As if it weren’t already a full time job keeping an eye on a thieving Congress and a feckless President, now we have to monitor every decision made by the Supremes. I confess I never did before. Sure they sometimes ruled more liberally or conservatively than I might have, but I always viewed them as a pretty good gyroscope for the government, generally pulling us back to the center on important issues.But Holy Crap Batman! What in the world happened to the gyro? Who in their right mind felt that corporations weren’t getting their voices heard in Washington? Who beside these five old men felt there was no difference between a real live human being and a corporation when it comes to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? I don’t know about you but I’m just stunned by this decision. Just when you think it can’t get any worse – it does.
I blame Justice Roberts over the other four idiots. I should have know he’d be trouble when he thought he was too smart to need notes at the Presidential inauguration and then blew the oath of office, which must be – what -- 50 words?
To those pundits who are saying that it probably won’t make than big a difference because most corporations won’t want to become politically active in elections, I ask, “How many elections would it take to make a difference?” It seems like one recent election in Massachusetts is likely to make a fair difference for the next couple of years.
For a fascinating, if frightening, view on how this might play out I recommend John Grisham’s “The Appeal.” It’s a novel about one Mississippi Supreme Court election and it’s the best political novel I’ve read in a long time. Grisham saw this coming.
If a corporation can be declared to be a person it’s not a very big leap to declare a fetus to be a person also. Get ready to kiss Roe v. Wade goodbye.
The playoffs: I like the Saints and the Jets in two close games.
Posts
29 comments:
The news of this decision slapped me out of the high I was riding from the election of Brown in Massachusetts. I was dumbstruck... I know judges aren't politicians, and don't necessarily have their finger on the pulse of public opinion, but come on! Americans are sick of same the old politics! And corporate funding does nothing but keep us stuck in the old ways.
But then again, I'm sure they measured their decision against the Constitution, which is the scope of their duties, and made the correct decision.
So the question bears asking: Do we need a Constitutional amendment to fix this?
Just a stupid question. If corporations are multinational, doesn't giving them unlimited ability to sway national elections fly in the face of reason? If you must be a US citizen to vote, why can foreign nationals influence the election process?
Another gift to the American people from GW Bush.
Will the Tea Party find this to their liking?
Organized labor also benefits from this ruling. The issue about when a fetus becomes a person opens up an entirely different debate. I find it difficult to find fault with any of the Supreme Court's rulings. I am unable to think of a better way to resolve our most fundamental issues. What would happen if we did not have a Supreme Court? My picks are the Colts and the Saints.
Congress is what Congress is, more paralyzed than anything else -- and sometimes (witness GW Bush Social Security proposal) that's not all bad. While I agree that Obama has been a disappointment, the expectations he came in with and the mess he inherited guaranteed he'd disappoint a lot of people no matter how well he played the hand. OTOH, the ... See More Supreme Court is truly dangerous, and has been for a long... See More time. One things for sure -- after this decision, I don't EVER want to hear a so-called conservative whine about "activist judges" and argue "we need strict constructionists who will practice judicial restraint." This Court is far more ideological and far more activist than even the Warren Court.
Excellent point on the bogus"activist judges" argument.
Saints and Colts. Please.
How surprised would you be to learn I was at Super Bowl III (with SI) AND game 7 of the Amazin' Mets in October. Remember when the WS ended in October?
Woody, are we both reading the same tea leaves? I see a pair of deuces and you see a full house. This alone says something about our collective problems.
What would it be like without the Supreme Court? How about no GWB presidency and no Iraq and Afghanistan?
Would you prefer Congress or the President making the final judgements? With Pelosi and Reid leading the way Congress could have its own Wheel of Fortune. Perhaps we could have the people vote with text messaging, like American Idol. Talk about chaos! The Republicans bring up "activist judges" and the Democrats fire back with "overturning Roe vs Wade". Both are unlikely. Why don't we focus on putting Americans back to work and ending the wars in Iraq/Afghanistan before we decide to revamp the American Constitution. Right now Colts 20 and Jets 17.
