SCOTUS judge Thomas received $100k from Citizen United and ruled in their favor

Originally posted by Kitilani
Didn't I, as an individual, already have the right to free speech? How exactly did citizens united benefit me as a person?

Very good argument. Let's expand on that a bit. Back in the mid-1800's whites had the full protection of the U.S. Constitution, so why did the Fourteenth Amendment even get written and adopted? It didn't help them any. So, why should you worry about those whose right to free speech was taken away from if you don't gain anything from it?

Originally posted by Ferris.Bueller.II

Originally posted by Kitilani
Didn't I, as an individual, already have the right to free speech? How exactly did citizens united benefit me as a person?

Very good argument. Let's expand on that a bit. Back in the mid-1800's whites had the full protection of the U.S. Constitution, so why did the Fourteenth Amendment even get written and adopted? It didn't help them any. So, why should you worry about those whose right to free speech was taken away from if you don't gain anything from it?

Your argument relies on something that actually excluded people. Who was excluded from free speech before citizens united?

You cannot compare something that every person enjoys with something that was obviously limited by race and gender. How do you even get your mind to work that way?

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Citizens United ruling was not about corporations, it was about freedom of speech. You know that thing you think is just a bunch of yadda yadda yadda.

Didn't I, as an individual, already have the right to free speech? How exactly did citizens united benefit me as a person?

"Person" means an individual, corporation, business trust, estate, trust, partnership, limited liability company, association, joint venture, government, governmental subdivision, agency or instrumentality, public corporation or any other legal or commercial entity.

link

Citizens United wanted to play a documentary bashing Hillary Clinton around the time of the Senate elections, the ``Bipartisan Finance Reform Act`` basically made it illegal for ``anyone``, not just corporations from making statements like that during a certain period of time. The Citizens United ruling was a win-win for everyone, as the courts stopped the government from limiting our rights.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Citizens United wanted to play a documentary bashing Hillary Clinton around the time of the Senate elections, the ``Bipartisan Finance Reform Act`` basically made it illegal for ``anyone``, not just corporations from making statements like that during a certain period of time. The Citizens United ruling was a win-win for everyone, as the courts stopped the government from limiting our rights.

Your argument is not exactly helping. If I want to make a movie about Hillary Clinton, I can. I do not understand the need to get the constitution to give the right to corporate financing in that endeavor though. Basically what I am hearing is that it is OK that they gave corporations this kind of sick power because they fixed something else you thought was a problem along the way?

It is a simple question. Did I or did I not have free speech before citizens united? How did it benefit me as an individual?

reply to post by Kitilani

If I want to make a movie about Hillary Clinton, I can.

Now you can, but before you could not make political statements like that around the time of Senate elections, if you did you would have been fined or thrown in jail.

It is a simple question. Did I or did I not have free speech before citizens united?

Yes. You had the same amount of free speech that the corporations had, but you fail to realize that the first amendment forbids congress from making any laws against free speech and congress did just that with their ``Bipartisan Finance Reform Act``. The Supreme Court branded the portion that did limit free speech as unconstitutional.

How did it benefit me as an individual?

I don't know. I don't even know you.

we should make the justices and congressmen and potus wear sponsor patches on their robes/suits like they do in nascar so we at least know who owns them up front

would make it a lot simpler

reply to post by syrinx high priest


That's a good idea

............

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
we should make the justices and congressmen and potus wear sponsor patches on their robes/suits like they do in nascar so we at least know who owns them up front

would make it a lot simpler

LOL! So true. I said the same thing almost a year and a half ago here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



On topic: Justice Thomas should have recused himself from the Citizen United ruling. Much the same, he should recuse himself from the health care ruling, as he stands to financially benefit from that as well. Sure, some will say that he can still be objective in his ruling, but I say prove it.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Now you can, but before you could not make political statements like that around the time of Senate elections, if you did you would have been fined or thrown in jail.

I think you are a tad confused. Whip out those laws and lets take a look at what I could and could not do.

Yes. You had the same amount of free speech that the corporations had,

That is not what I asked but anyway....

but you fail to realize that the first amendment forbids congress from making any laws against free speech and congress did just that with their ``Bipartisan Finance Reform Act``. The Supreme Court branded the portion that did limit free speech as unconstitutional.

So you think if you just toss enough talking points at me, devoid of any real facts, I will be convinced? Hardly.

I don't know. I don't even know you.

Then you have no clue what you are talking about. If you think you need to know anything other than that I exist in order to respond, then you have missed every point.

It is cute though, to see some of the ATS "liberty" munchers run around screaming about how unfairly corporations get treated. Corporations are made up of people that have free speech already. All this does is allow the owners of corporations to double dip on that free speech by using theirs, and the company that exists on paper in their name.

