"Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits."

Hmm...

We all want justice but you got to have the money to buy it
You'd have to be a fool to close your eyes and deny it
There's a lot of poor people who are walking the streets of my town
Too blind to see that justice is used to do them right down

All life from beginning to end
You pay your monthly installments
Next to health is wealth
And only wealth will buy you justice

--Alan Price (from soundtrack of O Lucky Man; Alan played the organ solo on the Animals' House of the Rising Sun)

"Yes, as through this world I've wandered
I've seen lots of funny men;
Some will rob you with a six-gun,
And some with a fountain pen. "

Seems like this court believes its role is to write legislation. Extremely activist.

dajo9;842300124 said:

---

Seems like this court believes its role is to write legislation. Extremely activist.

---

Doesn't this ruling demonstrate the opposite? Seems to me that they're interpreting the Constitution as it pertains to the lawsuit filed rather than legislating from the bench.

pingpong2;842300130 said:

---

Doesn't this ruling demonstrate the opposite? Seems to me that they're interpreting the Constitution as it pertains to the lawsuit filed rather than legislating from the bench.

---

When they ruled that a corporation, a legal entity, was the same type person as a human, they shat on the Constitution.

SonOfCalVa;842300161 said:

---

When they ruled that a corporation, a legal entity, was the same type person as a human, they shat on the Constitution.

---

&^%$#@#

SonOfCalVa;842300161 said:

---

When they ruled that a corporation, a legal entity, was the same type person as a human, they shat on the Constitution.

---

That seems like an oversimplification. If you're referring to the latest corporate personhood case (Citizens United), the SCOTUS ruled that corporations have the same free speech rights as people not because corporations are people, but because corporations are associations of people who have constitutional rights. Heck, the majority opinion didn't even mention anything about corporate personhood. I don't think the current SCOTUS has really even had a hand in anything about corporate personhood.

Now, if you're referring to cases involving corporations making political contributions, I don't recall any of the cases in recent memory having anything to do with corporate personhood either.

As far as "shatting" on the Constitution, I guess your beef is with the SCOTUS in 1886 when they ruled 14A applied to corporations. If anything, later courts have been upholding the constitution by reaffirming that ruling.

pingpong2;842300130 said:

---

Doesn't this ruling demonstrate the opposite? Seems to me that they're interpreting the Constitution as it pertains to the lawsuit filed rather than legislating from the bench.

---

Sar-Chasm.

bearister;842300104 said:

---

"Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits."

Hmm...

We all want justice but you got to have the money to buy it
You'd have to be a fool to close your eyes and deny it
There's a lot of poor people who are walking the streets of my town
Too blind to see that justice is used to do them right down

All life from beginning to end
You pay your monthly installments
Next to health is wealth
And only wealth will buy you justice

--Alan Price (from soundtrack of O Lucky Man; Alan played the organ solo on the Animals' House of the Rising Sun)

---

Bush 1 should have put Clarence Clemons on the Court.

bearister;842300104 said:

---

"..Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.."

---

no worries.. global warming gonna nearly as soon take away all the influential rich and powerful's descendants too.

um, welll, and of course everyone else's. but those details at 11 slow motion tragedy is better elaborated in cybers' Freedom board:
http://bearinsider.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74732

Isn't this the way revolutions begin?:facepalm

BearNIt;842300303 said:

---

Isn't this the way revolutions begin?:facepalm

---

Actually it usually takes a dramatic and historic event to start things off...even after years or even centuries of crap like this. And by golly, I learned the reasons why at Cal.

Yup, those liberal bastards made me read Antonio Gramsci who coined the theory of cultural hegemony. In a nutshell: while all the practical reasons for a revolution might be apparent, cultural conventions, beliefs and trappings will prevent it. It could take 100 years more of this crap before an event occurs that sparks it.

So...as it turns out, free speech isn't actually free because those with money can buy more of it.

OTOH, if another financial crisis hits soon like in 2 years (as some predict), that just might do it.

p.s. I think if the founding fathers saw how money controls politics today, and thus American democracy, they'd lead the revolution.

SonOfCalVa;842300161 said:

---

When they ruled that a corporation, a legal entity, was the same type person as a human, they shat on the Constitution.

---

Long history of jurisprudence providing corporations many of the same rights as humans. As for the Constitution, I guess I didn't find that section barring corporations from rights that you just made up.

