-
Competitive Enterprise Institute Backs GOP Boycott of EPA Nomination
May 10, 2013 | 1 comment
-
How the OPEC Cartel Undermines American Consumers and Business Operations
May 6, 2013 | 4 comments
-
Tennessee GOP Caves to Education Establishment on Civil Rights Language
April 22, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Some Questions for the EPA Nominee
April 11, 2013 | 2 comments
-
Tennessee Joins the Battle Against Race, Gender Preferences
April 10, 2013 | 1 comment
The Spectacle Blog
He really did not like that ruling in defense of First Amendment freedoms did he? Has a president ever attacked The U.S. Supreme Court like that in such an august setting? Already, Fox News and CNN have made note of Justice Alito’s lip movements that seem to say “not true.” - A bit more reverential than Rep. Joe Wilson’s editorial comments.
There’s a long and copious list of high court rulings that do not sit well with those of who favor some form of “originalist” jurisprudence and it’s fine for the Supreme Court to figure into campaign talking points. But there is something unseemly about the president’s very vociferous comments and what this says about the separation of powers.
President Franklin Roosevelt’s attacks on the judiciary ultimately worked to his political disadvantage back in the 1930s. Burt Solomon, a long-time correspondent for National Journal, explores the history here in his very excellent book entitled: “FDR V. The Constitution,” which now has a heightened relevance.
It looks like Obama will have at least one more shot at an opening on the high court as it now appears likely that Justice John Paul Stevens will step down. This will not shift the current ideological balance but it does mean that judicial philosophy should figure into the 2012 presidential campaign and perhaps this year’s U.S. Senate races.
Jane308| 1.28.10 @ 12:15AM
Calling out the Supreme Court Justices and allowing them to be mocked in this setting was highly inappropriate. He's done it before and it makes me very uncomfortable during his speeches, because he is not treating the Office of the President with the respect it deserves. I feel a little bit ashamed for how he is representing my country.
As for Alito mouthing those words, in the Fox broadcast I also caught John McCain turning to Lindsey Graham and say "Blaming Bush" after Obama's attack on Bush.
I don't think Alito should be called out, the entire audience is sitting there making comments under their breath, to the person next to them, or to no one in particular. Heck, I was doing it sitting on my sofa!
I do agree that yelling "You lie" is inappropriate, but reading lips and then making it a headline is ridiculous. Especially when the person mouthing the words is RIGHT!
MikeBee| 1.28.10 @ 8:41AM
Hey, Jane!
I watched the speech following an old suggestion of Rush's, during Clinton's presidency. I taped a paper to the bottom of the T.V. screen with the words on it, "You Lie!" just to keep everything in context. (Thank goodness for Joe Wilson.)
republicanblack| 1.28.10 @ 12:17AM
First of all politicfact rated the statement barely true. Wrong, politicfact should stick to politics, they are not legal experts, its not legalitifact is it? I did notice Justice Alito mouthing the words, "That's not true" when Obama said foreign entities can influence elections through corporations. I also saw this article by a legal columnist that details the good bad and the ugly about this past ruling, and details why obama may be right
http://wendygdphillips.wordpre.....ted-v-fec-–-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly/
Mary| 1.28.10 @ 2:01AM
Well, of course it's true. It's a violation of the constitution, but McCain Feingold didn't stop that from happening. Obama knows it's true, because he took millions from foreign nationals and interests, and didn't return the money, he just went into denial. He counts on the courts and others being too timid to go after him. The dem party has been taking foreign money since CFR passed, as did Bush and others. It has to end, but please don't be under any assumptions that BHO is on the higher road in this. He's a corrupt politician, who has gotten away with virtually anything he's attempted for too long, and he assumes that he can continue to do so.
Unless he is strongly countered and restrained to the limits of presidential power, he will destroy our country and tear up our constitution. He respects no one, and nothing.
Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 12:21AM
Mooney --
Presidents regularly criticize SCOTUS. Obama did it respectfully.
Let's remember. Obama criticized a decision that overturned 100 years of legislation passed by elected representatives of the people.
