General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsSo Greenwald weighs in...telling us to read Kennedy's concurrence, noting that Ginsburg is incorrect
in her dissent and dodging the question as to whether he supports this decision, given his prior support of Citizen's United and McCutcheon.
https://mobile.twitter.com/ggreenwald/status/483630735266689025
I called GG an asshole, years ago. I was not wrong....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002101211
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)Not saying that the NSA shouldn't have been exposed but he is an asshole.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)rate of exposure will take over 30 years.
Also....he still has yet to expose anything illegal. I've asked numerous posters to describe a single criminal act, and no one....no one has been able to list one.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)Personally, I think GG is using this situation for his own ego... I have doubts the release of documents were done for the good of the people.... but that's my opinion.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Greenwald is in it for the lulz.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)was enough for me. I wish the entire NSA situation had credible spokespersons.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)intelligence agency fighting, with GG and ES being used.
CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)with GG and ES serving as the patsies. What I don't know but need to find out is when did Snowden meet Greenwald, before or after he decided to take this step. I've never read about that timeline.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Greenwald makes the perfect spokesman too, because he makes everything about himself, as opposed to the issues.
Justice
(7,182 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)JI7
(89,182 posts)just a business , way to make money.
frazzled
(18,402 posts)Neither are we amused.
I'd like to hear ONE person come to his defense on this worship at the Temple of private freedom for business. Freedom, bitches!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)influences his writing.
MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)Can't wait to see the justifications for Greenwald being such an idiot.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)MohRokTah
(15,429 posts)He makes the case against himself nearly every time he opens his mouth or types a tweet.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Fawke Em
(11,366 posts)Why do I need to justify everything he does?
I'm not his keeper, not do I consider him a god.
He's wrong on this issue, but correct on others.
Anyone who has that 1 percenter corporate queen as an avatar needs to put their popcorn and their stones away.
BootinUp
(46,928 posts)el_bryanto
(11,804 posts)pnwmom
(108,925 posts)Just any day he opens his mouth.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)Ruth Bader Ginsburg is one of the greatest assets we have as a nation.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,112 posts)grasswire
(50,130 posts)Greenwald's opinion (whatever it may be) on this issue has no impact. It's no more important than, say, Bill Maher's opinion (whatever it may be).
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)shits about the rights of women as they serve up checkbook journalism.
I fucking hate nihilistic assholes who tell me I need to ignore a brilliant dissent by a Jewish female and read the conservative Catholic male concurrence for the "correct" viewpoint.
How fucking paternalistic is that, grasswire?
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)understand the incredibly complex legal argument that GG and his ilk are pushing.
Namely...support of the owner class while standing on your uterus.
Don't read the opinions of women....because then you won't get it.
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)Amen, sister.
hugo_from_TN
(1,069 posts)This is not productive.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)hugo_from_TN
(1,069 posts)JI7
(89,182 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)I know who I listen to.
MADem
(135,425 posts)I think GG got the fax with the talking points direct from the Koch boys. "Here's what you say, Glennie, and here's how you say it..."
But hey, Greenwald can do no wrong--David Koch told me so!
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)uponit7771
(90,225 posts)Wait Wut
(8,492 posts)...Palin's, Limbaugh's, Coulter's or any FAUX News hack, yet we still discuss them.
grasswire
(50,130 posts)....Coulter's analysis of the SCOTUS decision today. But even they, as pundits, would be , would be more appropriately discussed than an investigative journalist focused on the surveillance state, on this matter.
otohara
(24,135 posts)unlike Bill Maher who is quite likable.
VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Good I always saw him as a Court Jester..
Yo_Mama_Been_Loggin
(107,112 posts)"Rush is just an entertainer"
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I believe that tactic is specifically mentioned in the papers Snowden released re: the propaganda machines. Every stop is being pulled out to distract from the revelations of criminal government spying and to try to create visceral disgust re: the messengers.
I can't remember who posted that extremely long list of vile, highly emotional adjectives deployed against Snowden and Greenwald by the smear brigade.
That was a very telling thread.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)reprehensible decision.
GEG doesn't deserve an exception.
