tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1662743256187373819.post3896369354378760116..comments2023-07-19T04:18:43.446-07:00Comments on The Civic Soapbox: The Supreme Court's Unprecedented Precedent Buster by Larry StopperMost of Martha Woodroof in one placehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/14628461346931946238noreply@blogger.comBlogger5125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1662743256187373819.post-86492014883245809012010-03-25T06:02:49.302-07:002010-03-25T06:02:49.302-07:00Ahh, that is so cute, and hilarious. Your essay i...Ahh, that is so cute, and hilarious. Your essay is well written, if from a heavy, heavy progressive or liberal bias. I find it amusing you are worried about Corporate entities influencing congress into doing horrible things, but you are not worried about the government's at the time of this writing, attempted power grab. Now for the moment the government has the power to force you to buy stuff, if the law stands. I refer to the mandate requiring all citizens to buy health insurance, for which their only justification is the commerce clause. If that clause allows them to force activity in the marketplace, they could just as easily require you to buy a chevy, to help GM which is now owned by the government, and not making a profit. And as for airline industries, you forget something called COST which is where most money from most corporations go, they can only spend out of PROFITS, and even then at the discretion of a board of directors, and if a publicly traded company, under the eyes of the SEC. You should submit stuff like this to the Huffington Post though, they are about as biased as your essay and would probably pay you good money for stuff like this.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1662743256187373819.post-52045822138819301492010-02-08T11:16:38.924-08:002010-02-08T11:16:38.924-08:00Those poor misunderstood supremes. There recent de...Those poor misunderstood supremes. There recent descision to create uber citizens who are at once more powerful than a locomotive, richer than Croesus, immortal and totally unburdened by a concience has been roundly blasted by the little people. <br /> This misunderstanding may have been fostered by their own attempt to justify this act with the ludicrous assertion that beings which can neither speak nor die for their country deserve constitutional protections to do so. (What's next free speech for dogs!) <br /> The true and unswerving purpose of this conservative court has ever been to make America free for the unhindered accumulation of wealth for every capitalist with means and willingness to forsake all other interest to go for it. After all, wasn't America founded on the priciples of Establishing a 5-justice junta to speak for the nation, providing commoners for the defense of economic imperialism, promoting corporate Welfare, and securing the Blessings of Laize Faire Capitalism for ourselves and our posterity (this last word is often misinterpreted by those outside the Orwellean oracles to refer to flesh and blood offspring. This misconception will soon be clarified by our omnipitent Orweleans as actually meaning subsidiaries.) <br /> Thus the true and previously misunderstood (by the layity and inferior jurists alike) goal of the founding fathers was to ultimately produce the perfect society in which one capitlist can acquire the entire wealth of the nation. As the perfect pentagarchy well knows this goal would have doubtless been achieved long ago but for the improvident intervention of activist Presidents such as Teddy Roosevelt. (Our constructionist cronies, being pure and conservative, loath and dispise activism. So to put the nation back on the one true path of unrestrained capitalism, they have picked up the torch dropped by unappointed generations and will endeavor to bear any logical or linguistic burden to create a sufficiently unlevel playing field as to oppose any foe of the free and unrestrained use of Capital. And isn't that the American Way!<br /> Now I don't mean ,as you might expect that our now talkative corporate citizens will simply hire propagandists to overwhelm "common" sense, to pursuade the masses to vote for this or that candidate. Greater efficiencies are in store. Consider the inefficiency of each corporation bribing each candidate over each issue near and dear to their hearts (uh...make that interests). Far better for trusts to by shares in a corporate candidate which is bound by its articles of incorporation to vote in proportion to the shares applied to the issue. (such a corporate candidate may require a clarification of letter of the constitutional regarding qualifications to serve in national office by our legal leiges; but the right ruling is only an appropriate test case away. And if none presents itself these supremes have been know to reinvent a cause of action to suit the purpose before.)<br /> So onward we shall go' into that brave new world with freedom of speech and constitutional protection for All... corporate entities.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1662743256187373819.post-84948510667299448732010-02-07T13:11:23.039-08:002010-02-07T13:11:23.039-08:00I'm sad to see such a dearth of interest in th...I'm sad to see such a dearth of interest in this issue (only 2 comments in a week). This doesn't bode well for the most logical response to this descision i.e. a constitutional ammendment declaring corpoations to be non-citzen legal entities with NO CONSTITUTIONAL rights. What rights they might enjoy would be directly specfified in state and federal laws governing their incorporation and their regulation; and possibly indirectly through their shareholders (such as protection from search and seizure of corporate/shareholder property w/o due process). In any case corporate freedom of speech or voting rights are both equally absurd. And if the gang of five flaunts such an ammendment they could and should be impeached.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1662743256187373819.post-67024008972006215862010-01-31T14:01:53.530-08:002010-01-31T14:01:53.530-08:00Yes, it's Orwellian. The consequences you for...Yes, it's Orwellian. The consequences you foresee are worse than I imagined. I haven't read the opinions -- just commentary -- but I can't understand how the Court could overlook, not merely precedent, but the PLAIN MEANING, the PLAIN PURPOSE of the 1st amendment, which is surely to ensure that a dominant power does not silence the voice of ordinary citizens, and that a democracy can flourish. I have always felt that Americans tend to equate capitalism with democracy and now the Supreme Court has confirmed this, essentially, by ruling that money is free speech. It is sick-making. And also, I suspect that there are not only free speech cases that will be affected by this ruling. It is so broad that I think it's going to affect a lot of constitutional law, including freedom of religion cases. <br /><br />I echo Luzilli: thank you for a superb essay.dogwooddiaristhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14620645607630640331noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1662743256187373819.post-22956054938035003702010-01-29T15:04:08.872-08:002010-01-29T15:04:08.872-08:00Thank you. This is an excellent essay. I hope peop...Thank you. This is an excellent essay. I hope people listen.Luzillinoreply@blogger.com