Should we be afraid or VERY afraid? (Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision)

Dude.

SCOTUS blocked a re-count that would have altered the course of American and Middle East history. SCOTUS selected the president.

And their actions over the last few years have just confirmed what so many of us knew back then: it's no longer a neutral pillar in our democracy.

"Corporations are people." Give me a goddamn break.

This ain't no tin hat conspiracy stuff I'm pulling out of thin air.

 

I think I'm saying the same as UCLA Carlos. In addition to nonpolitical items on which it gives legal opinions, the Supreme Court seems to have a second mission of signing off on Team Red desires. As in for example, should there be a Florida recount in Bush vs. Gore.

 

Yea this is a very very accurate assessment. Remember when the republicans were dead set against Obamacare and the supreme court just ruled the "tax" was unconstitutional to spite the will of the people? Democracy my ass...

 

Well now that single example with a single vote really settled my hash, there's no argument to be made at all that the Supreme Court is Team Red vs. Team Blue.

 

Ohh I thought we were using single instances of something to try and paint an accross the board picture of partiality based on your original post. Since thats not what you were doing, my bad.

 

Huh? The Supreme Court has issued 5-4 Red/Blue decisions time and time and time again. It is what is called a pattern.

 

That just proves that the Administration is advancing an undemocratic totalitarian agenda meant to undermine the very foundation of this country, which it would succeed at doing if not for the five guardians of constitutional liberty on the bench.

Except for the 37% of the cases it wins: then it's a case of activist judges jamming the liberal agenda down the throats of freedom loving Americans.

 

How is that scored? Do administrations have official recommendations? Or is it scored in the sense of an existing law being upheld (which the administration may or may not support).

 

If corporations are people I want to know how a corporation is subjected to criminal sanction. I dont mean a ceremonial beak-wetting of the enforcement authority with no criminal consequences for the personal decision makers in the criminal enterprise. I want to know how a corporation is removed from society for a period of, say, 3-5 years. All the people up in arms about the homosexuals receiving 'special rights' should be livid about this one.

 

Not really: the worst corporations can only **** someone ** *** *** metaphorically. "All the people" you're talking about will give corporations a pass on those grounds.

 

Not what I'm talking about. Replace the hateful language in your post with whatever minority and replace the overlords with Jews. That is Stormfront mentality and you are better than that.

 

http://www.theonion.com/articles/us-currency-finally-achieves-universal-suffrage,35702/

WASHINGTON—Saying they had awaited this day for decades, activists across the country celebrated yesterday following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to grant full and universal suffrage to American currency.

The decision from the nation’s highest court, which was greeted with cheers from advocates and interest groups that have long worked tirelessly on behalf of money, ensures that U.S. dollars can no longer be disenfranchised, and for the first time in history, guarantees that every single one of them will be free to participate in the democratic process with no restrictions whatsoever.

“This is an absolutely historic day for American money; after years of fighting and struggling, our government has finally declared that U.S. cash, irrespective of amount, can no longer be barred from the American electoral system,” said University of Pennsylvania historian Dr. James Mattis, who argued that, while the goal took decades to achieve and at points appeared bleak—particularly during the repressive McCain-Feingold years—few could deny that suffrage for all U.S. capital was inevitable....
​

 

The closest thing I saw to "Overlords" in his original post (and maybe I'm not looking at the right one) was the phrase "rich oligarchs."

So from now on, when anyone criticizes a small portion of the population which, because of wealth and rank has greater access to the halls of power than any other collection of citizens (and who thus as a result exercises a tremendous amount of influence over the course of events that will affect the lives of other people who lack said wealth, rank, and access) said small population will get pass because you can substitute the word "jews" without changing the grammar of the sentence?

Some pretty wealthy guy advanced a similar idea in the Wall Street Journal editorial page recently. He was pretty widely laughed at.

 

They never have been.

 

Except we can point to a slew of landmark cases that say otherwise.

 

Brown v. Board says otherwise.

 

Damn you: I was saving that one for my next pick.

Oh wait: this isn't The Supreme Court Decision draft is it? My bad.

 

Nope. This is what got me:
"The result is a massive number of rural stupid dumbf***s (evolution denying / climate change denying / legitimate rape believing / abstinence-only "policy", etc.) having a tyranny over the rest of the country.

And these dumbfuc*ks are too goddamn stupid to realize that they're just the puppet for a bunch of asshole, libertarian plutocrats who disdain their very puppets.

That's what I'm saying..."

Carlos is better than this. Or we can bring back Guardian and that Polish guy.

 

This should happen.

 

But ... they're dumb. Like, really, really, really stupid.

 

Dan Carlin with his standard brilliant take. This is Roberts sixth campaign finance case. He loves them.

http://hwcdn.libsyn.com/p/8/0/c/80c...96709158&hwt=6124abe3c7ad95314ea0cf99811933ff