All you needed to do was explain to me how citizens united benefited me as an individual as far as free speech goes and you tried and tried but just couldn't quite dodge it enough. There is no reason that just because someone has a lot of money they should get twice as much free speech as anyone else.

reply to post by Kitilani

That is not what I asked but anyway....

Are you denying that corporations are considered on par with people?

It is cute though, to see some of the ATS "liberty" munchers run around screaming about how unfairly corporations get treated. Corporations are made up of people that have free speech already. All this does is allow the owners of corporations to double dip on that free speech by using theirs, and the company that exists on paper in their name.

What are you talking about? No one is double dipping in free speech, because corporations already had ``free speech``, because they are considered people. Corporations had free speech long before this ruling. They just removed the limitations that congress imposed on free speech.

All you needed to do was explain to me how citizens united benefited me as an individual as far as free speech goes and you tried and tried but just couldn't quite dodge it enough. There is no reason that just because someone has a lot of money they should get twice as much free speech as anyone else.

More free speech is always a good thing, free speech should not be restricted during certain times of the year in order to protect politicians, especially during election time. The ``Bipartisan Finance Reform Act`` didn't just stop corporations from making political statements like that, it also stopped regular people like us. That's how it helped you as an individual.

reply to post by beefsteaktwin

I think you are very wrong, Citizens United is not constitutional unless you apply personhood to

Of course, the vagueness of this sentence doesn't help your case. I am forced to make assumptions on what you mean by this, and giving you the benefit of the doubt, I will assume that what you meant to say is that the ruling of Citizens United v Elections Commission was "not constitutional". The SCOTUS did not, in anyway, act unconstitutionally. It was Congress who acted unconstitutionally and NOT the Supreme Court

Call me old fashioned, but I think applying personhood to things that are not human beings s a great perversion.

It has been pointed out by more than just me in this thread that it is Congress with their Uniform Commercial Code that has defined corporations as a person, and NOT the Supreme Court. The insistence on framing the Citizens United ruling around personhood is a red herring. Call me old fashioned, but I think eschewing critical thought in favor of knee jerk reactions is less than advisable.

Thomas Jefferson or even Thomas Mifflin would not stand for such an idea. All the people who comprise these government sanctioned groups retain their rights as people. But when these individuals act as agents, does not mean that their rights are transfered to the ficticious group, those groups are subject to rules, laws and regulations, just like they were in the late 1700's.

How ironic that in one sentence you reference Jefferson, who in the Declaration of Independence mightily asserted the notion of unalienable rights (non transferable rights), and then in the very next sentence you speak of rights being transferred. This is the fundamental problem with knee jerk reactions. Any one who knows me in this site knows full well I am anti-corporatist and if you bother to read that link I just provided you will come to know this about me too. However, as vehemently as I am against corporatism, I am not willing to allow that attitude to jade my critical thinking skills. All this blather about fictitious entities and regulations ignores the express language of the First Amendment. When that Amendment begins with; "Congress shall make no laws...." it makes no distinction what-so-ever as to who has these rights, only that Congress has no authority to make any laws abridging them.

If the premise of Fictious personhood shows that they are not breathing persons, then logic should hold that a constitutional standard does not apply to that group.

Logic demands that in regards to this issue that the First Amendment be taken seriously, and the rules of statutory construction demand that each and every word of a statute, (in this case the First Amendment) be given significance. The particular logic you are relying upon is premised upon the idea that a.) enumerated rights are collective rights and not individual rights - otherwise why insist that a Constitutional standard does not apply to that "group"? - and b.) that unalienable rights are capricious and the frailty of humanity is capable of deciding who gets rights and who does not. However, there is no express language, nor is there any implicit language within the Bill of Rights to support your logic.

In the end your logic only demonstrates one of the fundamental flaws with logic. In computer programming their is an axiom that states; "garbage in garbage out". A faulty premise will always yield faulty results. Here is more evidence to your faulty premise:

Nobody is going to convince me that a handful of people should get some special consideration for some paper work, licenses and fees, hell, they already get special concideration over the individual man as an incentive to go into business or whatnot.

Of course, I shouldn't have to point out that in the same sentence the latter part contradicts the former, but again it is demonstrative of the premise that the Supreme Court "gave" something to corporations for striking down legislation that was in fact unconstitutional. Striking down legislation that, in fact, endeavored to regulate the speech of every person, not just corporations.

