Traitors in the Supreme Court Erased Our Most Precious Security

Traitors in the Supreme Court Erased Our Most Precious Security
By Rob Kall

It has become clear that the Citizens United Supreme Court decision went beyond free speech. It was a betrayal of American security that opened the gates to an assault on American Democracy.

......................

That decision, by five right wing extremist SCOTUS judges, it is now clear, will change the face of American politics as foreign money and the filthy lucre of billionaires, like the Koch Brothers, has tipped the balance in election after election throughout the US. Just as conservative Justices accomplished a coup by interfering with the 2000 presidential elections. Again, these traitors are again turning American justice and Democracy upside down, threatening to perhaps permanently put the USA on a downward trajectory towards third world status and oligarchic rule.

They didn't do it alone. They did it with the passivity and impotence of Democratic leaders who allowed war crimes and violations of constitutional freedoms to go un-punished, perpetrators un-tried, un-impeached.

.........................

more:
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Traitors-in-the-Supreme-Co-by-Rob-Kall-101017-189.html


SCOTUS=most important reason to vote...mho, kp

so more gd right wing extremist judges wind up on the supreme court.

I'll just hold my breath until "Change" happens....

would think think impeachment would be in order unless, of course, Nancy has again taken impeachment off the table. But I do not recall even one Congress-critter raising the specter of impeachment and suspect absolutely no one has the stomach to commence and endure the process to rid our Republic of this ever present clear and present danger. :patriot:

before Citizens United that rich and determined people couldn't get around? None that mattered, frankly.

And the argument that constitutional freedoms have to be restricted because of dire threats to national security if they aren't sounds eerily familiar. Where, oh where have I heard that before?

of free political speech, which the writer is arguing should have been abridged, rather than the case being decided as it was, which decision the writer terms a "betrayal of American security". In other words, THESE consequences are just too scary, so just this once, we should have let things slide and eroded our constitutional freedoms just a teeny bit. As I said, where have we heard that before?

The ability to raise and spend money is inexorably linked to the ability to disseminate political messages. Restricting the raising and spending of money is a de facto restriction on the ability to exercise your right to express as many political messages as widely as you like. There isn't the slightest room for debate on that subject among rational people. If it weren't true, no one would have their shorts in a knot about Citizens United in the first place. But they do, because they expect that keeping limits in places WILL limit political speech, just as they argue fearfully that removing limits will increase the amount of political speech out there. The problem isn't too much political speech, however, it's just too much much of the kind of political speech that THEY don't like. Unfortunately for them, the Constitution doesn't make those kinds of distinctions.

you can blather on til the cows come home, money ain't speech, & limiting money ain't a violation of "free speech".

may bring about undesirable consequences, we should just ditch the Constitution? FAIL

And you're just hand waving about the alleged non-connection between speech and money, without answering any of my point substantively. EPIC FAIL.

Try a little less righteous indignation next time, and more serious thought. If you can.

money shouldn't give one the power to control politics.

anyone who thinks it should supports tyranny & plutocracy.

and no substance or thought. About what I've come to expect from you when you can't logically and factually get to the conclusion that you, in your righteous wisdom, KNOW must be the right one.

You can gripe all you want that constitutionally, money shouldn't give one the power to control politics, just as some right wing totalitarian would argue that the Constitution shouldn't allow someone who is clearly guilty of a crime to escape punishment on a technicality. But it does, in both cases, whether you like it or not. Cope, or work to change the law.

Good Lord. :eyes:

Think about it. A Corporation is a LEGAL ENTITY. A Corporation exists ONLY because the government ALLOWS it to exist.

In fact, the government in some cases can take over a corporation, disperse its assets, and DISSOLVE IT!!

For your argument to make sense ... the government should not be able to every regulate a corporation. Since EVERY action they take is covered under the blanket of free-speech.

My corporation believes in "smaller government", there fore, we write our own procedures for mining, and the US government has no roll in setting those, as to do so, limits my corporation's free speech.

Great plan.

Every type of action does not qualify as speech. If it did, a person (or a corporation) could kill someone and say that they were just exercising their free speech rights and can't be punished for that by the government. Do you see how idiotic your position is?

The current law does not allow PEOPLE to murder. And since corporations are now PEOPLE ... they can't commit "murder" either.

I should point out that corporations ARE allowed to kill you. Do you think anyone will go to jail for the recent Mine Disaster? How about for the 11 guys killed when the oil rig exploded? They aren't going to be punished.

In addition ... you have actually helped make my argument. I agree that not ALL actions SHOULD count as speech. You and I are simply debating WHERE THE LINE IS.

