7
   

FINALLY! The Protest movement is targeting our corrupt/incompetent Supreme Court

Forums: Politics, Protests, Occupy Wall Street
Email this Topic • Print this Page
 
 
hawkeye10
 
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 03:09 pm
Quote:
The protesters at Occupy Wall Street and all the mini-occupations that have sprung up around the country in recent days have started to connect two important dots. Blaming Congress for the corporate takeover of American democracy is only half the fun; blaming the Supreme Court is almost better. So when Cornel West was arrested Sunday at an impromptu protest on the steps of the U.S. Supreme Court, his message was a simple one that may be starting to resonate: If you don’t like big corporations buying and selling your government, you may want to go talk to the five-justice majority who gave us the Citizens United decision.
There is only one small problem with this argument. The corporate takeover of government predates the Citizens United ruling, issued in 2010, by many, many years. Moreover, while the ruling certainly opened up the possibility that future elections will be affected by the flood of corporate money into political campaigns, most empirical studies of the 2010 elections still show that the actual impact of Citizens United was actually quite limited. Many of the worst aspects of our money-saturated campaigns (like the role of 501(c)4’s) were already legal before Citizens United, and the holding in the case didn’t change them. The stuff you want to really worry about with big money and elections, such as the failure to disclose who you’re buying, is unaffected by Citizens United. Things may well get much uglier in future elections. But they’d have been ugly with or without the court’s intercession.


http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2011/10/oscotus_what_ows_protesters_should_focus_on_at_the_supreme_court.html

It is about DAMN TIME!
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 7 • Views: 6,886 • Replies: 144

 
RABEL222
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 11:17 pm
Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of those laws according to however big business wants them.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 11:30 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of those laws according to however big business wants them.
That 's a lie; a stupid one.





David
0 Replies
 
hawkeye10
 
  1  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 11:31 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:

Congress makes the laws and the Supreme Court rules on the constitutionality of those laws according to however big business wants them.
The Justices now and then like to write books and give lectures putting on their legal scholar hat and their defender of the Constitution hat....have any of them in process given a justification for the courts kowtowing to the corporate class? I read that stuff when I see it, but have never noticed anything approaching an explanation, only the constant assertion that the court is pure....for anyone who might still be buying that load of crap.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  -3  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 11:32 pm
@hawkeye10,
LONG LIVE the Citizens United ruling!

LONG LIVE the First Amendment, and the Second Amendment!!!





David
hawkeye10
 
  2  
Reply Tue 18 Oct, 2011 11:38 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
No...I first realized that we were in deep trouble when the courts OK'd asset forfeits when ever the state claimed the assets were used in drug transactions, no matter who owned them and whether the owners had anything to do with the crimes.

Next when the court OK'd employers trying to run their employees life, when the courts said that employers had the right to monitor their employees while they were off the clock.

But saying that money is free speech is when I gave up on them. They cant be reading the same Constitution that I am.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 03:29 am
@hawkeye10,
hawkeye10 wrote:
But saying that money is free speech is when I gave up on them. They cant be reading the same Constitution that I am.
Free speech includes getting your message out.
How much money u wish to apply to this
is a private, personal matter, certainly not the business of any government,
and it is beyond the reach of its jurisdiction, the same as the right to self defense





David
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 04:11 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

hawkeye10 wrote:
But saying that money is free speech is when I gave up on them. They cant be reading the same Constitution that I am.
Free speech includes getting your message out.
Does free speech include bribery? Bribery is a way to get your message out too, so is blackmail. There are lots of ways to get your message out. Are they all protected under the heading of Free Speech?
Setanta
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 04:20 am
While i don't agree with many, perhaps most of the decisions of the Court since Pappy Bush packed the court back in the late 1980s, early 1990s, i see no reason to accuse any of them of corruption or incompetence. As usual, Chicken Little ramps of the hysteria before he starts his thread.
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 07:10 am
@rosborne979,

hawkeye10 wrote:
But saying that money is free speech is when I gave up on them.
They cant be reading the same Constitution that I am.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
Free speech includes getting your message out.
rosborne979 wrote:
Does free speech include bribery?
Bribery is a way to get your message out too, so is blackmail.
There are lots of ways to get your message out.
Are they all protected under the heading of Free Speech?
No. There is a logical distinction between expression of abstract ideas,
as in contrast with CONTRACTS to DO things.





