Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Supreme Court. Show all posts

Tuesday, April 27, 2010

FOREIGN CORPORATIONS IN OUR ELECTIONS?

If money is speech, it should be perfectly within the law for ordinary Americans "speak with silence" when it comes to paying for a criminal war, in other words, to refuse to support THE number one international crime which was committed during the Bush-Cheney administration in the country known as Iraq.

In the mean time, why should sociopathic fat cats have more influence over American elections than American citizens can afford to have? This is b.s. and Congress should address this as part of financial reform or any damn bill they can cook up. This just makes me crazy!

Monday, April 26, 2010   |   Posted by Jim Hightower
Bookmark and
 Share

Having decreed that Corporations have a free speech "right " to spend unlimited sums from their massive corporate treasuries to elect or defeat candidates in our elections, the Supreme Court's five-man corporatist majority has opened a colossal can of worms. One of those worrisome squigglies is this question: Does the Court's newly-fabricated political right extend to foreign corporations?

In their ruling, the answer from the five judicial monkeywrenchers was... silence. How sly. With no explicit ban to rule out foreign corporate money, the justices have implicitly ruled it in. After all, argue apologists for this constitutional l perversion, a corporation is a corporation, and its official domicile is irrelevant in determining its political rights.

So, not only have the Supremes magically endowed all inanimate corporate things with the human ability to speak, but they've also granted corporate "persons" more speech than actual people-people have. Start with the fact that the Court's ruling equates our freedom of speech with the freedom to spend money – a plutocratic contortion of democracy that gives the most speech to those with the most money. American corporations alone have trillions of dollars they can draw from to shout down the voices of us mere humans.

But it appears that Toyota, Unilever, Deutsche Bank, Bin Laden construction company and thousands of other foreign entities can also add their trillions of dollars to drown out the democratic voices of real Americans. Interestingly, foreign humans are banned from spending money to influence our elections – so the Court has decreed that corporate foreigners have superior rights to human foreigners.

To help reverse this Supreme insanity, link up with the grassroots coalition called Move To Amend: www.movetoamend.org.

"Should Foreign Corpoations Spend Money on U.S. Political Candidates?" www.newsweek.com, January 22, 2010.

"The Supreme Court Just Handed Anyone, Including bin Laden or the Chinese Government, Control of Our Democracy," www.alternet.org, January 22, 2010.

"Will the Citizens United Ruling Let Hugo Chavez and King Abdullah Buy U.S. Elections?"www.publicintegrity.org, January 22, 2010.

"Watchdog groups warn 'Corporate globalization' of U.S. elections is upon us,"
www.rawstory.com, January 23, 2010.

Let The Sun Shine In......

Monday, April 12, 2010

George Will Confirms What We Already Know.....

Will: What conservatives truly want are activist judges.

Last week, Justice John Paul Stevens announced that he will retire from the Supreme Court at the end of the current term, giving President Obama his second Supreme Court vacancy to fill. Today, Sen. Jeff Sessions (R-AL) urged Obama not to select “someone that is so activist,” while Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN) said that Republicans could filibuster “if the president picks someone from the fringe or somone who applies their feelings instead of applying the law.” On ABC’s This Week, conservative columnist George Will criticized conservatives for saying that they want judges who will strictly follow the law while simultaneously cheering decisions that overturn the work of elected officials:
There’s another test, and it’s wielded by my conservatives, and I think it’s mistaken. And that is, they say they’re against judicial activism. By which they mean they want the court to defer to the elected political branches of government. But if you look at what’s happened recently, the decision that most outraged conservatives was the Kelo decision on eminent domain. … The court did defer to the city government in Connecticut and it enraged conservatives. The recent decision that most pleased conservatives — Citizens United, overturning part of McCain-Feingold — was the court not deferring to the Senate.



Cokie Roberts noted, “that’s very relevant right now, because you have these 14 states’ attorneys general, saying that they want to overturn, the court to overturn the recently passed health care law.”


Let The Sun Shine In......

Friday, January 22, 2010

Remember These Five Names....

More Importantly, Remember the Names of The Corporate Jackasses who buy our government. 


Making a list a checking it twice.....



By Jim Hightower

Last September, I wrote The Hightower Lowdown about how the Roberts' Court could throw out over 100 years of campaign finance law.

Remember their names: Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, Scalia, and Thomas.

Yesterday, from within the dark isolation of the Supreme Court, these five men pulled off a black-robed coup against the American people's democratic authority. In an unprecedented perversion of judicial power, this court cabal has decreed that corporations have a free-speech "right" to dip into their corporate coffers and spend unlimited sums of money to elect or defeat candidates of their choosing.

Corporate interests already had too much money power over our political system.