But some here worship the ground that GG walks on, don't know why, but they do. Funny thing is that many of them are the same ones that try and paint anyone supports the president as "Obama bots who can't think for themselves. They claim that supporting the president equals blind loyalty and that these people NEVER disagree with the president of the party, even though I have never seen on poster say "Obama can do no wrong". Yet these same anti Obama posters seem to prove that for "THEM", there is NOTHING that GG can do wrong. Kind of says it all if you ask me.
dsc
(52,130 posts)and one wonders what would happen if a state passed a law banning kosher slaughtering on grounds of animal cruelty, would an incorporated slaughterhouse not have a right to sue? I would be uncomfortable with a blanket statement that no corporation could ever sue under the act. I think no one, other than an explicitly religious institution (ie a church or a religious order) should be exempt from this mandate but I can see a few rare instances where both corporations and people should have a right to sue for religious infringement.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)deny their employees basic human rights and services, based solely on their particular mysticism.
The owner class has more religious freedom than you....that's what he's pushing.
dsc
(52,130 posts)could you be doing what Greenwald did and you found so bad.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)the SCOTUS case you are referencing really isn't on point.
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)Corporations are not people, they are legal entitities who's purpose has been twisted to the point that we are now seeing them being granted the same "rights" as we do for our people.
This is going beyond a slippery slope and we are in the midst of an avalanche.
dsc
(52,130 posts)endorsing candidates? Or maybe a city could close any corporate owned clinic which performs abortions? If corporations have no rights under the Constitution why couldn't the government pass those laws?
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)You are conflating the ability of a corporation to work within the framework of existing (or enacted) laws and ordinances with the SC's decision today that conferred upon the corporations the ability to frame their activities around "religiously held beliefs". Now I have no problem with controlling members of a corporation praying to whatever god/s they choose too, or living their own personal lives according to the tenets of their faith, but when they project those beliefs onto other citizens and deny them equal protection through the guise of a corporation, that extends a "right" to a corporation that was never intended by the authors of the Constitition, nor should it be embraced by the SCOTUS.
dsc
(52,130 posts)it would be, by definition, an existing law. If you don't like that example, try a law banning the sale of goods designed for Muslims? I think it would be easy to see a community doing exactly that. If the shop was incorporated under your theory they couldn't sue.
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)Wherein a law passed banning the kosher slaughter of animals based on the fact the it is inhumane would have to stand up to that assertion if challenged.
I can only imagine the spurious rationale that would have to be used to enact a law banning the sale of goods designed for Muslims, but I doubt those reasons would survive a legal challenge unless there were mitigating legitimate health and safety issues. Of course if it got to the current SCOTUS, they're activist enough that they might just find a way to uphold something like that.
dsc
(52,130 posts)If corporations have no right to religious expression at all, then they can't sue over it no matter what reason existed or didn't exist for the law being passed. That is what not having a right means.
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)If a company (corporation) was engaged in an activity that was adversely affected by a law or ordinance restricting said activity and it could prove that the law or ordinance was put into place not as the result of improved health, safety, zoning or other related public good issues, but for any other reason, then they have every right to sue for redress regardless of the company's (corporation's) motive for engaging in the activity. That is called "restraint of trade".
But the SCOTUS ruling today went well beyond that. What it did was to say that a company (corporation) can refuse to provide goods or services (medical care) to a element of our population based solely on their "sincerely held" religious beliefs. By your logic, if Hobby Lobby refused to employ or sell products to homosexuals citing Leviticus 18:22 as their "sincerely held" religious belief, that would be fine with you?
dsc
(52,130 posts)you clearly either can't or won't read. I will try one more time, very slowly, to say I am saying. First, to be crystal clear, I THINK THE COURT WRONGLY DECIDED IN FAVOR OF HOBBY LOBBY. That said, I do think, that it is a fair point, to say that having corporations have no rights in this arena at all, which is what Ginsburg said, has problems of its own. If corporations don't have rights under RFRA and that is what Ginsburg's dissent says, then they can not sue if a law that is generally applicable is applied to them and that application serves to harm their religious practice. So no, if you and Ginsburg, had your way, then an incorporated slaughterhouse couldn't sue under RFRA, no matter what a jurisdiction did. That is what standing, which this was all about, means. Now if you still don't understand my position, then I frankly haven't a clue how to make you understand it.
I think any religious exemption should be very narrow when it is being applied in the commercial sphere. Only churches or bonified religious orders should have them when their application runs counter to the rights of other people. Thus I felt that the exemption Obama granted was overly broad and I said so in real time. But I do think that if the application of an exemption doesn't impact the right of other people, say the slaughterhouse example, then such an exemption should be granted to both individuals and incorporated businesses.
bluesbassman
(19,310 posts)Clearly I can read in that I have repeatedly addressed your points with my counter arguments. You have your opinion and I have mine, but to reduce the discussion to an insult does in fact mark the end of it.