David
rosborne979
 
  3  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 08:29 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
No. There is a logical distinction between expression of abstract ideas, as in contrast with CONTRACTS to DO things.
How do you logically draw the line between donating money to someone (a politician) and bribery?
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 10:25 am
@rosborne979,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
No. There is a logical distinction between expression of abstract ideas,
as in contrast with CONTRACTS to DO things.
rosborne979 wrote:
How do you logically draw the line between donating money to someone (a politician) and bribery?
It is bribery if he has agreed to DO something differently,
in exchange for the $$. If I find a politician who favors total gun freedom
and I give him tons of gold, that is NOT bribery.





David
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 10:47 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It is bribery if he has agreed to DO something differently, in exchange for the $$. If I find a politician who favors total gun freedom and I give him tons of gold, that is NOT bribery.

How about if I tell a politician I'm from a certain agency and I give him a million dollars and wink at him and tell him we remember who our friends are in government, and I remind him how hard it is to get re-elected without money. Is that bribery?
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 11:50 am
@rosborne979,
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It is bribery if he has agreed to DO something differently, in exchange for the $$.
If I find a politician who favors total gun freedom and I give him tons of gold, that is NOT bribery.
rosborne979 wrote:
How about if I tell a politician I'm from a certain agency
"Agency" of WHAT??
WHO is the principal?
If u have in mind an agency of government,
that 's corruption in use of tax revenues.

RABEL222
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 12:39 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
He made a point which you cant refute so you try to change the arguement. Same old bullshit!!!
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 05:32 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
By "agency" I'm referring to someone representing a group or an interest. Not a government agency. Surely you recognize the point I'm making.
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 06:15 pm
@RABEL222,
RABEL222 wrote:
He made a point which you cant refute so you try to change the arguement.
I 'm not going anywhere.
He is free to pursue his point. I will address it. Don 't get a heart attack.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 06:20 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
By "agency" I'm referring to someone representing a group or an interest.
Not a government agency. Surely you recognize the point I'm making.
It is a question of fact:
EITHER he IS or is NOT being enticed by personal gain,
to do something differently in the exercise of the powers of his office.

It is not complex.





David
rosborne979
 
  2  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 06:42 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

rosborne979 wrote:
By "agency" I'm referring to someone representing a group or an interest.
Not a government agency. Surely you recognize the point I'm making.
It is a question of fact:
EITHER he IS or is NOT being enticed by personal gain,
to do something differently in the exercise of the powers of his office.

It is not complex.
Well then, since a person in that position clearly IS being enticed by personal gain, to do something differently in the exercise of the powers of his office, then you must agree that it's a form of bribery.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Oct, 2011 10:06 pm
@rosborne979,
rosborne979 wrote:
By "agency" I'm referring to someone representing a group or an interest.
Not a government agency. Surely you recognize the point I'm making.
OmSigDAVID wrote:
It is a question of fact:
EITHER he IS or is NOT being enticed by personal gain,
to do something differently in the exercise of the powers of his office.

It is not complex.
rosborne979 wrote:
Well then, since a person in that position clearly IS being enticed by personal gain,
to do something differently in the exercise of the powers of his office, then you must agree that it's a form of bribery.
No.
If the Brady Campaign donated $$ to my campaign for political office,
I might well accept the cash, but FOR SURE, I 'd continue to everything in my power
to extirpate & annihilate any vestige of gun control.

( I am not implying any breach of contract. )





David
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND - Discussion by Foxfyre
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
Fellow Bostonians: How many of us wished we had an assault weapon last night? - Question by maxdancona
What should be first on the agenda of the winner in November? - Discussion by Frank Apisa
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
  1. Forums
  2. » FINALLY! The Protest movement is targeting our corrupt/incompetent Supreme Court
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 04/25/2024 at 12:21:49
▲ ▼