Obama vs. the Supreme Court.

[rickortreat]

Obama called out the Scotus in his speech yesterday, decrying their decison to allow businesses to spend as much money on campaigns as they want to.  This in effect, puts America up for sale to the highest bidder.

The Constitution is a social contract between the citizens of the US and it's government. A government "of, by and for the PEOPLE" not Businesses!

When businesses control government, all kinds of bad things can happen.  In fact, they already have. Banks are a necessary part of business, and are businesses themselves.  But when Banks are able to do what they want, your deposits with them are at risk. While your savings are backed by the government, in theory a bank can declare bankruptsy preventing you from having access to your own money! The whole reason the US backs bank deposits with a guarantee is to enable you to have confidence your deposits are safe. If Banks aren't acting in a responsible fashion, they put the entire economy at risk, and that is not something we should allow. 

All businesses need to be regulated, to the extent necessary to keep any of them from becoming too big, powerful, or influential.  Who's going to do that when in order to be elected you need their money to have a chance?

The Supreme Court was stacked with conservatives appointed under Republican administrations.  The consequence is that they no longer protect you and me. With this ruling they basically said Corporations are more important then you!  This in my opinion is beyond the pale.  There is no rule of law when the highest court says the country is up for sale. The nerve of these people is beyond me.  Legally, I'm not sure what Obama can do, but I will say this: these people or at least the ones who voted for this have lost all reasonable perspective and should be removed from office due to impaired mental capacity.

Frankly, the US is filled with self-absorbed assholes who think they can do what they want because they have influence with Congress. Congress is so arrogant they're doing nothing to address the underlying problems of the US economy. I would support the President in calling out the FBI and national guard and arresting all these people and seizing their assets in the name of protecting your rights.  Arrest all the asshole bankers who undermined the US financial system. Arrest the Scotus assholes who have lost all sense of responsibility, and replace them with people who will act in accordance with the Constitution.

This is the kind of crap that the average American is faced with- no job is safe, your house is a liability because you have to pay taxes on it, and you may be paying more for your home than it will ever be worth. You are being f'ed with and I for one have had enough!  It is time to fight back and take control of our country, this shit has gone on for way too long.  It's time to make these high flying jackasses understand that they can be thrown in jail and screwed over too. They're doing this because they have no fear.  It's time to scare the shit out of them.

We're a free people, we respect each others rights. When someone interferes with your rights as a result of their selfish interests. It's time to push back and push back hard.

[ziggy]

I would support the President in calling out the FBI and national guard and arresting all these people and seizing their assets in the name of protecting your rights.  Arrest all the asshole bankers who undermined the US financial system. Arrest the Scotus assholes who have lost all sense of responsibility, and replace them with people who will act in accordance with the Constitution.

Welcome to Venezuela Rick.

[Joe Vancil]

Obama called out the Scotus in his speech yesterday, decrying their decison to allow businesses to spend as much money on campaigns as they want to.  This in effect, puts America up for sale to the highest bidder.

The Constitution is a social contract between the citizens of the US and it's government. A government "of, by and for the PEOPLE" not Businesses!

When businesses control government, all kinds of bad things can happen.  In fact, they already have. Banks are a necessary part of business, and are businesses themselves.  But when Banks are able to do what they want, your deposits with them are at risk. While your savings are backed by the government, in theory a bank can declare bankruptsy preventing you from having access to your own money! The whole reason the US backs bank deposits with a guarantee is to enable you to have confidence your deposits are safe. If Banks aren't acting in a responsible fashion, they put the entire economy at risk, and that is not something we should allow. 

All businesses need to be regulated, to the extent necessary to keep any of them from becoming too big, powerful, or influential.  Who's going to do that when in order to be elected you need their money to have a chance?