Have a nice day.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Hope you have a nice day too
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)This ruling says privately held corporations get to have those rights extended to them, even though they are for profit.
Your example has no baring here. Women working for Hobby Lobby now may not be covered for contraceptives for the insurance they already pay for.
How you consider this acceptable, I dunno.
dsc
(52,130 posts)I don't know what part of there should be no exemption was unclear. Was it the no, the there, the exemption? Please tell me so I can avoid confusing you in the future. As to the central point, if no corporation ever can sue over religious freedom that means that no corporation can ever sue over religious freedom. Again, that would mean that a kosher slaughter house couldn't sue if a town passed a law banning such slaughter if they were incorporated. It would mean that a law banning a muslim book store couldn't be challenged by an incorporated bookstore.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)No corporation should have the right to express it's ideology on it's employees.
Your Muslim bookstore shouldn't be able to force employees to pray to Mecca every day.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)Because so far, they are non starters.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)I posted this earlier today on Facebook:
I believe the tort you're seeking would involve a "closely-held" Jewish-owned business disallowing insurance coverage for any illness related to ingestion of treif.
Liberal_Stalwart71
(20,450 posts)BootinUp
(46,928 posts)He has never impressed me as a supposed spokesperson for the liberal point of view.
1StrongBlackMan
(31,849 posts)BootinUp
(46,928 posts)CherokeeDem
(3,709 posts)It was very clear that Greenwald had no rebuttals to Reikoff's points, other than the standard ilk he spews all the time. In this case, I believe while the message is valid, the messengers are suspect.
Dawson Leery
(19,348 posts)but Greenwald is what is known as a "bombastic blowhard" who can easily be corrected.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Very few here would be willing to say Grayson isn't a complete asshole. Just about every one of those would also vote for him in a heartbeat.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)who was a a borderline white nationalist xenophobe less than a decade ago.
NCTraveler
(30,481 posts)Does that mean that he isn't a white nationalist or a xenophobe? Strange way to phrase that. He isn't really "x", but I want to call him "x", so I will just say he is borderline and not all the way.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)was destroying our culture that the Pat Buchanan/David Duke crowd used and still use, but studiously avoided any explicit mentions of brown people or those who hablan Espanol.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... cause that's needed around here
Chan790
(20,176 posts)Ron Paul used a similar argument to explain why white-nationalism articles in his newsletters didn't reflect his views or mean he was a white supremacist.
uponit7771
(90,225 posts)... so he's a good guy and shit / <----sarcasm ... casuse that's needed around heree
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)JI7
(89,182 posts)Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)It's pretty damn obvious at this point.
Tarheel_Dem
(31,211 posts)LadyHawkAZ
(6,199 posts)LOOK AT ME I HEART FREEEEDUMB PRIVACY RIGHTS AND STUFF LOOK AT ME LOOK AT ME!!elevens!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)VanillaRhapsody
(21,115 posts)Too ashamed to admit it so they try to sugar coat it by calling themself libertarian
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)TriplD
(176 posts)I try to avoid these threads because they give me middle-school flashbacks.
The petulant anti-Greenwald clique here is just sad. DU used to be a much better site without all the hate you all bring here.
elias49
(4,259 posts)Cha
(295,929 posts)Chan790
(20,176 posts)if we'd start showing Greenwald apologists the door. The guy's a misogynistic RW libertarian that pals around with Matt Hale...his ardent defenders legitimately should have no place here at DU.
Just because he happens to hold the same position on the NSA as them, they're willing to forgive him all faults and attack those who would criticize a RWer for being a RWer. Rand Paul also holds the same dim view of the NSA...but if anybody posted cult-of-adoration apologia about Rand Paul like they post about Glenn Greenwald, they'd be summarily banned by the Admins as a troll.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The vehemence of the swarm/smear machine is directly proportional to the seriousness of the government criminality revealed by the journalist.
Marr
(20,317 posts)leftynyc
(26,060 posts)has been here over a decade appreciates the lecture by someone with just over 100 posts about how great the site "used" to be. Don't like it? Door swings both ways. Greenwald is an asshole.
alcibiades_mystery
(36,437 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)How low and pathetic, to use what was done today to women across the country as an excuse to spew vitriol toward the journalist who exposed massive government abuse of power against the American people. How ironic that this new, despicable step into slavery to the whims of corporations would be perverted for use as a tool in the relentless, smearing *defense* of the NSA's abuses of power against us.
