Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 22, 2010 - 01:39pm PT
|
Anybody who claims that judicial activism is a byproduct of liberal judges, apart from being dead wrong, has just received a strong rebuttal of that belief. The new conservative majority of the court overlooked one hundred years of precedent and legislation to hand future political discourse over to corporate America. Goodbye democracy, hello United States of America, a subsidiary of [insert name of corporation here].
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?em
An absolutely sickening and transparent perversion of democracy.
|
|
Barbarian
Trad climber
slowly dying in the OC
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 01:48pm PT
|
This is perhaps the worst decision ever rendered by USSC. They have sold the government to the corporations.
|
|
Barbarian
Trad climber
slowly dying in the OC
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 01:53pm PT
|
"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for the CEO of the corporation that bought the government of your country."
|
|
Mungeclimber
Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 01:57pm PT
|
I'd like to read the actual language of the opinion....
The majority is deeply wrong on the law. Most wrongheaded of all is its insistence that corporations are just like people and entitled to the same First Amendment rights. It is an odd claim since companies are creations of the state that exist to make money. They are given special privileges, including different tax rates, to do just that. It was a fundamental misreading of the Constitution to say that these artificial legal constructs have the same right to spend money on politics as ordinary Americans have to speak out in support of a candidate.
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 02:02pm PT
|
What is it about
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
that you don't understand?
|
|
bhilden
Trad climber
Mountain View, CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 02:11pm PT
|
For my money (pun intended) the key to getting America back on track is to implement sweeping campaign finance reform so our politicians don't have to take huge sums of money to get elected and re-elected.
These days, all politicians, Democrats and Republicans seem to be in the pockets of the special interests who ulitmately finance their campaigns. They don't seem to be able to cast a non-tainted vote on legislation.
This recent ruling by the Supreme Court sets the democratic process back about a bazillion, maybe even a gagillion, years.
Bruce
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 02:13pm PT
|
The hypocrisy of the NYT editorial should be lost on no one. The limits on corporate-funded speech did not apply to the NYT Corp., even before this decision.
The hysteria of the Left over this decision merely shows their true nature. They have no commitment to free speech, nor to the free exchange of ideas. Anyone who has been on a typical college campus over the last 45 years knows that. I guess it must really suck when those they denounce get to talk back.
I completely disagree that this is an unprecedented decision. It simply returns us to the First Amendment, before we got a court that was too deferential to Congress (I largely blame Republicans for this, by the way). By and large, First Amendment jurisprudence is clear: the cure for speech you don't like is more speech, not suppression of speech.
The court held that restricting speech because it may affect an election violates the First Amendment. This is hardly earth-shaking, except to four Supremes and a host of closed-minded leftists.
John
|
|
couchmaster
climber
pdx
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 02:21pm PT
|
The 2nd amendment is next. So give it up right now. They win, you lose.
|
|
bookworm
Social climber
Falls Church, VA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 02:24pm PT
|
"companies are creations of the state that exist to make money"
whoa, that's scary...the godlike "state" creates corporations to make money for...the state??? that's SOCIALISM!
"So when a corporation (ie. a piece of legal documentation) dictates what I can and cannot say in an email for example, I come to realize that corporation is an enemy to all freedom loving people, everywhere."
corporations cannot "dictate" what you say; they can, rightfully, monitor what you can say in an email that uses a corporate address because the address does NOT belong to you; it belongs to the corporation and when you use their address, you're acting as a corporate representative...they are certainly able to dictate what you do on corporate time when they're paying you to work and they can certainly dictate what you say on corporate time on corporate property
and if you don't like their rules, you can quit...they can't force you to work for them
of course, i don't hear anyone crying about the government "dictating" what private corporations can air on their privately owned am radio stations...or dictating what a cable tv station can say about the president
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 02:29pm PT
|
Sorry some of you guys don't like free speech. I guess you should try to have the constitution amended to repeal the First Amendment. Good luck with that. (In reality, I guess you'll hope Obama will appoint judges who have no respect for the plain meaning of the constitution, and you MAY have good luck with that. Hopefully, he won't be able to pack the court with more too many more liberal, activist judges.)
The old saying was that the cure for speech you don't like is combat/correct it with your own speech. You're still free to give that your best shot. Just stop trying to tell others that they can't exercise their right to free speech.
On the red herring regarding the status of "corporations"--they are just collections of human beings. Saying they are taxed at "different tax rates" is true but misleading. The humans who own the corporations are still taxed for all purposes at the "human" tax rate, so ANY tax on corporations is simply a form of double taxation. The legal form that business entities take is driven mostly by the tax code and to some extent by the concepts of limited liability--doesn't really have anything to do with free speech.