The Supreme Court was stacked with conservatives appointed under Republican administrations.  The consequence is that they no longer protect you and me. With this ruling they basically said Corporations are more important then you!  This in my opinion is beyond the pale.  There is no rule of law when the highest court says the country is up for sale. The nerve of these people is beyond me.  Legally, I'm not sure what Obama can do, but I will say this: these people or at least the ones who voted for this have lost all reasonable perspective and should be removed from office due to impaired mental capacity.

Frankly, the US is filled with self-absorbed assholes who think they can do what they want because they have influence with Congress. Congress is so arrogant they're doing nothing to address the underlying problems of the US economy. I would support the President in calling out the FBI and national guard and arresting all these people and seizing their assets in the name of protecting your rights.  Arrest all the asshole bankers who undermined the US financial system. Arrest the Scotus assholes who have lost all sense of responsibility, and replace them with people who will act in accordance with the Constitution.

This is the kind of crap that the average American is faced with- no job is safe, your house is a liability because you have to pay taxes on it, and you may be paying more for your home than it will ever be worth. You are being f'ed with and I for one have had enough!  It is time to fight back and take control of our country, this shit has gone on for way too long.  It's time to make these high flying jackasses understand that they can be thrown in jail and screwed over too. They're doing this because they have no fear.  It's time to scare the shit out of them.

We're a free people, we respect each others rights. When someone interferes with your rights as a result of their selfish interests. It's time to push back and push back hard.

And the liberal wing of the court is *SO* much better.

It was that group, if you remember, that said the government could use Eminent Domain to force you to sell your property so that a PRIVATE DEVELOPER could develop it for their own profit, because that would mean it would bring in more in taxes.

I'll grant you, I'm not in favor of businesses throwing money into the political arena.  However, I'm less okay with them throwing money to a political action committee, effectively putting up a smokescreen and hiding their involvement - which is how they've done it in the past.  Hopefully, this puts control of such shennanigans back in the sight of corporate shareholders, who are going to be less likely to want to spend their dividends on buying political ads.  I'm also less okay with the idea that developed content cannot be shown.

I grant you - this isn't a good decision, but the reason it was made is on sound legal ground.  The root problem that must be solved is that we treat corporations as PEOPLE.  Remove that right.  With that right goes corporate "freedom of speech."  It also strips the corporations of many other powers which they routinely abuse.

Fix the underlyng problem, and you fix the abuse problem simultaneously.

[rickortreat]

I agree completely. Corporations should not be regarded as, or granted the same rights as individuals.  I'm not ok with Corporations influencing elections at all!

The government is for the people. The government should be chosen by the people. People make businesses, which like they, have special interests. Corporations should be able to approach the government, but not control who is in the government, or have some sort of symbiotic relationship with them.

The Government spends money. How can it make independent decisions in the best interests of all the people, when the representatives owe their seats in Congress to big businesses?

It's one thing for Congress to support business by creating economic regulations that facilitate commerce, but quite another to turn Lockheed Martin into a government subsidized company, with it's pensions packed by the taxpayer!

It's only legal because of the status given corporations. Why should those businesspeople get an extra vote?  This is not in the spirit of the Constitution, back then they didn't even intend for the government to be able to tax people or spend vast sums of money.  Jefferson and Jackson fought against the creation of national banks in order to prevent the people from being burdened with debt.  Now look at us!

[Lurker]

Rick,

Are you just as upset that this decision also allows labor unions to spend as much as they want?

Did you believe the President when he said this decsion opens up contributions by foreign corporations?  (BTW it doesn't)

[Lurker]

Also as a point of fact...

Presidents do nominate the justices but it takes 60 Senate votes to confirm.  Dems are as much to blame as Repubs in this mess.

[westkoast]

Rick,

Are you just as upset that this decision also allows labor unions to spend as much as they want?

Did you believe the President when he said this decsion opens up contributions by foreign corporations?  (BTW it doesn't)

Yes it does Lurker.  A foreign corporation can create a subsidiary here in the states and do what they please.

You actually think Vivendi, a french media company, would not be able to funnel dollars into ads supporting or crapping on candidates?    If you do, you are wrong, they own Universal Music Group.

Also as a point of fact...

Presidents do nominate the justices but it takes 60 Senate votes to confirm.  Dems are as much to blame as Repubs in this mess.

Really?  Even though the Republicans had the majority when a number of these justices were placed in their position?  They deserve some blame but equal? No. 

[Lurker]

Rick,

Are you just as upset that this decision also allows labor unions to spend as much as they want?

Did you believe the President when he said this decsion opens up contributions by foreign corporations?  (BTW it doesn't)

Yes it does Lurker.  A foreign corporation can create a subsidiary here in the states and do what they please.

You actually think Vivendi, a french media company, would not be able to funnel dollars into ads supporting or crapping on candidates?    If you do, you are wrong, they own Universal Music Group.

Any more than they currently do?  Besides foreign companies and individuals are blocked by a different law.  This ruling did nothing to change that.

Also as a point of fact...

Presidents do nominate the justices but it takes 60 Senate votes to confirm.  Dems are as much to blame as Repubs in this mess.

Really?  Even though the Republicans had the majority when a number of these justices were placed in their position?  They deserve some blame but equal? No. 

And when did the Repubs have a 60 vote majority?  Who was the last justice seated without BIPARTISAN voting in the Senate?  Why are Dems now complaining about the voting by Rpberts and Alito...maybe because they voted to confirm them?

[westkoast]

And when did the Repubs have a 60 vote majority?  Who was the last justice seated without BIPARTISAN voting in the Senate?  Why are Dems now complaining about the voting by Rpberts and Alito...maybe because they voted to confirm them?

I expect a better argument from you than this.  So because the Republicans didn't have 60 votes to confirm it themselves, its 50 50?  No.  Sorry Lurker.  That a really lame rebuttal.  Now if they were voted in because of 30 rep and 30 dems, ya equal blame, but that is not how it went down.  Of course there has to be SOME Democrates voting for them.  There are CONSERVATIVE Dems (but no Liberal Republicans).  That still doesn't mean it was an equal split and equal blame should lie at the feet of the Dems.  Again Lurker, I expect more from you.  So because SOME of them voted em, NONE of the Dem caucus can be upset about a ruling they made after the fact?  You can't be serious.

As for that other law 'blocking' them.  It won't.  Not after this ruling.  Just watch.  And no, foreign companies were not allowed to pump unlimited money into running commercials for or against candidates before via businesses they control in this country.

[Lurker]

I expect a better argument from you than this.  So because the Republicans didn't have 60 votes to confirm it themselves, its 50 50?  No.  Sorry Lurker.  That a really lame rebuttal.  Now if they were voted in because of 30 rep and 30 dems, ya equal blame, but that is not how it went down.  Of course there has to be SOME Democrates voting for them.  There are CONSERVATIVE Dems (but no Liberal Republicans).  That still doesn't mean it was an equal split and equal blame should lie at the feet of the Dems.  Again Lurker, I expect more from you.  So because SOME of them voted em, NONE of the Dem caucus can be upset about a ruling they made after the fact?  You can't be serious.

And I expect something better than "There are CONSERVATIVE Dems (but no Liberal Republicans)" especially from someone who lives in a state with a Republican governor named Arnold.  Talk about generalizations and over the top hyperbole.

But then to reply with some info...

Justice Stevens...nominated 1975 by Ford; confirmed 98-0.

Justice Scalia...nominated 1986 by Reagan; confirmed 98-0.

Justice Kennedy...nominated 1988 by Reagan; confirmed 97-0.  (Kennedy was Reagan's THIRD choice after Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg were withdrawn due to DEMOCRATS' objections - the beginning of deep partisan politics in appointing justices)

Justice Thomas...nominated 1991 by Bush I; confirmed 52-48.  (the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. 41 Rs, 11 Ds voted to confirm while 46 Ds, 2 Rs voted to reject.  And talk about running a nominee though the media wringer - Anita Hill)

Justice Ginsburg...nominated 1993 by Clinton; confirmed 96-3.