I might add this decision is hardly a surprise. Didn't you read the Buckley case and its progeny?

beelzebear;842300312 said:

---

Actually it usually takes a dramatic and historic event to start things off...even after years or even centuries of crap like this. And by golly, I learned the reasons why at Cal.

Yup, those liberal bastards made me read Antonio Gramsci who coined the theory of cultural hegemony. In a nutshell: while all the practical reasons for a revolution might be apparent, cultural conventions, beliefs and trappings will prevent it. It could take 100 years more of this crap before an event occurs that sparks it.

So...as it turns out, free speech isn't actually free because those with money can buy more of it.

OTOH, if another financial crisis hits soon like in 2 years (as some predict), that just might do it.

p.s. I think if the founding fathers saw how money controls politics today, and thus American democracy, they'd lead the revolution.

---

I won't wade into the left vs right stuff, but I do take issue with the PS. The American revolution was lead by rich landowners, merchants and attorneys (think Jefferson, Washington and Adams) who wanted economic independence from the Crown. At least that is what they taught us in my economic history course at Cal. I know its nice to wax romantically about the founding fathers, but the guys signing the Declaration of Independence were almost all those evil 1 percent types.

I feel like I felt when my Niners lost the Super Bowl - heartbroken. Sometimes I hate my government. Seems like more and more lately.

My understanding is that this was a case where an individual wanted to give the full election cycle amount to a lot of different Republicans. He came up against the aggregate limit and said that it was BS to not allow an individual to give to a campaign - even if he has given to other campaigns.

Does anyone really think that is wrong? Why would that be wrong? And why would that not limit that guys free speech?

Poorly written laws are bound to be over-ruled.

Oski87;842300351 said:

---

Does anyone really think that is wrong? Why would that be wrong? And why would that not limit that guys free speech?

---

I am not a legal scholar so my post is from a lay perspective. The reason it feels wrong to me is that it allows those with wealth to have much more influence/free speech than others, to the point of effectively silencing individuals. Imagine one entity having an extremely loud metaphorical megaphone so that others simply could not be heard. Does that constitute a violation of first amendment rights?

DangerBear;842300360 said:

---

I am not a legal scholar so my post is from a lay perspective. The reason it feels wrong to me is that it allows those with wealth to have much more influence/free speech than others, to the point of effectively silencing individuals. Imagine one entity having an extremely loud metaphorical megaphone so that others simply could not be heard. Does that constitute a violation of first amendment rights?

---

That is called a labor union.

And no, it doesn't violate the constitution for the wealthy to have influence. In fact, the First Amendment applies equally to the poor and the wealthy.

Perhaps you should base your opinions less on how you "feel" and more on what the constitution actually says?

Sounds like it's time for a constitutional amendment that limits corporate rights and the impact of money on free speech. I think that would be heavily supported by the voting public.

Only Berkeleyites could advocate limiting free speech in the interest of protecting it, and yet still be serious.

Oski87;842300351 said:

---

My understanding is that this was a case where an individual wanted to give the full election cycle amount to a lot of different Republicans. He came up against the aggregate limit and said that it was BS to not allow an individual to give to a campaign - even if he has given to other campaigns.

Does anyone really think that is wrong? Why would that be wrong? And why would that not limit that guys free speech?

Poorly written laws are bound to be over-ruled.

---

Well SCOTUS thinks its wrong. Starting with I believe the Buckley case, that says a candidate's right to spend money is a first amendment right, SCOTUS has continued to expand the the first amendment to strike down laws restricting donations for candidates. This case is hardly a surprise. And the court has gone further. For example, SCOTUS even prohibited the CPUC from permitting consumer groups to include their "materials" in San Diego Gas & Electric bills in a unanimous opinion (written by relatively liberal court in a decision by Thurgood Marshall) because it violated the corporation's first amendment rights. The problem is that you only thing first amendment rights should apply to people that think like you. Moreover, there seems to be shocking development that corporations are protected by the Constitution, even thought this has long been the case. You can really tell who has never taken a constitutional law class here.