Obama criticize THE most activist decision in decades; he criticized the decision that had the LEAST respect for Congress (and over a dozen state legislatures, and at least two of its own precedents) of any in decades.
You might agree with the bizarre notion that what Democracy in America needs right now is more spending by corporations and special interests groups; you might cheer this unprecedented victory for wealth over the body politic; but I don't think there was anything wrong in Obama taking 15 seconds out of a 72 minute speech to say something about it.
Tim| 1.28.10 @ 8:50AM
I don't think it was particularly graceful or well timed, nor good politics to publicly call out the justices. He may have cause to regret it. I won't say that this is a disaster, but it does open up a new and uncertain front in campaign media.
Left wing corps also have money and resources so this is by no means a left right issue, both sides are going to get hit, probably in ways that they do not anticipate.
MikeBee| 1.28.10 @ 9:03AM
Liberal Reader, first of all, Corporations are treated as taxpayers by the U.S. government. Each Corporation has the exact same status as a regular citizen of the U.S., with respect to paying taxes. One of the founding principles of this country was "No Taxation without Representation." Not allowing Corporations to speak politically with their money means that they are taxed without representation. (And, today, they are taxed at a higher rate than are individuals.)
Secondly, it has been well established in other Supreme Court rulings that Corporations really don't exist outside of the people who make them up. Essentially, what the Supremes have well established is that Corporations are simply groups of individuals who have pooled their individual talents and resources together for greater production and accomplishment. Taxing Corporations essentially results in a double tax on the people who make them up.
Thirdly, I'm still waiting for the Supreme Court to reaffirm its 1895 decision, which was overruled by the U.S. Legislature only about 20 years later. In 1895, the Supreme Court ruled that the taxation of people's income was unconstitutional. But the U.S. Congress, caught up in the worldwide Communism movement of the early part of the last century, overturned this decision, marking one of the largest power grabs by the U.S. Government in our history.
Margie| 1.28.10 @ 4:55PM
GREAT post. Thank you!
Phil in Phoenix| 1.29.10 @ 10:51AM
Sure, corporations have legal status. But, they also have the capability of, say, donating $10 million to a senatorial campaign and single-handedly crushing an unfavored candidate, usurping a hundred thousand citizens' relatively meager campaign donations. This ruling is a huge benefit for corporate bottom-line interests.
Reason22| 1.29.10 @ 12:01PM
I always wonder WHY somehow corporations are treated like a bunch of robots...who makes up corporations? I don't see E.T! Corporation is nothing more than a "title" given by the tax code for tax purposes. To prohibit the first amendment rights of corporations is the same as telling PEOPLE they don't have rights.
Slveryder| 1.28.10 @ 10:48AM
I keep hearing this "100 years" of legislation meme by all the people rejecting the SCOTUS decision. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't they overturn aspects of McCain-Feingold only? Wasn't that passed in the last 20 years? Therefore, their decision is hardly overturning a century of precedent.
Further, while president's DO criticize the court regularly, they do NOT do so in the SOTU. The Supreme Court has only been mentioned 9 times in the address since the start of the 20th century and even then, rarely in overt criticism.
Obama has broken more precedent here than SCOTUS even dreamed of.
Reason22| 1.29.10 @ 12:02PM
YOU are correct! Obama was WRONG on his timeline (not surprising).
Reason22| 1.29.10 @ 12:04PM
What Obama said was inappropriate, and borderline dispecable. Thank goodness he doesn't interpret the constitution. It is OK for him and his goonies to lie all the time, but when someone says it's "not true" that is unacceptable? I hope that ALL the chief justice (conservatives and progressives) will take note of such great insult.
Reason22| 1.29.10 @ 12:04PM
What Obama said was inappropriate, and borderline dispecable. Thank goodness he doesn't interpret the constitution. It is OK for him and his goonies to lie all the time, but when someone says it's "not true" that is unacceptable? I hope that ALL the chief justice (conservatives and progressives) will take note of such great insult.
Philip| 1.28.10 @ 12:42AM
No, Liberal Reader. Jane308 is right. It was highly inappropriate. It was the Angry Obama day State of Union. This Obama clown is now upset because the courts have leveled the playing field.