Justice Breyer...nominated 1994 by Clinton; confirmed 87-9

Justice Roberts...nominated 2005 by Bush II; confirmed 78-22 (56 Rs, 22 Ds for; 22 Ds against - one of the most vocal opponents was Joe Biden)

Justice Alito...nominated by Bush II; confirmed 58-42 (54 Rs, 4 Ds for; 41 Ds, 1R against)

Justice Sotomayor...nominated by Obama; confirmed 68-31 (59 Ds, 1R for; 31 Rs against - one of most vocal critics of Rs for "politicizing" the confirmation: VP Joe Biden)

Other Justices appointed to and leaving the court during this same time: David Souter (90 to 9) and Sandra Day O'Connor (99 to 0).

So now what were you saying about equal blame? 

As for that other law 'blocking' them.  It won't.  Not after this ruling.  Just watch.  And no, foreign companies were not allowed to pump unlimited money into running commercials for or against candidates before via businesses they control in this country.

And this ruling did NOTHING to change the flow of money into political campaigns.  In fact, I believe it actually made it more transparent.  Now companies can be up front about where their money goes.  But after Whole Foods CEO's experience I would guess companies will still be "discreet" in their contributions.  It also opens up contributions by labor unions which where supposedly blocked previously also. 

And this was my original point which you, being from a state OWNED by the unions, conveniently ignore.  Those protesting the loudest are upset corporations can "now" contribute to political campaigns as if they didn't before.  But those same people seem to completely gloss over the fact that unions can also.

[Joe Vancil]

Of all of the candidates up there, the one people should be most embarrassed about the politicized voting on is Roberts.  When Roberts was announced as the appointee for the position held by O'Connor, AT THAT POINT, many people were talking about him as a potential Chief Justice based on some of the work he had done in the past.  In other words, this is among the BEST QUALIFIED people in the land.  And he was confirmed 78-22.  If ever there was someone who should have been in the high 90's, this is the guy.

And, of all the justices confirmed by a razor thin margin, Thomas is the proper one on that side of the coin.  Let's face it - as a justice, he's been TERRIBLE.  How long was it before he wrote *ANY* opinion?

Also, I'm going to throw this one out as props for Chief Justice Roberts - who is writing most of the opinions on the most major of the controversial (5-4) votes these days?  Anthony Kennedy - the justice who is currently at the center of the court.  And that's how it should be.  Close opinions should be written by swing-type judges, and strong opinions should be written by the justices closer to liberal or conservative edge.

[westkoast]

And I expect something better than "There are CONSERVATIVE Dems (but no Liberal Republicans)" especially from someone who lives in a state with a Republican governor named Arnold.  Talk about generalizations and over the top hyperbole.

Oh Arnold is a Liberal Republican now?  Why because he tries to play the 'environment' card when he thinks it will win him some popularity back in California?  His record speaks for itself.  He is far from a liberal.  Very far.    I was refering to senators and members of the house.  You saw a perfect example of many conservative Dems in the health care debate.  Where were the Republicans who were bucking their party to come more towards the other side?  I saw no example other than Olivia Snow for a vote that ultimately meant nothing.

Justice Stevens...nominated 1975 by Ford; confirmed 98-0.

Justice Scalia...nominated 1986 by Reagan; confirmed 98-0.

Justice Kennedy...nominated 1988 by Reagan; confirmed 97-0.  (Kennedy was Reagan's THIRD choice after Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg were withdrawn due to DEMOCRATS' objections - the beginning of deep partisan politics in appointing justices)

If you added that tidbit at the end why did you even bother bringing this up?  If it was clear the standard practice went along with out injecting politics then why bring it up?

Justice Thomas...nominated 1991 by Bush I; confirmed 52-48.  (the narrowest margin for approval in more than a century. 41 Rs, 11 Ds voted to confirm while 46 Ds, 2 Rs voted to reject.  And talk about running a nominee though the media wringer - Anita Hill) 

Why should the Dems receive equal blame for this again?

