes one wonder if every branch of our government isn't bought and paid for.

I don't think that people realize the level of corruption. It is total. All levels of government have been infected. This is a systemic and fatal infection. Clarence Thomas himself worked for Monsanto (Wikipedia:Monsanto).The whole system is rotten and there is no fixing it. It must be dismantled and built up from the foundation up.Treason? Massive Treason has occured and is occuring.reply to post by FortAnthem

We have proof that two Supreme Court Justices regularly attend secret meetings with powerful industrialists in which plans to swing the country to be more corporate friendly and bring back the Republican majority are discussed and nobody cares?


Did ATS bring back the ignore function just for my threads or what?


You would think that more than one person would care about this.

Still nothin huh?


Man I'm tellin ya, I can't even get into a good argument around here anymore.

Most of the arguments to which I am party fall somewhat short of being impressive, knowing to the fact that neither I nor my opponent knows what we are talking about.

Rodney Dangerfield

Kelo v New London would be a good place to start if you want to see how SCOTUS will always side with business.

They, much like the rest of government are the enemy of the people and the best friend of big biz

I see very little difference between a corporation making campaign donations and a union making campaign donation. They both are after the same things. Donor friendly legislation It stands to reason that our political leaders are in the pocket of groups that want to push things their way.

reply to post by FortAnthem


The Koch brothers are generally good people.

They are for the most part libertarians, which is why they are against government interfering in the markets.

Further, the McCain Feingold act gave a huge advantage to democrats in fund raising. It was a politically motivated bill. I'm not sure what kickbacks McCain got for ramming the bill through, but I'm sure they were huge.

You can see the outrageous partisan nature of the bill here:
www.mentata.com...

If the bill affected both parties equally, you should see an equal number of party members dissenting.

It was a political attack, not real finance reform.

Further, it was a violation of the 1st amendment.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I'm still not comfortable with Supreme Court justices attending secret meeting in which changing US policy is discussed, no matter which side of the political spectrum they come from. If Liberal justices had met in secret with labor unions I would view it the same as what those two conservative justices did.

Supreme Court justices need to be above the political fray, or at least maintain the public impression that they are. If the justices wear their partisanship on their sleeves, no one can count on a fair hearing when they go before the courts. Justices need to decide cases based upon the law, not their political preferences.

An activist conservative judge is just as bad for this country as an activist liberal judge.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I, unlike the OP, never had any good feelings about judge Scalia and I believe that the "citizens united" decision is not only asinine but more than likely unconstitutional as it establishes that corporations are "people" which is a total misrepresentation of the definition of the word. "People" are the product of a live birth and are not formed via a legal instrument. If a conspiracy is proven among the justices, the guilty parties should be removed from the court and tried for high crimes.

By the way, have you ever met either of the "Koch" brothers? Judging by the way you spelled their name, I would guess that the answer to my question is a definite "no." How would you know that they are generally "good" people and by what standard are you judging them? The reason I ask these questions is because I have indeed met them in person and I have a totally different assessment of their general "good" qualities.

reply to post by FortAnthem


If you know about it, they aren't secret.

Originally posted by Flatfish
reply to post by mnemeth1

 

I, unlike the OP, never had any good feelings about judge Scalia and I believe that the "citizens united" decision is not only asinine but more than likely unconstitutional as it establishes that corporations are "people" which is a total misrepresentation of the definition of the word. "People" are the product of a live birth and are not formed via a legal instrument. If a conspiracy is proven among the justices, the guilty parties should be removed from the court and tried for high crimes.

By the way, have you ever met either of the "Koch" brothers? Judging by the way you spelled their name, I would guess that the answer to my question is a definite "no." How would you know that they are generally "good" people and by what standard are you judging them? The reason I ask these questions is because I have indeed met them in person and I have a totally different assessment of their general "good" qualities.

If rights arise from the individual, then a group of individuals acting collectively has just as many rights as a singular individual.

This is about voluntary groups of people acting collectively.

The government has no right to limit the speech of a group of people any more than it has the right to limit the speech of an individual.

I know all about the Koch brothers - I said they were GENERALLY good people - as in better than most.

They are Hayekian Austrians. I don't agree with everything they espouse, but they certainly aren't as bad as SEIU union leaders.

They promote limited government - for themselves as well as their competition. They are fairly evenhanded about it. What democrats fail to realize is that they are doing their own businesses a disservice by promoting less regulations.

For the Koch brothers, promoting deregulation is against their best interests, which means they are acting selflessly.

reply to post by mnemeth1


What went on inside the meetings was secret. Three news agencies attended and none of them wrote a word about what was discussed in those meetings.

Stuff like that creeps me out. Secrecy like that means they have something to hide, or at least that's the impression they're giving.

I have never had a warm and fuzzy about Ginsburg,Sotomeyer or the last socialist woman elevated to the bench.

It takes more than 2 justices to rule on anything.

So,selectively choosing two or more because of their political leanings,or sex like I did,is biased.

If you don't like corporations or rich people,remember this.

How many poor people you know hiring workers?

reply to post by mnemeth1


They are about as good as the rest of the 2% of america that holds most of this nations wealth while screaming about a possible 3% tax increase. They don't care about working people or the environment and they are as greedy as they come. Better than most? I think not. At least SEIU represents the needs of hard working people and not those of greedy shareholders who always seem to want more for less.

If you want to see the good the Koch brothers do, just look at the Reason foundation:
www.sourcewatch.org...

It is a rare day indeed that a billionaire puts money down for an organization that supports the legalization of marijuana - WITHOUT taxing it.

Lately Soros has been getting in on the "legalize pot" gig too, but he wants it legalized for tax purposes so the government can continue to fund his hedge funds.

reply to post by mnemeth1


I totally agree with the movement to legalize pot and the less taxes the better. I also agree that it's not everyday that I see a billionaire donating to a cause like this and I think it's great that they have.

Although, it also makes me wonder, could there be another reason that the Koch brothers would support the legalization of pot? I never got the impression that either of them were weed heads, but could it be that maybe, they have determined that if pot were legal it would save their companies millions a year in drug testing? Testing that is currently required by the insurance carriers who are providing coverage for their business operations.

It's just that usually when billionaires start spending big money, they have more often than not figured a way to benefit from that expenditure, whether they benefit somehow through the taxing codes or via a direct profit, they usually benefit. Quite often, they only plan to benefit through enhancing their public image. I've always said, "Anytime a company runs and ad strictly for public image, look the f@#k out!" Kinda like that Mark Zuckerberg, (Facebook founder) donation of 100 million to the Jersey schools just prior to the release of the movie about Facebook that shows what an asshole he has been.

I want to make this clear; I would HATE to see these two justices thrown out during Obama's watch. If they were to go and Obama was to choose their replacements, the Supreme Court would become a rubber stamp for his policies and may even use their activism to take this country in a direction which would be terrifying.

Right now, those conservative justices are one of the only things holding back the president's radical agenda.


Having said that, if it turns out that these justices are corrupt or have been conspiring with partisan forces, I hope the truth comes out and they are forced to face justice if they are guilty of wrongdoing.