As though Greenwald's opinion on this has even the slightest significance here to what the SC did *or* to the mass spying still being perpetrated on Americans despite baldfaced lies to our faces.
Here's what's important: Women across the country today lost control over their own bodies. And the NSA is STILL abusing its power and spying on all of us.
Every single day the NSA smear and apologism machine proves how much lower it can go.
Electric Monk
(13,869 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Isn't it pathetically predictable.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)please!
Number23
(24,544 posts)Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)LOL
bobduca
(1,763 posts)surveillance-state-funded-poster says what?
snooper2
(30,151 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)snooper2
(30,151 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)Sounds like the lucrative and oh-so-very-legal and also-very-constitutional work of tapping phones has dried up! how sad for you!
snooper2
(30,151 posts)Most companies actually follow the law. Also, PCI compliance (payment card industry) is totally separate from Sarbanes/Oxley. Just like HIPPA compliance is as well. Snowy and Greeney really need to educate their audience better. Oh wait, they can't since they don't understand technology, rules and regulations either
Also, and it's not 1973 anymore, you don't actually "tap" the phone. Luckily I'm in the know so I have the capability to laugh when Snowy says "they is being recordin' all you phone calls ma!"
DisgustipatedinCA
(12,530 posts)We've compared notes before. We're both accomplished network engineers, with something like ~20 years experience each. But we're still putting together glorified Lego pieces, after all is said and done. My knowledge helps me to understand technical elements that are presented in news stories, but it in no way confers some special knowledge of how the NSA works behind closed doors. We count on Snowden and Greenwald for that information.
You're right about PCI compliance, but I'd add that if you can get your environment up to PCI levels, SOX and HIPPA would be trivial.
snooper2
(30,151 posts)getting even on-net phone calls from every ma and pa, small, medium and large telco in the US much less the World would put a whole SHITLOAD of people "in the know"...
On the PCI stuff I'm looking at some network vs premise based call recording software solutions and it is a must for a lot of companies. Now somebody is going to read this and say LOOK! Call Recording Software!
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Sometimes it seems like the only purpose in life is to keep your car from touching another's.[/center][/font][hr]
bobduca
(1,763 posts)nice faux-ebonics BTW.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)So what you're talking about makes absolutely no sense.
How in the fuck is the OP part of some "NSA smear and apologism machine"?
My frank takeaway from this is simply that Greenwald allowed the NSA issue, which Wyden and Udall were bringing to the forefront, to become a spectacle, and no reform has happened. This was perhaps Paul Rieckhoff's most important point, Greenwald made the issue about him, Snowden, Assange, wikileaks, rather than about the American people.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)And the OP is "ardently" against the NSA spying machine. That's why her entire career here is devoted to discrediting and smearing anyone who challenges the Stasi and defending anything it does. That's up to and including gleeful smearfests like this OP, *and* implying deliberate falsehoods about the law, as in this thread where she really, really tried to insinuate, without directly claiming it, that NOT extending the FISA court order for data collection would be illegal or unconstitutional: http://www.democraticunderground.com/10025134715 . Now that's shamelessness and dishonesty well beyond the amateur leagues from someone who claims to be a lawyer.
But you know what is the saddest thing of all about this? The chocolate ration crap, and the 2+2=5, and the constant, ugly smear jobs, and the utterly ludicrous denials like you just attempted?
There are more reputable occupations. The TISA hasn't destroyed them all yet (although check again in a few years...). There are ways to earn a living that don't require the gutting of conscience and human decency.
There really, really are.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Lying about other DUers is OK!
Of course, leave it to the apolitical left to advocate for illegal practices by the executive, such as ignoring laws, which at that link you provided, the OP was for upholding the law but advocated overturning the law.
Funny how that works. In the link I provided you, I showed you how the ignorant apolitical left cheered on a "defunding of the NSA" which quite literally did absolutely nothing.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)People think EO's are way more powerful than they are. They aren't. You can direct an agency how to do a certain activity but you cannot direct them not to do a certain activity. In fact, if you were to do that, the agency's head would ignore that directive. If you put in an agency head that did the illegal directive they would be removed from power.