I hope you young folks screw your heads on straight, there are too many company men acting like they work for some company that never even hired them in the first place. This country is out of control, the last thing any good

It would be nice if you old folks screw on your heads straight sometime before you shuffle of this mortal coil and begin to employ the necessary critical thinking skills needed to bring this once great nation back to some semblance of a nation founded in liberty. The plethora of licensing schemes, the odious and dubious so called "Personal Income Tax", and the ever steady march towards a grossly expanding federal government may not have necessarily happened on your watch, but were no doubt mindlessly accepted by your generation. This country has been out of control since at least 1913 and arguably further back than that. At least the "young folks" - well, some of them (those who have not fallen prey to the indoctrination your generation clearly has) - are fully aware that their individual and unalienable rights are under vicious attack and that collectivism hopes to rule the day.

It is understandable that you are getting flustered. It is more than likely cognitive dissonance that is flustering you. You were indoctrinated to believe that rights are not natural phenomena preexisting government and instead taught to believe that rights are capricious privileges granted people from government. Had you challenged the indoctrination earlier, it is arguable you would not be so flustered now.

Your heart, I have no doubt, is in the right place, but it is not enough in this never ending need for vigilance to simply have good intentions. The path to hell was paved with good intentions. It is imperative that we all not allow personal bias to distort the truth. The truth of the matter is that unalienable rights are not a man made invention but are as natural as the wind blowing through the leaves.

A rose does not need a Congress of roses in order to derive the right to keep and bear thorns. A porcupine does not need a decree from a king in order to derive the right to keep and bear needles, and a skunk does not need permission from the state in order to spew its stink. These rights to self defense are self evident and natural. Humans also have the right to self defense, and it is based upon this simple premise that gives a lawful and just foundation for government - an artifice if ever there was one. If individuals have the right to self defense, it follows then that they have the right to form organizations to collectively work towards that same aim.

Corporations in and of themselves are not inherently evil, but corporatism is. Corporatism must be crushed before it is allowed to crush as individuals, but it is essential that while we endeavor to slay this dragon, we do not become dragons ourselves. To think that it is fine to allow government - a fictitious entity - the privilege of capriciously trampling all over unalienable rights is as foolish as it can get.

Originally posted by Kitilani

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
The Citizens United ruling was not about corporations, it was about freedom of speech. You know that thing you think is just a bunch of yadda yadda yadda.

Didn't I, as an individual, already have the right to free speech? How exactly did citizens united benefit me as a person?

A few members have patiently tried to answer this question, but you have remained stubborn in your unwillingness to understand. Rockdisjoint has more than effectively, and indeed eloquently, explained to you how this ruling benefited us all, and that benefit is in that the Supreme Court did their job and used their lawful authority of judicial review to strike down legislation that was unconstitutional.

Your continued insistence that this has no validity strongly suggests that you have little to no regard for the First Amendment and its purpose, which was not to "give" you the right to freedom of speech, but to restrict government from trampling all over it. You clearly believe that government should be empowered to capriciously trample over rights under certain circumstances. It is important to understand that the very same eraser that would erase the unalienable rights of filmmakers who have incorporated can just as easily erase the unalienable rights of any unincorporated "person".

I have read all your replies and it appears that you are, in effect, sticking your fingers in your ear and screaming at the top of your lungs la la la la la la la I can't hear you la la la la la la.

You can hide all day in a cave and only come out at night and then insist that the sun is not self evident, but this unfortunate hiding does not speak to the truth. No one can force you to see the light, and if you prefer to remain in the darkness, this is, in the end, your right to do so. You do not, however, have the right to trample all over other peoples rights just because you don't like them. Either you understand what unalienable rights are, or you do not. If you have no intentions of understanding, then there is little any of us can write to help you in your cause.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux


My generations makes you youngsters look like a pack of little girls, I would take one of my Amry buddies over

ten of you fat assed drones any day of the week. You would make a good lawyer or politician, but I wouldn't be

proud of that son. Turning corporations into "men" was the works of the courts, perverted lawyers used the 14th

ammendment and slowly applied the word person to any association they could. The same perverts think that

the 5th ammendment can entitle companies to avoid subpeonas, you continue to spread the perversion, taking a

simple concept and turning it into a mess. I bet you cannot name one PERSON who belongs to any company or

union who was not allowed to speak prior to this ruling? You can't, because free speach is not the issue, the

issue is money and letting people with money control elections and the politicians they sanction. I am not sure

what has made you kids so backwards, you don't need 2000 words to explain corruption, you need 2000 words

to hide the truth of the matter, just like a politician or a lawyer. The Supreme Court GAVE these greasy suits

and thugs a new avenue to practice bribery, the idea was a real simple concept back when America existed,

back when honest work could feed a family, you and your lawyer friends take it all, inch by inch using the

same excuses you tried here. You keep lying to yourself, rights exist and so does the heart of any matter,

I don't need any man to tell me what can see plain, that court used the 1st ammendment as a cover to

let business matters rule over a nation of flesh and blood people. I expect you to give me the name of one

man who can speak now that wasn't able to speak before.