I agree with the "activist judges" observation. Because the constitution is a living document, I think it is the duty of justices to be activist and apply the law based on changing societal and historical circumstances. Using the 2nd amendment writtin the the late 1700's to justify the ownership, without restriction, is beyond absurd. Applying the archane citizen definition to corporations such as Exxon and Merck is equally rediculous. At least unions represent Americans.
2 for 2
I don't advocate getting rid of the Supremes, but this was a bad decision that will further erode the voice of the common man. This is a Potemkin democracy.
This obsession with strict interpretation of the Constitution will be our downfall. Corporations are profit-making entities. They have unlimited pooled resources to over-pitch a viewpoint that preserves their profits. They are not what the founders of the Constitution intended -- free speech to protect the people.
We all sit at the table and may petition the cooks on the menu but food to some will always be slop to others.
This is not an institution with a pristine record. There was once a ruling to the effect of separate but equal. In the past century, one which I have witnessed more than half of, one of the justices would leave the room when the justice of Hebrew descent entered it. 5 older white men are fully capable of laying an egg.
Perhaps those who feel they are dining on filet today will wake up with a case of the runs tomorrow.
It's decisions like this that make me wish I lived in California so I could get some medical marijuana.
If a corporation has the same right of free speech as an individual then it should be treated as an individual.
When we go to war bring back the draft. We won't have to pay Haliburton billions, we just draft them and pay them private's pay.
Willing to bet that they sure don't want that part of "we the people."
Please, the Supreme Court rules on one issue the left doesn't like and you say the right can no longer complaign about "activist judges". The ruling overturned the McCain-Finegold act which limited contributions, which includes corporations. By listening to the media and reading these posts you'd think that was about this and nothing else. Everybody got around it by accepting money from various groups. While Barney Frank was livid with the ruling and vowed to take legislative action against corportations, he didn't include labor unions that are just as rich and spend tons of money on their candidates.
The constitution is NOT a living document. It can only be changed by articles that need to be ratified by the states.
Having been a member of two large and strong labor unions in the past the only thing they represent are themselves. Just like the government they don't give a rat's backside what their members think.
Am no fan of labor unions but they are nowhere close to as rich as corporations. In 2008 Exxon/Mobil netted $48 billion. If they wanted to spend 2% of their profit it would be $96million and then they'd have to try to get by on $47 billion.
At the end of the day, the decision is more symbolic than anything. Corporations have found ways around campaign finance laws ever since they were first banned in 1907.
Now the court has said spend to your hearts content. We won't even pretend that our elected officials are not bought and paid for.
POTEMKIN DEMOCRACY? Dennis comparing us to czarist Russia? The court is made up of judges who are lawyers and politicians at least in Ohio. Corporations and labor unions have allowed our generations to live like the capitalist swine we all are. Unemployment still 10%, much higher here.Still in two wars,nation building. Now we have to hear the comparisions of of Haiti to New Orleans when there really isn't much to compare. Maybe we need a hefty Chief Justice like Taft.I think Slick Willy would be great, Depends on your definition of what a person is is.
I usually avoid bombast like "Potemkin Democracy" but I was frustrated. Having been a New Yorker most of my adult life I feel that the Electoral College has made my vote meaningless, regardless of which way I voted. I would probably feel different if I still lived in Ohio where the outcome is so often in doubt. Also, the absurdity of gerrymandering further erodes the importance of all our votes. And now this - I'm free to compete with Pfizer in having my voice heard. Thanks very much.
And a note re the other d'blank. He is a Rush devotee and so facts are not so important to him. I remain too lazy to do the research but I'd be willing to bet anyone on the blog $20 that the revenues of ExxonMobile exceed the combined revenues of all unions in the United States.
Now for my 4th post out of 19.
