2010: The Year of The Corporations?

Mammals are destroying the constitution.

kiff said:

Under the guise of free speech? Right... because you probably don't agree with "we don’t put our First Amendment rights in the hands of FEC bureaucrats". The oral arguments came down to the fact that a SC judge (forget the exact one) would have banned books (pamphlets to be exact). That's ok with you?

Remember, the ruling includes corporations, unions, individuals and groups of individuals. Basically everyone has free speech. What a concept

I actually did read a lot of it earlier this year, but...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

Click to expand...

I believe rich and greedy corporate interests will overwhelm my constitutional rights as a US citizen, drive more of the population into poverty, and sell out our country in the name of profit.

Here is Steven opinion in it's entirety.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

But here is the only part you really need to read, it's Part V of Stevens opinion;

V

Today’s decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority’s agenda over the litigants’ submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individual dissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertion over tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality. Our colleagues have arrived at the conclusion that Austin must be overruled and that §203 is facially unconstitutional only after mischaracterizing both the reach and rationale of those authorities, and after bypassing or ignoring rules of judicial restraint used to cabin the Court’s lawmaking power. Their conclusion that the societal interest in avoiding corruption and the appearance of corruption does not provide an adequate justification for regulating corporate expenditures on candidate elections relies on an incorrect description of that interest, along with a failure to acknowledge the relevance of established facts and the considered judgments of state and federal legislatures over many decades.

In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending should outweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. The majority’s rejection of this principle “elevate corporations to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests.” Bellotti , 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.

I would affirm the judgment of the District Court.

Click to expand...

Justice Stevens is a ****ing idiot.

It elevates the majority’s agenda

Click to expand...

No, it doesn't. How does giving Corporations a say change the balance of the world? There is more factors that are play here that this guy is ignoring on purpose. He also clearly has no sense of corporate interests.

broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds,

Click to expand...

Its not a theory to say that it was intended everyone has the chance to be part of the process.

dissenting opinions over precedential holdings

Click to expand...

Precedent has no place in the supreme court. It is nothing more than a way to influence future rulings. Its results in nothing more than a mountain of bad rulings. To claim its important in the process is nothing but wrong, naive, and blind.

Their conclusion that the societal interest in avoiding corruption and the appearance of corruption does not provide an adequate justification for regulating corporate expenditures on candidate elections relies on an incorrect description of that interest, along with a failure to acknowledge the relevance of established facts and the considered judgments of state and federal legislatures over many decades.

Click to expand...

The job is simple, is it or is it not constitutional. All of this is immaterial.

In a democratic society

Click to expand...

Its the United States Stevens. Try to fail less.

At bottom, the Court’s opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self-government since the founding,

Click to expand...

This guy seriously has no grasp of the job of the Supreme Court, does he? Also, after the first comma is bull****. He worked in the Supreme Court and said this? This is a huge part of what is wrong with this country.

and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.

Click to expand...

This was the progressives and TR fight only. Get your facts straight Stevens.

I also can't stand hyperbole or exact cut and paste arguments of politicians in court rulings. Since he wants to talk of the founding(though his facts are made up) how about the fact that if you showed this kind of partisanship at the founding you would be gone.

Mondays are ruining our weekends

Jobs are ruining the economy.

kiff said:

Mondays are ruining our weekends

Click to expand...

damn straight!