The separation of powers are a fickle thing.
nolabels
(13,133 posts)Not to what is or isn't worth being parsed in a debate
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)to cite an illegal.action of the NSA I've defended.
So far, you've failed.
At the link yo provided, I advocated the executive doing their job by upholding the law.... well at the same time advocating that the 2015 fight for section 215 is coming and it needs to be overturned.
Marr
(20,317 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)If it's not the #1 issue you post about, some here imagine you the enemy. And they are keeping lists. It is bizarre.
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)He once demanded that I show up in a thread about the TPP. My failure to post in that thread was apparently an indication that I'm a third way DLC dem who wants to crush the 99%.
These people are....
Bobbie Jo
(14,341 posts)I got the same finger-wagging nonsense from this one.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)It'd important to know these things.
leftynyc
(26,060 posts)to call out another poster.
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)bettyellen
(47,209 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Because you don't wind up in some threads hanging on to every word of some personality, you must clearly and obviously be against what they believe to be true.
I can be against NSA spying and Greenwald's profiteering and failure to truly drop any bombshells about it. NSA spying is one isssue. Greenwald's checkbook clickbait journalism is an entirely different issue.
What we do know for a fact is that Greenwald has led to absolutely zero reforms. By design.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)threads? Gee, I dunno- maybe because their a shit show of people insulting each other, and it doesn;t interest me as much as other issues? But according to some hosts, you are then the enemy. I think calling out Manny for making fun of AA's bothered by watermelon jokes raised a few paranoid eyebrows. I actually got some weird PMs begging me to give him a chance because he's so great. Kind of cultish behaviour , I thought.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Suddenly they start accusing you of bandwagoning. For example, Syria, when people were talking down about the gassings there then others pulled up stuff about other atrocities in Africa and then said stuff like "why weren't you concerned about X conflict!" Erm, maybe because the news wasn't covering it and we're on a discussion board and we discuss generally what the news covers? Then you go and find maybe one or two threads about X conflict and ask them why they didn't post about it, it's a silly circle of irrationality.
You only have so much time to post, and things you're interested in, such as in this case I am interested in debunking clickbait journalism that at its core is anti-activist and anti-reform as it acts to subdue people (see Chomsky's Manufacturing Dissent).
Yet I have made many posts against the NSA, in one post woo me with science thanked me for my contribution. It's really just two faced-ness. Why can't we damn have different opinions on different things? Geez.
bettyellen
(47,209 posts)country, huh? And I'm like, it's probably because it was OT- and you were derailing the conversation? Pls send me a link if I am wrong. They never have that link. Trolling and disrupting with phony concerns. As if DU isn't on to that shit.
Never seen so much of it here.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)I think it is fucking preposterous that you are somehow an NSA apologist. Advocating justice, the law, the legal system (as opposed to outright anarchy and cronyism) is somehow a bad thing.
Cali_Democrat
(30,439 posts)Greenwald admits to supporting the Citizens United decision which gave huge amounts of power to the 1%.
Pointing our this support is not smearing.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)Marr
(20,317 posts)is because he made the government look bad.
It's so transparent.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)The vehemence and persistence of the smear machine is directly proportional to the level of seriousness of the government abuse of power being revealed.
Tikki
(14,539 posts)not even a bit wrong...
Tikki
Jim Lane
(11,175 posts)The linked tweets include these statements from Greenwald about the decision:
* "None of the justices - even the liberal ones in the Citizens United dissent - disagree that corps have constitutional rights"
* "both Kagan & Breyer accept corporate personhood yet still dissented"
* "Kagan & Breyer refused to join the part of Ginsburg's dissent that argued that RFRA does not apply to for-profit corporations"
I haven't read the decision. Perhaps someone who has can answer a simple question: Is Greenwald correct in his characterization of the opinions?
Call me naive, but I still think truth matters. Greenwald could be a libertarian xenophobe whose analysis of this decision is correct. He could be a brave exposer of NSA abuses whose analysis of this decision is incorrect. To me, the points in the above quotations are more interesting than deciding whether Glenn Greenwald is going to Heaven (especially since I don't even believe in the place).
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)The court did not decide whether the RFRA applied to all claims, merely the contraceptive claim. Therefore the appeal to authority falls flat on its face, because it is irrelevant that Kagan and Breyer did not join part of Ginsburg's dissent.