You think that $$ CONTRIBUTIONS are SPEECH. I do not.

I particularly enjoy this part of the right wing "free-speech" argument. Corporations should have the "free-speech" right to donate as much as they want .... AND they should also be able to remain ANONYMOUS. Interesting, you want your FREE-SPEECH, but you don't want anyone to know that YOU SAID IT.

Its ridiculous.

where they obviously don't even understand their own arguments, let alone mine, they cease to be worth exchanging with.

And btw, you will never find anywhere that I said that money is speech. A little reading comprehension would help. Follow up with a re-reading of the First Amendment to find the part where it says that only speech by individuals is protected.

And you clearly AGREE that corporations share the same Constitutional protections that actual people do.

And yet, you IGNORE that Corporations live and die, based on government decisions.

Let's flip your argument ... free speech, taken literally, means SPEECH ... not money. You are broadening the definition.

Here's another example ... the government mandates what corporations who delivery food can put on their labels. And so, a corporation can't claim it's product is a cure for cancer, unless they can defend that claim.

Should they not be able to claim "free-speech" and make their claim, and then simply let the market decide if it is true or false??

Corporations should not have the same "free-speech" rights as people. Period.

but now your post confirms it

They have opened the gates to foreign interests in our politics.

When did that happen?

If the legislature wanted to act, it could impeach and remove Supreme Court members.

If it wanted to act, it could expand the court to 15 members, and give the president 6 new appointments.

Not gonna happen.

You're discussing whether they will use the power they hold.

How can we free Congress from its corporate bondage? How can we populate it with people working for us who might dare even to mention the possibility of impeachment?

As it is, I think there's not one crime of the Supreme court in which Congress are not already complicit.

Let candidates spend what they want, but keep them from being beholden to any corporate contributors. Remove corporate ownership of Congress, and free elected officials of the burden of constant fundraising, so that they have more time to do the job they were elected for.

"How can we free Congress from its corporate bondage? How can we populate it with people working for us who might dare even to mention the possibility of impeachment?"

Revoke the personhood of the corporation. This would require a Constitutional Amendment, but the false legal doctrine of corporate personhood seems to lie at the root of many of our nation's problems.

This is one SCOTUS action that Congress had no part of, at least initially.

I would revoke all Constitutional protections for corporations by making the Constitution explicitly state that its protections apply to "natural persons". An Amendment applying the word "natural" immediately prior to all instances of the word "person" in the Constitution and all its extant Amendments should do the trick.

Under such an Amendment, corporations would no longer have a right to free speech, the bearing of arms, security in its papers and effects, a right against self-incrimination, etc. All those rights we hold dear to us as natural persons would be (and should be) privileges for corporations, revocable at will by whatever controlling authority they're subject to.

Then we could start cleaning up their act for them, since corporations as a group are obviously unable to do so themselves.

Both, unfortunately, are predicated on a Congress' ability to vote according to our interests rather than those of their masters.

I am afraid that the system is broken beyond repair, and that a collapse is unavoidable--and yet, as y'all are saying, all we really would have to do is demand that change, all of us together.

and I don't think that the solution of public funding of elections will ever be more than a theoretical one. Still, assuming things could ever get that far in Congress, it would be amusing to see our elected officials saying "PLEASE don't fund our campaigns publicly! We don't WANT to be free of corporate control! PLEASE let us stay as whores to corporations and special interests!"

Now Money has more power in a country that worships it as if it were a god.

So I'm curious, under what law would you charge them?

To me the citizens United case was just an extension of the 2000 election. If whoring the Constitution for partisan purposes isn't treasonous I don't know what is. The whole lot of them deserve to be thrown out. Roberts perjured himself at his hearing and so did Thomas. They are collecting "reimbursements" from right wing groups and "honorary memberships in exclusive clubs. A rare article on the subject can be found at http://ww2.startribune.com/stonline/html/westpub/disclose.html

They crossed over and worked WITH their allies, The Republicans, to seat them on the Supreme Court.

Google "Gang of 14"

He was personally thanked by George W. Bush for his assistance in securing Alito's confirmation.

:puke:

I know it was shameful that the dems went along with the rest of the Senate, but they aren't the ONLY ones responsible. Put the original blame where it belongs, with Bush.

The more progressive Dems filibustered, but THAT was derailed by the sensible Centrist Dems (Gang of 14), without whose help Bush could NOT have been successful.
They EARNED the blame.
I will call them out.

designated as "individuals" for rights interpretation - PERIOD!

The First Amendment says nothing about whose speech Congress isn't allowed to restrict. Freedom of political speech is nowhere limited to individuals.

oh wait...you were serious.

sorry!

:blush: