reply to post by mutatismutandis
Look at the U.S. friend...its like once a month a supreme court ruling strips us of our natural born rights...the difference between now and a one
world order is atleast we know who's screwing us.
If you are actually reading the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court it is hard to understand why it is you believ the SCOTUS is stripping you of
your natural born rights. If, however, you are relying upon the main stream media, or any media for that matter, including myself in this post, to
inform you on what has actually been ruled and why, then it is perfectly understandable why you have come to believe this.
While the SCOTUS has made some bad decisions through out the U.S. history, and even some dubious or questionable ones, as a whole it is that judicial
branch that, quite frankly, has been the only real advocate for the people and individuals. Indeed, Bond v United States, just rendered this past
June, is a stellar decision that makes it perfectly clear that individuals have the absolute right to challenge bogus legislation that tramples upon
their rights. This ruling was unanimous at 9-0. It is rare the SCOTUS rule unanimously but they sure as hell did on this ruling, which was a total
support of individual natural born rights.
Of course, at the same time they also made the Wal Mart ruling, so most people have no idea about Bond v United States, but think themselves well
informed because the mainstream media has told them that once again the Supreme Court is in the "pockets of the corporations" because they ruled in
Wal Marts favor regarding class action suits. Nary a word has come from the MSM regarding Bond v United States.
About a year ago, President Obama actually used the State of the Union address to chastise the Supreme Court over the Citizen's United ruling, and of
course, the MSM again did its level best to convince the public that the Supreme Court was in the pockets of the corporations, simply because it was a
corporation who challenged the Bipartisan Reform Act that deigned to "chill speech" during an election cycle.
The chastisement the so called "Constitutional expert" by Obama was applauded greatly by Congress and the main stream media, none of whom seemed all
that interested in acknowledging the legal reasoning behind the Supreme Court's decision which was primarily based upon the First Amendment, which
"Congress shall make no law..."
Congress had no authority to "chill speech", and the Supreme Court correctly struck that portion of the campaign finance bill down as
unconstitutional. President Obama, Congress, and the main stream media don't want you to know this, and would rather get you all riled up and angry
Don't take my word for this, read the case law yourself and find the truth out for yourself.