Do you want Bill Gates to be able to afford to say anything he wants, but a collection of "little guys" (say, the National Rifle Association) not to be able to band together to have their voice heard? Yeah, I bet you do. Good thing you can't get away with your BS for a little while longer at least.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 02:39pm PT
|
My biggest concern here, is the equating of a corp to a person, in terms of constitutional rights. Note, by the way, that it is not limited to AMERICAN corporations, just as a foreign citizen on US soil has the same rights.....so a foreign corporation doing business on US soil will now have the right to contribute as much as they want to whatever issue/person they want enacted/elected.
You wonder if China and Saudi Arabia will be good masters?
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 22, 2010 - 02:43pm PT
|
The hysteria of the Left over this decision merely shows their true nature. They have no commitment to free speech, nor to the free exchange of ideas.
This is a perfect example of why I get frustrated with the right. They just can't be intellectually honest.
Corporations are not invididuals. They are deemed individuals for certain purposes such as service of process (since how else would you accomplish this), but in all other respects the contention that a corporation is a person is a legal fiction.
There is nothing in the Constitution supporting the claim that the rights granted to citizens under it and the Bill of Rights also extend to corporations. Moveover, if you want to examine the issue using the "framer's intent" approach espoused by that dirtbag Scalia, the holding is wrong as well since corporations as they now exist did not exist when the First Amendment was drafted, so the Framers cleared could not have intended the right of free speech to extend to them. Finally, it can be safely argued that most "speech" issuing from a corporation is commercial speech, which has always been treated as less protected and less important than other forms of speech, such as political speech.
Wrong, wrong, wrong.
|
|
JEleazarian
Trad climber
Fresno CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 02:52pm PT
|
The issue isn't who pays for the speech, it's the restriction of speech based on its content. The law said corporations (except media corporations) can't cause the broadcast of "electioneering" material too close to an election. It should appall anyone who believes in free speech to allow the government to regulate and limit political speech intended to persuade voters.
Again, I blame this law at least as much on the Republicans as the Democrats. McCain was a named sponsor. Bush II signed it into law. The law showed perfect contempt for the First Amendment. Neither party acquitted itself well in its enactment.
John
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 02:56pm PT
|
Corporations are not invididuals. They are deemed individuals for certain purposes such as service of process (since how else would you accomplish this), but in all other respects the contention that a corporation is a person is a legal fiction.
So are unions, charitable, environmental, political, recreational,religious, and political organizations.
|
|
blahblah
Gym climber
Boulder
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 02:58pm PT
|
You wonder if China and Saudi Arabia will be good masters?
Haha--allowing an entity, whether foreign or US, to speak its piece makes it your "master"?
Why are you all so afraid of free speech?
And repeat after me: "a corporation is just a collection of individual human beings acting together to achieve a common, lawful purpose."
Don't stop until you get it.
|
|
Apolobamba
Trad climber
Boise, ID
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:00pm PT
|
It is hard, damn hard to get US citizens to vote against their best interests. This decision will make it just that much easier. From my experience, the message is getting through loud and clear without it but every little bit counts in these trying times.
No extra Wall street tax please. No government health care.
Thank you,
Goldman Sachs clears 4.9 billion in the last quarter. It is good to have friends in the right places.
|
|
franky
climber
Davis, CA
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:13pm PT
|
Well, the reality that money buys elections is something that can't be ignored. It is a decidedly capitalist way to run the government. Probably one of those ultra capitalist things that needs a check placed on it, like monopolies and what not. Eventually, corporation installed government puppets will lead thwart competition.
It be great if you could do it without restricting free speech, any ideas?
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:17pm PT
|
Big corporations and powerful unions will call the shots- just like in California. That's worked out well right?
|
|
Fat Dad
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 22, 2010 - 03:17pm PT
|
//Who owns the corportations? Shareholders, who are the shareholders? Well, pension plans (unions, 401k's, defined benefit plans) and the people hired to buy shares and vote at the meetings and individuals (IRA's, the affluent, Schwab/Fidelity clients) and the people (me) who are hired to buy shares and vote. Rise up and have your voices heard.//
This issue was discussed at length during oral arguments, not resolved satisfactorily and then glossed over by the right wing of the court. What if you own mutual funds, which invest in a myriad number of different entities. You expect someone with their portfolio diversified in 20 different mutual funds to scrutinized the holdings of each one and act accordingly? Maybe if you don't work and have 40 hours a week to devote to that task then maybe, maybe that might be a solution but, even then likely not, since you'd also have to spend an equal amount of time finding out who's sponsoring what.
Nice try Fatty. Typically bait and switch. Rather than setting up such a complicated mess, why not make it simple. Everyone is limited to a fixed dollar amountthey can contribute--people and corporations (since they're individuals, right?).
|
|
Gary
climber
Desolation Basin, Calif.
|
|
|
Jan 22, 2010 - 03:18pm PT
|
You toadies keep licking your corporate master's hands. Maybe they'll sweep a few crumbs off the table for you.
fattrad, how many times have you voted for the board of a corporation? How many votes did you get?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!