Ginsburg's dissent explicitly refers to the potential for the RFRA to apply in a more broad and damaging sense, and in that case Kagan and Breyer would almost assuredly agree. It's clear that they did not join that part of the dissent because they want to leave themselves open to future interpretations of the RFRA and how it is implemented. ie, say a corporation requires people to wear veils or something or only agree to a given religion, Kagan and Breyer could then go and be against it while maintaining the RFRA, but Ginsburg's dissent requires her to be against such an action, as she makes a blanket case against all for-profit corporations having that power.
The RFRA is not supposed to be discriminatory, ie, compelling people to act a certain way (in this case, you may not use your company provided insurance to pay for contraceptives). It was meant to allow for free exercise of religion so long as it did not harm other employees (so you couldn't invent a religion that allows you to scream at the top of your lungs for an hour a day in the library or something).
What Ginsburg is saying is that the RFRA is being applied in a broader corporate personhood sense, and of course, since Greenwald supports corporate personhood, he disagrees with her and wants us to read the conservative analysis.
pnwmom
(108,925 posts)OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)Do the liberal justices "agree" that corporations have constitutional rights? Of course they do:
Do Kagan and Breyer "accept corporate personhood"? Of course they don't:
(Both quotes from The Rights of Corporations)
Breyer, to the best of my knowledge, has avoided opining on this court's twisted concept of corporate "personhood". Nonetheless, his dissenting opinions on all Roberts' Court cases relative to the subject would strongly suggest that he disagrees with the notion. It would be incumbent on Greenwald to cite statements or opinions to the contrary. Has he?
As to Kagan and Breyer's "refusal" to join Ginsburg's strident proclamation about the RFRA vis a vis for-profit corporations, joshcryer's response above eloquently explains its irrelevance.
Ever wonder why Greenwald's legal resume' is so thin?
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)If they agreed completely then they would not be able to opine differently on similar but different cases. Say, for example, a Morman business owner required their employees to wear special underwear.
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)An Opus Dei coffee shop chain (Fat Tony and The Parrot) demanding self-flagellation during lunch?
sheshe2
(83,355 posts)Response to msanthrope (Original post)
Post removed
OilemFirchen
(7,143 posts)you'll find several sympathetic wankfests to your right and down the hall.
reddread
(6,896 posts)put these wankers in the closet.
this place is going to look so much different tomorrow.
for me.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Nice choice of words. Stay classy.
bobduca
(1,763 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)in a smear thread.
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)Calling other users stasi, third way, authoritarian, NSA apologists, which aren't facts, which are lies, are smears.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)woo me with science
(32,139 posts)freshwest
(53,661 posts)The First Feminist President, Barack Obama
http://www.democraticunderground.com/110212801
The quote also applies to churches, corporations, theocrats and Supreme Court injustices. Their new uniforms arrived earlier this year:
to ashling:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024770080#op
Please note just whose agenda they follow:
BERNIE SANDERS Uncovers 1980 Koch Agenda- "What Do the Koch Brothers Want?"
We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.
Just one item on their list to dissolve the elected government of the USA:
http://www.sanders.senate.gov/koch-brothers
http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=a7980koch
to kpete:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10024806298
Top GOP gangsters will follow the Koch agenda:
Justices Scalia And Thomas's Attendance At Koch Event Sparks Judicial Ethics Debate
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9357129
Scalia, Thomas have attended Koch bros. 'very private', 'secretive' meetings
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x482956
What Role Have Scalia And Thomas Played In The Koch Money Machine?
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x483212
Note Scalia and Thomas went to Koch's political meetings, while on the Supreme Court
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=439x354438
Justices Scalia and Thomas promoted and attended a Koch brother event
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=102x4753880
Scalia, Thomas & the Kochtopus
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9381109
Lookee, the gang's all there together:
Just-us: Flushbo, Slappy Thomas and a Heritage Foundation fellah.
Ju$tice, a Division of the Kochtopus. Like Demo¢racy.
to Octafish.
Welcome to your life under the Kochstitution!
lostincalifornia
(3,639 posts)everything else such as vaccines and blood transfusions cannot be used on religious grounds, but only applies to contraception. Besides the discrimination, it also allows companies to make medical decisions for their employees.