The man who raised over $600 million dollars running for President and spent over $250 million in the last 2 months of the 2008 election is suddenly worried about money influencing elections. Give me a break !
Unbelievably unPresidential. It's something one might expect of a nutty Senator or a flaky Congressperson. But from the President of the United States ? And from one who claims to be a former law school instructor ?
That judge has crapped more judicial and constitutional law knowledge than President Obama will ever grasp in his lifetime. The pain felt in his arrogance is what makes President Obama so unlikeable.
How absolutely terrible for Obama to MOCK the Supreme Court...... He is ALL about HIMSELF..... He is still LECTURING the American people.
The guy's a joke. 3 more years and out.
Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 1:08AM
Philip --
How did Obama "mock" the Supreme Court. His method of disagreeing with the court was respectful and manly.
SCOTUS issued an aggressively undemocratic, activist, radical decision that departed with a century of law and at least two precedents -- one of which was made only a few years ago!
Roberts, who claimed an ethos of "judicial modesty," has made a mockery of his own court. But Obama's very brief, respectful censure of the Court's overreach was entirely appropriate.
As for Obama being a "joke." Maybe so. But you'd seem less a fool if you took a minute to offer a more serious response to his address.
Mary| 1.28.10 @ 2:06AM
As a former liberal democrat, now an independent, so called "liberal" reader, you're an extremist and that is plainly apparent. Obama has spent his entire time in office ridiculing and scorning anyone who dares to disagree with him, and even those who do. He's an unprincipled coward, who hides behind his ability to exploit others. I've got news for you, he's not brilliant, or even smart enough to realize that like others in the past, who serve the sort of masters he does, he will be treated as he's treated others as to them, he too is disposable, once he's served his purpose.
Roberts didn't make a mockery of the court, those who voted for, who still support, and even those who refuse to take a strong principled stance against Obama, are guilty of silent approbation, have made a mockery of the court, as well as our legislative and executive branch of government, because they don't consider them important enough to take a stand for.
qwerty| 1.28.10 @ 10:30AM
@ Mary - Quit lying and saying you used to be a "liberal democrat." That is the oldest trick in the online messageboard playbook to make it sound like you are a reasonable person who has seen the light. What "masters" does Obama serve? Let me guess, you're a birther too, aren't you? Give me a break!
And as a licensed attorney I think you're completely sidestepping Liberal's legitimate argument that this decision has OVERRULED OVER 100 YEARS OF LEGISLATION. The legislature is the most direct voice of the citizens of this country. Also, this ruling has overturned recent precedent. Precedent is the RULING PRINCIPLE that overwhelmingly dictates how the Supreme Court makes decisions. It usually takes a VERY SIGNIFICANT violation of fundamental freedoms in order to overturn an ideal that is so entrenched in our legislative history. That is Constitutional Law 101.
So, if you don't understand it, don't comment on it. To make that understandable for you, I'm telling you not to comment on it.
Resolute| 1.28.10 @ 1:13PM
"as a licensed attorney...Precedent is the RULING PRINCIPLE that overwhelmingly dictates how the Supreme Court makes decisions. So, if you don't understand it, don't comment on it."
Well, I'm not a licensed attorney, but I still find it pretty pathetic that someone who describes themself as one doesn't understand that THE CONSTITUTION is the ruling principle that dictates how the Supreme Court makes decisions.
"violation of fundamental freedoms....ideal entrenched in legislative history...."
Are you seriously trying to argue against free speech using this language and claim that you learned to do so in "Constitutional Law 101"?
I suspect that course must have been listed just after "Ceramics 101" and right before "Custodial Arts 101" when you enrolled in it.
Please. Take your own advice before you embarass yourself any further.
qwerty| 1.28.10 @ 10:25PM
@Resolute
Wow, you SURE GOT ME!!! Hahaha. Impressive legal research citing the 1st amendment. Never in my life would I have thought to look at that.
The 1st amendment applies to individual citizens. What I was talking about was the 100 years of legislative history as well as recent Supreme Court precedent which has NOT defined corporations as individuals furnished with these rights. The reason I didn't put that down in my first response is because we all learned that in 5th grade social studies and it was implied that everyone understood that THE CONSTITUTION is the overriding law of the land. Courts INTERPRET the Constitution, and the precedent of not including corporations as individuals has been the historical interpretation.
