quote:“While, as a member of this Court, I am bound to follow Citizens United, I do not have to agree with the [U.S.] Supreme Court’s decision,” wrote Justice James C. Nelson, in his dissent. “And, to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with it. For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield enormous power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins: the transition is seamless and overlapping.”
quote:“The Supreme Court held that laws that burden political speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the government to prove that the law furthers a compelling state interest and is narrowly tailored to that interest.”
quote:“What was true a century ago is as true today: distant corporate interests mean that corporate dominated campaigns will only work ‘in the essential interest of outsiders with local interests a very secondary consideration,’” the opinion said, quoting a historian’s testimony from a lower state court that reviewed the case. “While specific corporate interests come and go in Montana, they are always present.”
quote:While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in law,” Nelson began, “I find the concept entirely offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers—not constitutional rights, but legislatively-conferred powers—that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited liability investment vehicles for business. Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people—human beings—to share fundamental natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”
Glorious. A glorious small beach of hope on the face of American Democracy.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I find it interesting that even the dissent says, "Yeah, we have to obey the Supreme Court, but they're wrong." Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by TomDavidson: I find it interesting that even the dissent says, "Yeah, we have to obey the Supreme Court, but they're wrong."
Yes, that was refreshing.
This decision will certainly be appealed, very likely to the Supreme Court, and it will be interesting to see what follows.
If it is overturned by the Supreme Court, it will hopeful add fuel to move to amend the constitution.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
At least two of your quotes are from the dissenting opinion, so I'm not sure how that equates to the court saying it.
Posts: 9866 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ahhh....the court said it didn't have to follow the SCOTUS ruling. The dissent says they DO have to follow the SCOTUS ruling, but they shouldn't have to because it was a horrible decision in the first place, and they hope to have it reconsidered/overturned.
They dissent on whether the ruling applies to them, but they ALL agree it was a horrible decision.
Posts: 15082 | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
What this god-blessed country needs are some state and local judges who won't take the law into their own hands, who'll adhere to the law and not go overturnin'...I...wait, what we need is...damn these activist judges!
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: Glorious. A glorious small beach of hope on the face of American Democracy.
This diction reminds me very strikingly of a poem I posted here a while back. Did you read that?
Yes I read it and responded to and asked you whether I was correct in assuming it was from Vaclav Havel. Can you please tell me the source of the poem? Maybe it's something you wrote. At any rate, I love it and would love to know the source so I can giver proper attribution when I quote it.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I hadn't seen your query the first time around. The author is Henri Michaux, but the quote is from memory, of a translation that is not published, which has presented a problem for me in finding the original text, as I memorized this passage many years ago and still love it, but am not even sure where it is from.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by The Rabbit: This decision will certainly be appealed, very likely to the Supreme Court, and it will be interesting to see what follows.
If it is overturned by the Supreme Court, it will hopeful add fuel to move to amend the constitution.
Sounds good. Let's do a balanced budget amendment while we are at it Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Geraine: Sounds good. Let's do a balanced budget amendment while we are at it
I have no idea how serious you are about that, but I think a balanced budget amendment which did not provide exceptions for times of crisis would be an absolute catastrophe and an amendment that provide an exception for times of crisis, would be too easily circumvented by declaring a continual state of crisis.
If we had constitutional requirement for a balanced budget in 2008, the government would have had to either raise taxes dramatically or cut government spending dramatically (or more likely some combination of the above). By any economic theory out there, that would have precipitated a downward cycle leading to pretty much total societal collapse.
Posts: 12591 | Registered: Jan 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Calls for balanced budget amendments from conservatives would, I have to admit, be much more compelling to me personally if conservatives hadn't shown just as much if not more willingness to just nuke the budget right alongside liberals.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, that and I suppose Congress could just get around it by NOT passing a budget. What are we going on now, 130 weeks without a budget?
Since the last budget was passed the debt held by the public has gone from 6.85 trillion to about 10 trillion.
I understand your point Rakeesh, but it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Both Democrats and Republicans have screwed this all up. Some drastic changes really do need to take place in order to get things back on track.
Posts: 1937 | Registered: Nov 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I understand your point Rakeesh, but it doesn't mean it isn't a good idea. Both Democrats and Republicans have screwed this all up. Some drastic changes really do need to take place in order to get things back on track.
(A little heads-up here, Geraine, this may or may not be directed at you, depending on how closely if at all you align with the kind of thinking I'm describing. Just want to be clear that I'm not singling you out, necessarily.)
Man, I am so, so tired of this kind of talk. Sure, neither major political party is without fault. In fact both of `em are pretty screwy and sub-ideal. But isn't it way past time, given at least the past two years (I would say at least the past ten, really), to stop lumping Democrats and Republicans together in this fashion? On budget matters in particular, there is basically undeniably one part that is much more dishonest, bullying, and hypocritical than the other. They're just not in the same league anymore.
Posts: 17164 | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Also as a practical matter, every balanced budget admendment proposed would nearly certainly be aimed at social programs while preserving the military.
IP: Logged |
quote:Some drastic changes really do need to take place in order to get things back on track. [/QB]
Sure, but whence this faith in purely formal commitments? The sort of Congress that would pass a balanced budget amendment with teeth wouldn't need one; they'd cut out the extra step and just balance the dang budget in the first place. Conversely, a Congress that won't pass a balanced budget will never pass a balanced budget amendment that actually commits them to anything.
We don't need more words on paper, we need to throw the bums out.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