Yes, GG is an asshole
SidDithers
(44,228 posts)Sid
Vattel
(9,289 posts)And he disagreed with Ginsberg on something!!! OMG my hair is on fire!!!!
msanthrope
(37,549 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)msanthrope
(37,549 posts)Vattel
(9,289 posts)joshcryer
(62,265 posts)If you go on his twitter you can find it. GG did in fact say that Ginsburg wasn't correct and that the conservative justice was.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Did he address that elsewhere?
(Btw, I agree with him on the specific part of Ginsberg's opinion that he objected to.)
joshcryer
(62,265 posts)He said Justice Kennedy's concurrence was a good overview and irrelevantly appealed to authority to shut down Ginsburg's more staunch view on RFRA not applying to corporations because frankly it absolutely does not. RFRA is about religious non-profit organizations. There is nothing in the RFRA committee notes or the legislation history that indicates it applies to for-profit corporations.
Anyone who rebuffs Ginsburg's objective view of the RFRA legislative history has an agenda.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Trying to carve a distinction between religious non-profits and for-profits is bogus. The question is whether the law infringed on the free exercise of religion by the owners of Hobby Lobby. I don't think it did, but not because Hobby Lobby is a for profit corporation.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)when the journalist is revealing mass government abuse of power, the targeting of our own government spy agencies against ordinary Americans.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)So many of these smears are so ham-handed and transparent and ridiculous that it seems that they would be counterproductive. So why do people bother posting them?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)is there a maxim that, if you are going to do something as deeply ugly and unethical as deploy a lying propaganda and disinformation machine against the very people you claim to represent, that it's better to go all the way and be as insulting and outrageous and dishonest as possible?
Obviously part of the goal is to disrupt and make liberal discussion gathering places as unpleasant as possible, so that people will give up and stop trying to have these discussions. Basic psy-ops says to disorient and anger, so that people feel as angry and helpless as possible and don't know how to respond. What do you say when a whole group of aggressive personas surround you, bellowing that the sky is green?
The psy-op tactics make sense, because their arguments aren't logical. They don't make sense, and if they tried to present them rationally and as though they did, they would be out-argued easily, and shamed for their attempts to deceive. Instead, they go all out and bombard with this Orwellian garbage, attacking incessantly, proclaiming lies as truth, mocking and belittling even when they are clearly in the wrong, and, most importantly, deploying swarms of personas who all agree on the insanity so that actual posters feel overwhelmed and either leave in disgust or start to doubt their own senses. Bombarding is a big part of it, I think. Orwell knew that.
A lot of these tactics are in the slides that Snowden released, that describe the propaganda/smear/cognitive infiltration programs the government is targeting at us. It's ugly, ugly stuff and reveals just how corrupt, manipulative, and aligned against us these political entities that claim to represent us have really become.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)I find it hard to believe that most of the "swarm" is a part of any such project. Many of them seem to me to have some sort of cultish attachment to Obama and so they lash out at anyone who opposes their leader.
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)I read your question as specifically about organized efforts, and I wasn't even specifically implying broad involvement by the particular project that Snowden's slides revealed, although I don't doubt that one of the largest and most popular political boards on the internet would be a target. Other groups, DLC or Third Way-type groups or political campaigns or representatives of particular corporate politicians already in office, also would have plenty of motivation to use DU and control the messaging here. But the tactics, and the inherent corrupt ugliness and dishonesty of them, would be the same.
IMO there's a definite organization happening on DU, though. There is a constant influx of new corporate personas (or reanimation of previously dormant accounts), and their numbers have risen steadily at a rate that is entirely unnatural compared to the influx of other posters. Recs for posts blatantly endorsing the corporate line have increased weirdly and gradually; whereas such posts used to get only a handful of recs at DU, the average number of recs grew steadily to the 20's, then the 30's, then the 40's and now reliably top 50 or even more. This on a liberal board, during a time when polling reliably shows the mood of the country going in the opposite direction. The personas themselves are remarkably consistent in their tactics, and they work together, following a consistent set of rules for engagement. They swarm when threads become particularly damaging to the corporate line. They post threads far out of proportion to their presence in the community, they maintain a 24/7 presence, and they never let certain types of threads go by without a response. They reliably target the most eloquent and persuasive liberal posters here with personal smears and alerts. And they almost always continue to respond until the other person tires and goes away.
Vattel
(9,289 posts)Just for fun, here are just two of many, many examples:
Example 1: Edward Snowden sure seems to have a problem with the truth. Summer 2013: Im not a spy. May 2014: I was trained as a spy . . .