Hahah, congrats, I AM SOOO IMPRESSED...NICE TRY. Stick to what you know, which is being ignorant.
Joel| 1.28.10 @ 4:12PM
And as a licensed attorney.......are you currently employed? All of the licensed attorneys I know, and that are skillful at their occupation, do not have the available free time to divert to adding liberal views to blogs. The SC IS primarily tasked to hear challenges to existing legislation, and precedent(stare decisis) is the primary foundation of all Law in the US. Just as the SC may vote to not hear any challenge, for reasons that they aren't required to explain, they also may also choose to hear any issue regardless of it's historical tenure. Get back to those traffic tickets.......
qwerty| 1.28.10 @ 10:39PM
Nice job in explaining the how the SC takes on issues, which is completely irrelevant to what I was saying. At least you included how I was right about how the SC is supposed to make decisions (stare decisis)...but then completely ignored it when talking about how they came to this current decision! So basically you're saying I'm right in saying this decision is illogical. But then you seem to say illogical decisions are okay b/c it is the SC? Hmm...logic must not be your thing...
And like a good ol' republican, when logic defeats you, you just decide to fabricate personal attacks about an anonymous internet poster. C'mon, "skillful at their occupation" and "divert to adding liberal views"? Who talks like that? Trying REALLY hard to sound more educated then you actually are, aren't you?! Stupid...lol
Now get back to twangin your banjo and marrying your sister....
Phil in Phoenix| 1.29.10 @ 10:56AM
It is amusing to read your comment about how inappropriate President Obama's comment was and then, in the same paragraph, see you call thye President of the United States a "clown." Nice irony. And, as far as leveling the playing field goes, how does it level the playing field to have a single corporation now able to write a relatively small check (for a large corporation) of, say $5 million, to literally crush a senatorial candidate, disenfranchising 100,000 individual $50 donations, and purchasing a US Senator? That's a level playing field? Who are you, Philip? CEO of Dow Chemical?
jrs| 1.28.10 @ 12:47AM
I have to agree with the president on this. I still have trouble understanding how a corporation that can't be drafted, can be owned by foreign nationals, etc... afforded rights of individuals. That's the constitutional part. As for a group of people (republicans, teapartiers, etc....) that supposedly care about the people and don't care for big government, they suprisingly like big corporations. I'm all for capitalism, which to some extent is anti big business. What's in big business's best interest are usually not in either individuals or capitalism, i.e. protectionism, complex regulation that skews competition, complete disregard for labor or the environment, etc.... Most importantly, it allows too many people to turn Scott Brown's election into a national one. I'm happy to see a 41st republican in the senate, but at the end of the day he's the representative of the people and state of MA, and his campaign should be supported by (both financial and volunteer support) by the people of MA. I'm afraid we're going to see a lot of outside interests trying to exert too much influence going forward.
Mary| 1.28.10 @ 2:11AM
jrs, it's illegal for a foreign national or entity to have any involvement in our political campaigns or government, but Obama has and continues to flout that law, and the constitution. The issue dealing with the SCOTUS decision is easy to remedy, it can be resolved merely by clarifying that only a US corporation, with no foreign owners or investors can contribute to campaigns. On top of that, given the fact that we've had corrupt dems taking these bribes, er.. contributions from foreign nationals and entities, we have to impose a harsher penalty for doing so, and require more stringent regulation of contributions. Things are too lax now as they stand, there should be stricter requirements for contributions and more information and and end to the delays in reports and there should be no unnamed or undocumented contributions.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.28.10 @ 11:04AM
Heh, Mary...leave it to a lawyer to make a simple point...very complex.
Watch why I hire and fire lawyers instead of being one......
GEORGE SOROS
The Defense of the Supreme Court rests!