No other group in America comes anywhere near the spending clout that this relatively small clutch of wealthy special interests wields over our elections and government. So it's ludicrous for anyone – much less Supreme Court judges – to argue that the corporate voice is a victim of political "censorship." This is not merely judicial activism, it is judicial radicalism.

Thomas Jefferson warned about the dangerous rise of corporate power, declaring that must "crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations." Today, I'm sure that founding patriots like Jefferson are not simply spinning in their graves at the Supreme Court's surrender to this aristocracy – they're trying to claw their way out of their graves to throttle all five of the traitors.

We MUST fight back. Many good groups are working on this issue, and we all have to get involved to fight against this corporate take over of our political system. Public Citizen has a petition we can sign. Common Cause is asking us to contact our congresspersons and make sure they have signed on to the Fair Elections Now Act. I mentioned other good groups that are working on this issue. Get in touch with them. Let's fight the good fight... and win! Onward!


IN ACCORDANCE WITH TITLE 17 U.S.C. SECTION 107, THIS MATERIAL IS DISTRIBUTED WITHOUT PROFIT TO THOSE WHO HAVE EXPRESSED A PRIOR INTEREST IN RECEIVING THE INCLUDED INFORMATION FOR RESEARCH AND EDUCATIONAL PURPOSES. PELICAN BLOGS HAS NO AFFILIATION WHATSOEVER WITH THE ORIGINATOR OF THIS ARTICLE NOR ARE PELICAN BLOGS ENDORSED OR SPONSORED BY THE ORIGINATOR.


"VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS ARE PROVIDED AS A CONVENIENCE TO OUR READERS AND ALLOW FOR VERIFICATION OF AUTHENTICITY. HOWEVER, AS ORIGINATING PAGES ARE OFTEN UPDATED BY THEIR ORIGINATING HOST SITES, THE VERSIONS POSTED ON THIS BLOG MAY NOT MATCH THE VERSIONS OUR READERS VIEW WHEN CLICKING THE "VIEW SOURCE ARTICLE" LINKS.

Let The Light Shine In....

Friday, May 15, 2009

Independents Watching Supremes Appointment

Get Ready

by: William Rivers Pitt, t r u t h o u t | Columnist


photo
Choosing Justice David H. Souter's successor on the Supreme Court is a high-stakes decision. (Photo: Andrea Mohin)

The life of the law has not been logic; it has been experience.
- Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.

The news of Supreme Court Justice David Souter's imminent retirement hit Washington, DC, to paraphrase Hunter S. Thompson, like a dung bomb. Not that there isn't a great sense of excitement over the prospect of what the next few months will almost certainly bring. There is, of course; a Supreme Court nomination is about as high-stakes a game as you get, where political fortunes have been won and lost many times, and with historic consequences. The defeated Bork nomination unleashed twenty years of conservative vengeance, while the successful Thomas nomination signaled the beginning of a long ebb-tide for Democratic Party power and influence.

So there was plenty of excitement after Souter announced, to be sure, but it was tempered by an "Oh, come on, really?" sense of exhaustion and overload. The current workload confronting the Democratic presidential administration and congressional majority can kindly be described as overwhelming already; two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, unrest and Taliban militancy in Pakistan, a domestic auto industry in chaos, a mortgage bailout bill in defeat, and an economy still far from being on the mend have already crowded their front burner, with maybe a dozen or two slightly smaller problems likewise awaiting attention.

A Supreme Court nomination at this point isn't so much like tossing a straw, as it is like tossing a railroad tie, onto the camel's back. These things have always become an all-consuming phenomenon in DC, sucking the oxygen out of virtually everything else that's going on. The Obama administration and congressional Democrats have already put themselves in the position of needing to do fifteen incredibly complicated things exactly right all at once, and now they have this to contend with. Suffice it to say, it will be a busy summer for anyone with a (D) after their name.

For the GOP, however, the advent of a new Supreme Court nomination is as awesome to contemplate as it is terrible, rife with both opportunity and peril for a party in disarray seeking to reinvigorate its presence on the national political stage. Done properly, the Republicans could use the upcoming Obama nomination to the high court as a rallying cry and fundraising bonanza, pulling back together its disparate and demoralized ranks while swelling their campaign coffers on the eve of yet another midterm election season ... or the stresses already present within a fractured GOP could reach breaking strain; if pure-minded conservatives go for the throats of party moderates over culture-war social issues regarding the eventual nominee, the whole party could grind itself into shards and tatters like an old, poorly lubed engine.

"Will President Obama's next nominee to the Court help unite the Republican Party to oppose a common adversary," asked Washington Post political blogger Chris Cillizza last week, "or further expose the rifts that divide it? The retirement of Supreme Court Justice David Souter comes at a time when the national Republican Party finds itself in a state of flux - caught between an establishment wing ... seeking to re-brand it to make it more attractive to independents and a conservative base that wants a return to the roots. Despite the generally optimistic tone adopted by many Republicans, there is obviously real peril present for the party in the Souter situation as well. Recent history suggests a disconnect between the Senate's generally open-minded approach to nominees and the party base's more ideological and confrontational stance - and it is worth watching how that potential dissonance plays out."