Notice that the first quote is from the Summer of 2013. That was when some were accusing Snowden of spying for China. He said Im not a spy for China, abbreviated in the post as Im not a spy. In May of 2014 Snowden told Brian Williams that he was trained as a spy (in the sense of working undercover) for the CIA. Could anyone really think that there was an inconsistency here between his remarks in 2013 and his remarks in 2014? Of course not, but nevertheless the two remarks were offered as evidence that Snowden is dishonest.
Example 2: Did Snowden offer proof that he could see every purchase crossing his computer screen? This is a pretty explosive accusation in my opinion. Everybody makes purchases: When you make a purchase, when you buy a book. All of that is collected, Snowden said. I could see it at my desk, crossing my screen. . . . Could somebody please provide me a link to the evidence that every purchase crossed his screen? And remember folks, it's not about Snowden. It's about the information he is disclosing. That's why it's important to understand exactly how he was able to see every purchase cross his screen as he sat at his desk.
No one could really be moronic enough to think Snowden was claiming that he saw every purchase made by every person cross his screen. Or could they?
woo me with science
(32,139 posts)That's some blazing stupid.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)...hurt Democrats/Liberals/Progressives.
Everything he does has to be viewed in that context.
It's like if something Ted Cruz said seemed to be a good thing. Knowing what he is about you have to question it.
What's the real motive?
Is what he said true or an exaggeration or an outright lie?
MADem
(135,425 posts)Never mind that he has monetized "the news" by selling national security secrets in book form, in the hopes of profiting personally...!
He's carrying water for the CATO Institute--they probably told him what to say, and when and how to say it.
randome
(34,845 posts)First it was August then it was end of June. And now? We're waiting, Mr. Greenwald.
[hr][font color="blue"][center]Everything is a satellite to some other thing.[/center][/font][hr]
bobduca
(1,763 posts)Can I be in the kewl kids club now? I just know I can muster the required scornful attitude!
I bet Putin and Greenwald are pen pals!
randome
(34,845 posts)What's your ring size?
[hr][font color="blue"][center]No squirrels were harmed in the making of this post. Yet.[/center][/font][hr]
Cha
(295,929 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)Secret decoder ring and everything.
RAWR! GREENWALD, SNOWDEN AND PUTIN AND COMMIES ARE TRYING TO STEAL MY VITAL PRAGMATIC FLUIDS!!111
Cha
(295,929 posts)flamingdem
(39,304 posts)Greenfinger still has mega fans on the left even after this!
Cha
(295,929 posts)pornographer against torture charges and they'd still support him.. oh wait they did.
TheNutcracker
(2,104 posts)TheKentuckian
(24,949 posts)Direct copy and paste - None of the justices - even the liberal ones in the Citizens United dissent - disagree that corps have constitutional rights
How is this not true? All you have to do is show just one of them saying companies never have constitutional rights.
How isn't it logically necessary for such legal constructs to function at all? I think there is an argument to be had about having them at all because of perverse incentives to commit actions toxic to the communities and broader societies such constructs were originally designed to SERVE while to ones doing the dirt take the money and run but if they are going to be then yes they need at least limited and circumstantial rights.
DU needs 1st and 4th amendment rights. Unions need speech and assembly rights. Companies have to be able to make contracts as well. The press needs freedom of the press.
What we need to do is get some damn sense and really at least seriously look at charter history and law and define and limit which rights corporations have under what circumstances according to their primary mission.
Some rights like the 2nd and 5th perhaps should be completely banned for such constructs but I don't get the idea that corporations can never have any rights for any reason, it is silly and fewer are less friendly to such entities than myself but you can't skip out on logic.
Hell, to be honest I don't think Citizens United is some crazy interpretation of the Constitution, I totally see where the ACLU is coming from on the portion they support BUT it is absurdly poor judgment which is why put supposed to be thinking minds in such positions because in the current real life environment such law is dangerously toxic to our Republic and drowns out and negates the rights of people by the hundreds of millions. Law devoid of justice.
The ACLU is a watchdog, it is not their role to make a balance. They acted according to their function, the court did not because they must consider that balance and concern themselves with all of our rights.
arthritisR_US
(7,269 posts)phleshdef
(11,936 posts)bobduca
(1,763 posts)flamingdem
(39,304 posts)Unsurprising asshatery from GG
randome
(34,845 posts)[hr][font color="blue"][center]Aspire to inspire.[/center][/font][hr]