Phil in Phoenix| 1.29.10 @ 11:06AM
And how is a "US corporation" defined? One which has no significant foreign ownership? And, I see you have singled out "dems" as corrupt and taking bribes. I then assume you would take umbrage to the suggestion that the train wreck of a party we call the modern-day GOP is not the most corrupt collection of special interest boosters in history. I took amused note of the Republicans at the State of the Union Address sitting on their hands as the president suggested removing special tax breaks for companies that send jobs overseas while this country has massive (GOP Administration induced) unemployment. Hah! Oh the irony...the hypocrisy. While I hate to see the GOP die (I was once a member), I love seeing this bunch quiver in fear of the tea-baggers and other nutbag segments of the right.
Micha Elyi| 1.28.10 @ 3:18PM
I still have trouble understanding how a woman who can't be drafted, can be married to foreign nationals, etc... can be afforded rights of individuals.
Hope this helps your understanding, jrs.
Phil in Phoenix| 1.29.10 @ 11:08AM
I can't speak for jrs, but you've lost me.
Joel| 1.28.10 @ 4:21PM
jrs.....I'd suggest that you devote 20-30 minutes to understanding what the legal structure of the different types of corporations actually are....who makes up the corp., what those people are legally required to do, or not to do. An opinion is just that, it doesn't have to be "true"...it is simply someone's opinion. Every person has the right to their own opinion, but they do not have the right to their own facts. To fully support or oppose any entity a person should devote the necessary time to know, the "knowable" facts concerning that entity they oppose or or support. You've got 30 minutes, surely
jrs| 1.28.10 @ 1:01AM
Philip,
I think the ruling does anything but level the playing field. More importantly, crazy conspiracy theories aside, Obama raised a great deal of money by small donations from a large portion of the population. If anything Republicans should only blame themselves for 1) having less than inspiring candidates, 2) do such a lousy job while running the show to cause such lack of enthusiasm, and most importantly 3) be so far behind the technology curve. While I think republicans still hold the edge w/ twitter (IMHO the most idiotic of the social networking tools out there), but just look at the blog space. The best conservative sites maybe have several hundred comments an article, as I speak Huffington Post has 14K + comments on the SOTU. Except for the few articles on this site that mention queen of the anti-intelligent republicans (Sarah Palin), how many blog posts on this site see in excess of 50+ posts. Much of Obama's fund raising success was based on his campaigns technological superiority. Finally, why we all like to think business is always republican, just remember how many supported Obama (although I'd imagine those numbers are rapidly declining) and how that could come to haunt republicans rather than help as too many optimistically think.
Robert Ball| 1.28.10 @ 1:02AM
My father in law, who is Chinese has already told me the Chinese who own more than 50% ownership is already picking their canditates, which they can now throw millions at to throw the election, forget Exxon etc etc, . For a country to be so obsessed with Islam influence, its interesting how so many throw the door open to corporations with an unlimited political funding. Exactly what has Exxon and Citicorp done that deserves such loyalty from the poorly informed? Like global warming, by the time they figure it out it'll be way too late.
Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 1:03AM
jrs --
Right you are.
SCOTUS claims that corporations are PERSONS, and the very same people who are right on life issues like abortion see no problem with this!
Imagine. SCOTUS is saying that the United States government by an act of LAW as the power to confer personage on an entity.
Here's the truth of the matter:
There is no such thing as a PERSON who is not also a HUMAN BEING.
For the narrow purposes of some laws it is convenient to think of corporations as if the were persons (notice the subjunctive); but Roberts' and Scalia's contention that they ARE persons with Constitutional rights is entirely mistaken.
Corporations are not granted rights in the Constitution.
Corporations are not alive. Because they are not alive, they do not have the right to life. It makes more sense to claim that a squirrel or a goat has a right to life than to say Bank of America has a right to life.
Without the right to life, the primary, most basic right, it's impossible to maintain a corporation has any other right.
If government DID have this mythical power to confer personhood, as the majority of the court claimed, why should the government not also have the right to REVOKE personhood?
Another question:
If a corporation is a person, how can anyone OWN a corporation, it being illegal and inimical to the basic values of a free society to permit the ownership of one person by another? Yet corporations ARE owned; they are the property of their shareholders.
Interested Conservative| 1.28.10 @ 2:11AM
LR - I'll limit myself to two very specific problems with your analysis.