Justice Ginsburg...nominated 1993 by Clinton; confirmed 96-3.

Justice Breyer...nominated 1994 by Clinton; confirmed 87-9 [/quote]

Justice Roberts...nominated 2005 by Bush II; confirmed 78-22 (56 Rs, 22 Ds for; 22 Ds against - one of the most vocal opponents was Joe Biden)

Justice Alito...nominated by Bush II; confirmed 58-42 (54 Rs, 4 Ds for; 41 Ds, 1R against)

Why exactly should equal blamed be placed for Dems with Roberts?  Looks to me like the Dems split and the majority of the support came from Republicans. 

Justice Sotomayor...nominated by Obama; confirmed 68-31 (59 Ds, 1R for; 31 Rs against - one of most vocal critics of Rs for "politicizing" the confirmation: VP Joe Biden)

Other Justices appointed to and leaving the court during this same time: David Souter (90 to 9) and Sandra Day O'Connor (99 to 0).

So now what were you saying about equal blame? 

Wasn't Sandra Day O Connor appointed before these started to get politicized?  Seems to me like a number of these picks were based on politicians supporting the President and his decision making.

And this ruling did NOTHING to change the flow of money into political campaigns.  In fact, I believe it actually made it more transparent.  Now companies can be up front about where their money goes.  But after Whole Foods CEO's experience I would guess companies will still be "discreet" in their contributions.  It also opens up contributions by labor unions which where supposedly blocked previously also.  

Labor Unions CANNOT compete with the large pockets of some of our largest corporations.  If a politician is running on wall street reform heavy a Goldman Sachs can pump unheard of dollars into the opposing candidate.  Now if a Pro-Business Candidate was running and his policies hurt workers would the labor unions really be able to spend as much as top multi-national corporations?  Let's be serious here.  It changes the landscape quite a bit.  The flood gates of money is going to open and so will the influence.  I don't get how you see this as either a good ruling or one that doesn't matter because 'it did nothing to change' the political landscape.

And this was my original point which you, being from a state OWNED by the unions, conveniently ignore.  Those protesting the loudest are upset corporations can "now" contribute to political campaigns as if they didn't before.  But those same people seem to completely gloss over the fact that unions can also.

No, you are completely ignoring the fact that Google could potentially pump more money into a candidates campaign in this state than the teachers union can.  While I don't think those two would head up against each other you are completely ignoring the fact who has more money.  Certainly the labor unions have money and pull but it's based on numbers.  Not dollars.  I don't need to be a CPA to see that some of California's biggest companies such as Lockheed Martin, Boeing, Northrop Grummand, Exxon, and other companies based in the state can far out spend the teachers union up and down this state.  Or better yet...why would a teacher union even go to bat on some of these issues stretching themselves thin?  Why would the teachers union or state workers union go head up on Environmental issues with Exxon?  Why would the state workers union put all their resources into backing a Senator who wants to go to washington to try to cut defense spending when they would have Boeing and Lockheed to go up against?  The playing field is not 'even' Lurker.  These corporations are now free to spend as much as it takes to change the people's perception of any issue or candidate which is always self serving.  Candidates don't even have to run solid campaigns or go the grass root route.  If they promise to vote a certain way they could potentially have 3x the money to pay for all sorts of expenses.  Can't wait to see a potential Governor plugging her campaign at the Laker game because a large company paid for it.  At least with the Governator we knew it was simply to feed his ego when he would show up on screen.

Please explain to me 3 positives of this ruling from your point of view.  I honestly do not understand why this ruling would benefit any middle class citizen in this country.  I would assume most of us on this discussion board fall into middle to upper-miiddle class America.  A ruling by the supreme court is never a type of ruling that just 'keeps things the same'  Not in the legal world it is not.  I don't find that as an acceptable rebuttal.