I hope we shall... crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations which dare already to challenge

our government in a trial of strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. Thomas Jefferson

reply to post by beefsteaktwin

Turning corporations into "men" was the works of the courts, perverted lawyers used the 14th ammendment and slowly applied the word person to any association they could.

This is a lie, and your insistence on perpetuating the lie speaks volumes to to the general character of the older generation in the United States.. The courts did not turn corporations into persons, Congress did, and here is the biggest problem with your generation, they can't be spoken to reasonably. For a bunch of old timers it is amazing how the older generation in the United States act like a bunch of spoiled brats, throwing tantrums like little children and pretending that lies can be accepted as truth just as long as they keep screaming the lie long enough and loud enough.

Your own personal ignorance of the law is unacceptable. In fact, regardless of how old you may be, there is an old Chinese proverb that states:

When a wise man argues with a fool, it is hard to tell them apart.

For that reason, I wash my hands of you. Believe what you want to believe, those who are wise will see it for what it is.

reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux



Sorry but saying the same things over again does not make a square peg fit into a round hole. What people have presented in response are a set of factless statements expressing what they feel the answer is. It lightens my heart to see how easily some might accept that sort of thing as an actual response but I am not so easily swayed.

You, and some others on ATS seem to really have a problem with people that do not just blindly accept the opposing viewpoints that come their way. The problem is not that I ignored anything, I am just not seeing any actual facts that answer that one simple question. All I see are a lot of side arguments about ancillary pablum.

I guess if my failing to just agree because a whole 3 of you agree with each other translates to me not listening in your mind then there is little I can say to you at this point. It is a very simple question that you are all having a very difficult time simply answering. To suggest that my not agreeing with 3 other people is only because I am not listening is a failure of an argument and reads much as a concession that you have no answer either.

reply to post by neo96


This makes no sense of all.

1. The topic is about Clarence Thomas and shady financial dealings
2. Go back and re-read the original post by the OP.

Originally posted by Rockdisjoint
Are you denying that corporations are considered on par with people?

Am I? on Par how? biologically? Spiritually? Financially? Are you denying corporations consist of people? I am not sure what you are asking if I am denying.

What are you talking about? No one is double dipping in free speech, because corporations already had ``free speech``, because they are considered people. Corporations had free speech long before this ruling. They just removed the limitations that congress imposed on free speech.

What are you talking about? If I own a corporation, I get to double dip. You go on to say they do not have more free speech than they did before, just fewer restrictions? Uh...what is the difference?

More free speech is always a good thing, free speech should not be restricted during certain times of the year in order to protect politicians, especially during election time. The ``Bipartisan Finance Reform Act`` didn't just stop corporations from making political statements like that, it also stopped regular people like us. That's how it helped you as an individual.

edit on 5-6-2011 by Rockdisjoint because: (no reason given)

You have again failed to show me how this benefited me as an individual. All you did was repeat it. Why do you not understand that repetition is not the same as factually backing something? Show me where it it stopped "regular people like us." Stop just saying it. You seem to be greatly confusing the right to free speech and the right to corporate financing. Hint: One of those is not actually a right.

reply to post by beefsteaktwin


What's your generation? The generation in the shadow of the "Greatest Generation"?

I bet you still think that kids do nuclear drills every week.

Originally posted by The Sword
reply to post by neo96

 

This makes no sense of all.

1. The topic is about Clarence Thomas and shady financial dealings
2. Go back and re-read the original post by the OP.

You are just blinded by your innocence. How can you not see what Neo has so brilliantly pointed out. Obama, that guy that so many on ATS call the do nothing, dumber than Bush, unqualified, boy, planned to have Thomas appointed to the court over 20 years ago. Then he got Thomas to accept monies he should not have. All so Thomas could be tied up in this legal trouble, get pulled off the bench, and then Obama can appoint someone that will help keep Obama's HCR legal.

How did you not see that?

reply to post by Kitilani

Sorry but saying the same things over again does not make a square peg fit into a round hole. What people have presented in response are a set of factless statements expressing what they feel the answer is. It lightens my heart to see how easily some might accept that sort of thing as an actual response but I am not so easily swayed.

You are accusing others of your own sins. You have very clearly not read the Citizens United ruling nor have you read the UCC section defining corporations as persons. You can yammer on all you want with your unsupported claims but the facts remains the facts, and you can point to the sun and and say it does not exist all you want. It does not bode well for you, but you have this right to do so.