Indeed. In some circles, the drums of conservative political war are already beating. "Senate Republicans admit they have virtually no shot at stopping President Barack Obama's pick to replace Supreme Court Justice David Souter," reported Politico.com last week, "but they see a definite political upside in waging a fight. A small cadre of GOP researchers has already begun scouring the records of Souter's potential replacements - hoping to find a trove of inflammatory legal writings or off-the-wall positions to hang around the necks of vulnerable Democrats in the 2010 midterms."

"Phone lines around Washington began burning this morning," reported The Hill, "as conservative organizations kicked off preparations for the fight over President Obama's eventual Supreme Court nominee. A group of more than 50 conservative groups held a conference call early Friday to begin plotting strategy, sources on the call said. Groups like the American Center for Law & Justice, the Coalition for a Fair Judiciary and the Committee for Justice will all prepare background research on potential nominees, setting up the eventual, inevitable attacks on the nominee as a left-wing extremist."

Win or lose, Republican strategists and interest groups see a potential fundraising boon coming from the upcoming high court nomination. "Few political battles energize movement conservatives quite like a Supreme Court nomination fight," reported CQ Politics. "And word that Justice David H. Souter plans to retire at the end of this session sent a jolt through the right-wing fundraising circuit late Thursday night. Abortion, gay marriage, gun rights, school prayer and property rights all converge at the justices' white marble den across from the US Capitol. That should all add up to a lot of money for conservatives who fear that 'activist' jurists will liberalize America's laws - even if the liberal-conservative balance on the court isn't likely to shift - according to fundraising experts."

The devil, as ever, is in the details. Senate Republicans face near-certain failure if they attempt to filibuster an unsatisfactory (to their base) nominee, even with Al Franken's seat still unfilled and new Democrat Arlen Specter still voting with his former GOP allies. If they don't at least try, however, there could be an angry ideological uprising on their right flank that could finish what three straight electoral defeats began and lead to the total, final collapse of the Republican coalition.

"With the further elevation of conservative voices within the party - hello Rush Limbaugh! - it's not difficult to see a further fracturing of the GOP if Obama picks a Supreme Court nominee with whom the base is deeply unhappy but the establishment wing of the party (including a majority of Republican senators) believe is acceptable," continued Cillizza. "Limbaugh himself said that Republicans will do 'the right thing for themselves any time they attempt to contrast themselves with Obama.' A split within the GOP on the nomination, which could feature movement conservatives like Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin and South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford on one side and establishment figures like former governor Mitt Romney and Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty on the other, would be something close to an unmitigated disaster for a party trying to united behind a few core principles to prepare for the 2010 midterm elections and the 2012 presidential fight."

Chaos is, perhaps, unavoidable on this one. President Obama and congressional Democrats have no choice but to dive head-first into the situation; a vacancy on the high court represents an opportunity for change virtually unparalleled in American governance that no administration can sleep on. Besides, the simple fact is they won all the offices charged with the responsibility of shepherding new justices onto the bench, and so are required to roll up their sleeves, pick a nominee, and make sure whoever is chosen gets past the Senate and all attendant craziness.

Smart money says President Obama, with the well-informed guidance of former Judiciary Committee chairman and current Vice President Joe Biden, will likely nominate someone akin politically to Souter, someone with the proper credentials and no landmines on their resume, someone who has already been thoroughly vetted to avoid any unpleasant surprises. If madness can be avoided, replacing Souter on the bench will serve the administration as a helpful tune-up for the moment when another Supreme Court Justice, or two, or three, decide as well to step down. This is politics, this is Washington, and these are Democrats, however, so anything is possible; a bad pick could bring on the kind of bloodbath that might very well cripple the new administration, sour the public mood, and breathe new life into the Republican Party.

For the Republicans, on the other hand, this situation is reminiscent of the Russian roulette scenes from "The Deer Hunter": it's a deadly game; they'd be well-advised not to pull the trigger, but despite every demonstrable danger involved, you just know the hammer on the gun to their head is going to fall. They could win, they could dry-fire, or they could turn their own lights out with a wham and a splatter.

Stay tuned.

William Rivers Pitt is a New York Times and internationally bestselling author of two books: "War on Iraq: What Team Bush Doesn't Want You to Know" and "The Greatest Sedition Is Silence." His newest book, "House of Ill Repute: Reflections on War, Lies, and America's Ravaged Reputation," is now available from PoliPointPress.

Let The Sun Shine In......