[Lurker]

For what ever reason I can't get the quote function to work right now.

koast, Arnold is as much a Democrat as his wife's in-laws.  You know that Kennedy clan from Massachusetts.  He has done nothing conservative in his running of the state of California.  And to claim he is not a liberal Republican or "moderate", to use your words, just reflects your lack of objectivity.  Blanket claims like "no such thing as a liberal republican" shows very little understanding of debate (talk about acceptable rebuttals).

And if you want to try to point out a liberal Republican it may help to actually know how to spell her name: OLYMPIA SNOWE.  You may also want to check out her fellow Senator from Maine: Susan Collins.  Or maybe the senior Senator from Arizona.

I added to the Kennedy comment because it was the first time in OVER 100 YEARS that the Senators from the opposite party attacked the nominees of a President and FORCED HIM TO PICK A MIDDLE OF THE ROAD nominee.  In other words; THINGS DID NOT STAY THE SAME.

Now regarding the ruling; please post all of my quotes where I say this is beneficial to the middle class citizen.  Also please post all my quotes where I claimed this was a good decision.

And I just love how you bash businesses but give labor union free rides.  They don't have enough money to compete with business.  wah. wah. wah.




And as usual you change your argument to fit your latest position.  First you claim that this ruling opens up contributions from foreign corporations which is just flat out false.  And there have been several law experts who have come forward to say so.

Then you claim the court has been loaded up by Republicans and I showed that the majority of been elected by bipartisan majorities.  Which of course then you have to try to nitpick to again attempt to prove that your NEW point is valid.

And the only point I get from you is this: corporations BAD; labor GOOD.  No wonder California is going broke.

[Joe Vancil]

Oh Arnold is a Liberal Republican now?  Why because he tries to play the 'environment' card when he thinks it will win him some popularity back in California?  His record speaks for itself.  He is far from a liberal.  Very far.    I was refering to senators and members of the house.  You saw a perfect example of many conservative Dems in the health care debate.  Where were the Republicans who were bucking their party to come more towards the other side?  I saw no example other than Olivia Snow for a vote that ultimately meant nothing.

Well, so far, *ALL* of the votes have ultimately meant nothing.  Apparently, political capital is wasted at DC the same way all the other kinds of capital are.

Please explain to me 3 positives of this ruling from your point of view.  I honestly do not understand why this ruling would benefit any middle class citizen in this country.  I would assume most of us on this discussion board fall into middle to upper-miiddle class America.  A ruling by the supreme court is never a type of ruling that just 'keeps things the same'  Not in the legal world it is not.  I don't find that as an acceptable rebuttal.

Not Lurker, but:
1.  Remove restriction on media.  As it stood before, a corrupt politician could, in theory, work to prevent a news organization from publishing something negative under the guise that the news organization was a company, and the negative publicity was merely a campaign ploy, and the news media was supporting his opponent.  Now - all bets are off, because the company can participate.

2.  Creates greater transparency.  Instead of pumping money into "shell" companies which are nothing more than lobbying arms of companies, companies have the ability to pay directly for their political maneuvering.  This is much more visible to the public, which can then make up its mind based on the knowledge that a company is behind the politics...and which company.  This also makes corruption easier to dig out, since companies will be directly in the line of fire when getting government contracts.

3.  For public companies, shareholders now have a stake in this.  While lobbying expense could be buried in "subsidiary costs" in the past, now, political contributions are out in the open - free to be second-guessed by shareholders who'd rather see the money in their own pockets rather than in campaign coffers.

Again:  I'm not necessarily in favor of this decision, but I believe it's the correct one based on the legal standing of corporations at the current time.  The proper congressional fix is to remove the "person" status from a corporation.  With that, the corporation also loses its "freedom of speech."  Fix two problems at one time.

[Joe Vancil]

And just so it's said:

My position is:  Corporations - Bad,  Labor Unions - Bad.  Both are ultimately self-serving with no social contract beyond their own borders.  That's why neither should have governmental protection and individual "rights" such as those granted to citizens.  They are pre-built with a warped set of values:  to them, greed is GOOD, and there are few consequences for acting in that manner.