First, many, many, many laws specifically deifine "person" to include any variety of non-natural persons. Corporations, partnerships, joint ventures, and so on. I haven't checked Justice Douglas famous "trees have standing" ruling, but I wouldn't be surprised if, definitionally, trees are persons. Sure it's a semantic issue, but the distinction in the law is between "natural" and non-natural persons. The government actually does confer the right to life on entities, and corporations very specifically have potentially eternal life - their existence is unaffected by any single natural (human) person. There's a long and fruitful history of this, going back centuries in English, Dutch, and Florentine law.
Second. it would also help your case if the POTUS were correct in his assertion. Alas, the recent ruling specifically did not affect the prohibition on "foreign" (again, a definition issue, in this case being non-US) corporations role in US Federal elections. Most states define "foreign" corporations as those from outside the state, and "alien" is used for those outside the country.
Again, just two points to keep in mind.
As for the gist of your argument, would it matter if the corporations were predominantly donating to the democrats? I suspect many view this as simply partisan, but my concern is how wasteful it will become.
As someone else has noted, if we should not trust politicians to handle corporate (or union) donations, why should we trust them to handle tax receipts?
Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 2:39PM
Interested --
Good to hear from you again. I've been waiting around for a worthy opponent.
Of course you are right: the law uses the concept of the "person" or "individual" to characterize its disposition to entities that are not human beings.
But notice: this is very different from declaring that non-human entities ARE persons with Constitutional rights.
The law acknowledged -- before this decision -- that corporations, for example, had SOME but not unlimited rights to petition the government and engage in free speech. But it did not acknowledge that they had CONSTITUTIONAL, fundamental rights like you or me.
We have to remember how we come to have these fundamental rights. We are, Jefferson wrote, "endowed" with them. The government does not grant us these rights.
Our rights under the Constitution -- which does NOT grant rights to corporations -- are drawn from fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness as they are delineated in the Declaration and elsewhere.
As to your second point, as many conservative groups are now gearing up to loosen disclosure laws, it may be increasingly difficult to tell WHERE money is coming from in the first place. But like you say -- and like Obama rightly pointed out -- SCOTUS did NOT do anything to prevent foreign companies from enjoying the right to UNLIMITED spending in our elections through their domestic subsidiaries. The Court left this issue "for another day." It remains to be seen if Roberts will go LOOKING for a case (again, very much against the grain of judicial modesty) to make that decision, as he did with Citizens United.
As for union spending, you know better. As of now, unions do spend quite a lot. But now that corporations can draw on their general treasuries and not just PACs, union spending doesn't weigh anymore than a sparrow's fart in the wind.
Exxon / Mobile last year spent 1 million dollars in the presidential election by means of PACs. They enjoyed 26 billion dollars in profits. This decision means that they are permitted to draw on -- without the permission of their shareholders -- ANY amount from that treasury they wish. All the unions in the country combined wouldn't come close to that kind of war chest.
Again, though, this is a question about the government's ability to confer personhood; and this is a question about the extension of core, fundamental, INALIENABLE RIGHTS to non-human entities.
Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 2:42PM
If the government can CONFER or ENDOW non-humans with rights, who is to say the government cannot DENY or REVOKE the rights of human beings?
jr| 1.28.10 @ 7:57AM
"There is no such thing as a PERSON who is not also a HUMAN BEING. " Is that before, or after, abortion????
Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 2:45PM
jr --
I oppose abortion in part on these grounds. No government can decide when the personhood of a human being begins or ends. Any stage of human life is a stage in the life of a human being.
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.28.10 @ 11:06AM
Ken (Old Texican)| 1.28.10 @ 11:04AM
Heh, Mary...leave it to a lawyer to make a simple point...very complex.
Watch why I hire and fire lawyers instead of being one......
GEORGE SOROS
The Defense of the Supreme Court rests!
TSOL| 1.28.10 @ 1:23AM
Suddenly liberals are concerned about foreign influence on American elections? They think it's peachy to look to foreign courts for judicial opinions on things like capital punishment and health care, and they think illegal immigrants should have free access to public services and the right to vote, so what's the big deal? I don't hear any complaints about Mexican billionaires taking major stock at the New York Times which is certainly not shy about attempting to influence elections as well as every other facet of American life. But that kind of corporate influence on elections is ok because it's the right kind of corporation, I guess? Who gets to decide which companies have free speech and which don't?