Just a cotton picking minute, I will not be painted a leftist. I am a centrist who believes in a government that is fiscally conservative but intercedes in interests where a totally hands-off government would not, as in health, education, the environment. The fact that my views are considered left of center is evidence just how far to the right things have gotten.
One thing Marx had correct: the oppressor tends to get the oppressed to side with it. The far right is marching lock step like the far left never did. Go ahead, cede our rights; just don't expect my blessing.
You might complain about George Soros money spent influencing the public. It is a drop in the bucket compared to money spent by the far right. And, money does influence public opinion: witness where the "conservative" media has pushed the debate off the charts. Do you honestly believe this witch hunt against unions was started by the common man? If you want to know who took the bait, look in the mirror.
Hankster for being a leftie, you are always polite,very philosophical, providing other bloggers to look for insight.You are informative, doing your homework on most issues. Hank,not really a bad way to be painted.
Hankster, you deny being a leftist and claim to be a centrist. In the next sentence you applaud Karl Marx. I do not think that helped your argument. The labor unions may not have as much money as the large corporations but they have the ability to strike or deliver a large block of votes. In that way they may have more power than the corporations.
Woody -- please name the last strike in the United States that disrupted anything other than the paychecks of the people on strike.
As for Hankster being a lefty, I will just mention that he skis every year at the Yellowstone Lodge -- they wouldn't allow that sort of person.
How about the 2005 NYC transit strike which probably affected your commute into Manhattan. I think you may be right about the Hankster. He talks like a Democrat but lives like a Republican. I think he is playing golf.
+
OK, I'll give you the transit strike, which was inconvenient, but that was five years ago dude. Unions have had very little power in the US for 20 years now. Look at the UAW -- they've been rolling over for auto management for a very long time, losing both jobs and benefits the whole way.
Excuse me while I throw another peasant on the fire.
I do understand all bean curd eaters are suspect.
As Marx described communism, the workers would own the means of production. I would say this has been achieved here in the USA in the institutional accounts of union pension stock portfolios.
As to playing golf; only on the soccer field at Hiram. The coach would say, "okay boys, hit them." He then said, "okay boys, pick them up." I never could understand what it was all about. Besides, I do root canal work for a living: I have a special dispensation from playing the game.
An estimate of what just four companies in one industry have compared with Unions.
University of Wisconsin communications professor Lew Friedland points out that the nation's four largest banks would have to allocate a mere one-tenth of one percent of their assets--$6 billion--to counter a campaign in which the whole of the U.S. labor movement spent all of its assets.
Not exactly a level playing field but in the CSA, Corporate States of America, who said it should be fair?
Read Rob Silverblatt in US News and World Report 1/25/10. His view is that the organizations that will benefit from this ruling are not the large corporations but the groups with specific agendas such as the NRA, labor unions, etc. The sponsors of the ads have to identify themselves and corporations may not want that type of publicity. We shall see.
The Supreme Court has made a number of decisions that the "left" hasn't liked. How about Bush v. Gore? How about overturning the DC gun ban? It's not just one decision it's a pattern and practice of an attempt to lurch backward to the late 19th century. I wouldn't be surprised if this court didn't attempt to bring back Plessey v. Ferguson.
I disagree strongly about the flexibility of the Constitution. It's not a moldy document that needs to be interpreted through a myopic, 18th century lens. It's very strength and durability lies in our ability to adapt our country as it is not as it was.
If the concept of what "arms" constitute changes, does the law overseeing them hold? 18th century guns were front loading single shot flintlocks. The community could overpower an aberrant individual with only a death or 2, but the consequences of a person with an AK 47 are incomparable.
Ideologically, considering documents living is reflected in fundamental belief in the Bible, the Koran as well as the Constitution. That is why Darwin is such a problem for those who cling to rigidity. If we can look to other cultures and see their folly, why can't we peer into our own mirror?
What some see as justice, I see as hypocrisy. We claim to be a nation of laws, not men, but the law is only as sound as the men who interpret the law.
Post a Comment