It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court becoming a tool for corporate interests: study

page: 1
6

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   

Supreme Court becoming a tool for corporate interests: study


www.rawstory.com

According to the Northwestern University study, commissioned for the New York Times, the Roberts court has sided with business interests in 61 percent of relevant cases, compared to 46 percent in the last five years of Chief Justice William Rhenquist, who passed away in 2005.

And the study notes the Rhenquist court itself was considerably more pro-business than earlier courts.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:21 PM
link   
I personally thought this was happening some time ago. Now it seems there is some evidence to support it. To me it seems one must now ask what is driving this? Are the judges being paid by the corporate interests? Is there some sort of back lash or funds that is being funneled to them? Or in short, what is in it for the judges to rule so often in favor of the big bunsess?

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:32 PM
link   
I think the big blaring horns of obviousness came when they made corporations people and able to contribute any sum anonymously to political parties...

1 corporation == 1 million people give or take...really depends on how much padding they do.

Glad these huge corporations can get everything they want...we need to save our oursourced jobs, else china and india may become upset.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by RedGolem


I personally thought this was happening some time ago. Now it seems there is some evidence to support it. To me it seems one must now ask what is driving this? Are the judges being paid by the corporate interests? Is there some sort of back lash or funds that is being funneled to them? Or in short, what is in it for the judges to rule so often in favor of the big bunsess?

www.rawstory.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


For one thing, the judges are appointed so it's possible that pro-business judges were put in place on purpose..

It's also known that business usually has more money to spend on lawyers etc and therefore have an unfair advantage against many claimants...
Some simply run out of money and are forced to give up...

Good to see a study done on this though..s&f



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:35 PM
link   
Kelo v New London proves this.

The Supreme Court has been absolutely useless for a very long time.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:37 PM
link   
S & F RedGolem.


It sure ain't JUST the SCOTUS, but ALL of the governmental branches. EVERYTHING has been infiltrated and is controlled by the mega corp and bankster cabals. Lobbyists are controlling and BUYING the 'lawmakers' and in turn the laws themselves.

It has actually become more and more surreal and transparently blatant in the last decade or two. Really sad.
edit on 19-12-2010 by DimensionalDetective because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 04:42 PM
link   
Thanks to everyone for posting,
and your kind words.

I relise that the corporations have the money to spend on the attorneys to sway the judges and jurors. It is just when they get the appointment they are no longer suppose to be in any contact with the corporate money. That is why I was asking what is in it for them to rule in favor of the corporations. That the politicians appoint judges who favor the corporations does seem to be the most likely answer at this time. And I agree, it is really sad.



posted on Dec, 19 2010 @ 05:04 PM
link   
Kelo Vs. City of London (wikipedia)


Kelo v. City of New London, 545 U.S. 469 (2005)[1] was a case decided by the Supreme Court of the United States involving the use of eminent domain to transfer land from one private owner to another to further economic development. The case arose from the condemnation by New London, Connecticut, of privately owned real property so that it could be used as part of a comprehensive redevelopment plan which promised 3,169 new jobs and $1.2 million a year in tax revenues. The Court held in a 5–4 decision that the general benefits a community enjoyed from economic growth qualified such redevelopment plans as a permissible "public use" under the Takings Clause of the Fifth Amendment.

The City eventually agreed to move Kelo's house to a new location and to pay substantial additional compensation to other homeowners. The redeveloper was unable to obtain financing and had to abandon the redevelopment project, leaving the land as an empty lot.



new topics

top topics



 
6

log in

join