MikeBee| 1.28.10 @ 11:58AM
TSOL, liberals (and communists) simply believe that all corporations are evil. They base this on their belief that all profit is evil. Corporations try to generate profits for their employees and shareholders, so they must be evil. Therefore, in their way of thinking, since corporations are evil, different rules must be applied to them than are applied to individual citizens. Liberals' leap of logic on this issue is always correct, in their minds. They simply don't realize that corporations actually embody the ideals that they try to promote. In their rather simple way of thinking, it's all decided: Corporations = Bad, Governments = Good.
Hilary| 1.28.10 @ 2:48AM
Alito is a traitor.
Yosemeti Sam| 1.28.10 @ 2:57AM
Give this cry-baby a pacifier.
Or - a wet nurse.
Dave B| 1.28.10 @ 3:47AM
Wow! Some of these comments are so condescending I don't know what to say. I guess most of us knuckle draggers won't be able to make up our own minds once we see a political ad and will be zombie-like and march to the voting booth to vote for the "big business" candidate. I guess this nation can't handle "free speech" regardless of what the speech is and we should be protected from bad people and bad words... cause we're all toothless trailer trash inbreds that can't think on our own. We need government officials to dictate what we can hear and what we can't hear.
Free speech is free speech. A "corporation" is a bunch of individuals with a common purpose and if we don't like what they say then we can say something opposite. The left doesn't like the ruling because their advantage and monopoly over campaign "speech" has just disappeared. This Supreme Court decision, in my low browed opinion, was a "no brainer." "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech." That's exactly what McCain-Feingold did and many citizens were screaming about it at the time it was passed. They might as well have outlawed or restricted Judaism or Christianity while they were at it.
I've been in law enforcement for almost four decades and I've protected the rights of speech for many individuals with which I disagreed and even loathed. It is EXACTLY speech with which we disagree that MUST be protected because in another time, maybe another season, what is popular today might not be. If we can't handle a bunch of political ads during election season then we don't deserve this wonderful nation that our forefathers and ancestors fought and died for.
Indiana Alex| 1.28.10 @ 9:09AM
That's how the liberal base votes.
dingmei| 1.28.10 @ 4:01AM
I am glad to read some fantastic bifocals article like this.
I like your ideas about bifocal glasses and I hope in the future there can be more bright articles like this from you.
Pingback| 1.28.10 @ 12:13PM
As 2009 Was The Year Of “You Lie,” 2010 Will Be The Year Of “Not True” « Around The S links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
JP| 1.28.10 @ 1:11PM
Brown v Board of Education reversed 70 years of precedent (Plessy v Fergeson), and forever changed the meaning of the 14th Amendment (Seperate But Equal). Grunwold v Conneticut forever removed from state legislatures the ability to regulate morally offensive behavior (Grunwold elevates sodomy to a constiutionally protected right). So, I don't understand people like LR, who now bitch and moan about activist judges.
Liberal Reader| 1.28.10 @ 6:07PM
Separate but Equal was from Plessy, not the 14th am. And it's Griswald v. CT.
The king of theTEA PARTY HILL!| 1.28.10 @ 1:58PM
Look the majority of Americans dont support or believe one thing that comes out of his mouth and the Congress!He is mad be cause he cant change us into Cuba and now he attacks the Supreme court for their ruling in favor of protecting us against these evil doers hell bent on destroying our country(marxist).The majority of the people say no to you and your socialist agenda!I feel Nancy Pelosi,harry reid,and obama are the incredible shrinking people!This democratic and rhino republican party will be heading out the back of door of Washington in 2010 and 2012 elections,with their suit cases of tax payers bribe money.They will be right behind the Czars and Obama.It will look like a stampeding herd of texas longhorn cattle in a lightning storm.Then when the storm is over the new Conservative cowboys will round them all up and prosecute these rustlers with high crimes and treason against the United States!Were BACK!