The Constitution is a "anti-majority" document from the standpoint it protects minority rights from the laws passed by the majority. Sometimes those minorities are the wealthy and corporations. Sometimes its other people that the majority may not like but you may, such as immigrants, blacks, gays, women who want abortions, etc. You will just have to get used to the idea the Constitution protects in essence everyone at some time or another, and thus can lead to unpopular SCOTUS decisions.

wifeisafurd;842300344 said:

---

I won't wade into the left vs right stuff, but I do take issue with the PS. The American revolution was lead by rich landowners, merchants and attorneys (think Jefferson, Washington and Adams) who wanted economic independence from the Crown. At least that is what they taught us in my economic history course at Cal. I know its nice to wax romantically about the founding fathers, but the guys signing the Declaration of Independence were almost all those evil 1 percent types.

---

Concurring opinion signed by Leon Litwack, Kenneth Stampp, Lawrence Levine

ursa carolina;842300419 said:

---

Only Berkeleyites could advocate limiting free speech in the interest of protecting it, and yet still be serious.

---

LMAO. So true. Well said. The current approach of the left is not to win an argument on the merits, but instead to attempt to silence all opposing viewpoints.

DangerBear;842300360 said:

---

I am not a legal scholar so my post is from a lay perspective. The reason it feels wrong to me is that it allows those with wealth to have much more influence/free speech than others, to the point of effectively silencing individuals. Imagine one entity having an extremely loud metaphorical megaphone so that others simply could not be heard. Does that constitute a violation of first amendment rights?

---

Hey, the rich have to do what the rich have to do to protect their position and that court decision is just part of it. The court can twist the Constitution into a balloon animal to get the desired result if it has to. The "job creators" have to keep "the takers" from storming the bastille.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/5-tycoons-who-want-to-close-the-wealth-gap/5757367/

bearister;842300452 said:

---

Hey, the rich have to do what the rich have to do to protect their position and that court decision is just part of it. The court can twist the Constitution into a balloon animal to get the desired result if it has to. The "job creators" have to keep "the takers" from storming the bastille.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2014/02/23/5-tycoons-who-want-to-close-the-wealth-gap/5757367/

---

Thank you for expressing your feelings.

Your second paragraph is an important point we don't hear enough in our media imo...

If money is indeed speech, then this ruling should have been a 9-0 decision. Ginsburg, Kagan et al need to get with the program.

wifeisafurd;842300344 said:

---

I won't wade into the left vs right stuff, but I do take issue with the PS. The American revolution was lead by rich landowners, merchants and attorneys (think Jefferson, Washington and Adams) who wanted economic independence from the Crown. At least that is what they taught us in my economic history course at Cal. I know its nice to wax romantically about the founding fathers, but the guys signing the Declaration of Independence were almost all those evil 1 percent types.

---

I'd argue that while the founders were rich, the power, scale and immense weight of corporations today would be a defining difference.

beelzebear;842300487 said:

---

I'd argue that while the founders were rich, the power, scale and immense weight of corporations today would be a defining difference.

---

The SCOTUS decision that established "corporate personhood" is far worse, in my opinion. And in light of that, I would really appreciate if a prosecutor would be so bold as to pursue criminal charges in kind. GM, for example, should be on trial for 17 murders right now. And if found guilty, they should be put in prison (ie, out of business) for life. If you're going to get the same benefits as a person, you have to play by the same rules.

bearsandgiants;842300492 said:

---

The SCOTUS decision that established "corporate personhood" is far worse, in my opinion. And in light of that, I would really appreciate if a prosecutor would be so bold as to pursue criminal charges in kind. GM, for example, should be on trial for 17 murders right now. And if found guilty, they should be put in prison (ie, out of business) for life. If you're going to get the same benefits as a person, you have to play by the same rules.

---

The problem is that a corporation is defined as a collection of individuals. How do criminal charges get dispersed amongst that collection? Does the CEO take the brunt of it? Or the board? Or the person who decided not to issue a recall? Or the engineers that designed the ignition tumbler? Or the head of the plant that built the tumbler?

If you put the corporation "out of business" for life, what's to stop that same collection of individuals from starting the business anew? Do you confiscate all assets of that corporation? Do you bar individuals who were part of that corporation from starting up any other corporations? Do you invalidate all patents owned by that corporation?

bearsandgiants;842300492 said:

---

The SCOTUS decision that established "corporate personhood" is far worse, in my opinion. And in light of that, I would really appreciate if a prosecutor would be so bold as to pursue criminal charges in kind. GM, for example, should be on trial for 17 murders right now. And if found guilty, they should be put in prison (ie, out of business) for life. If you're going to get the same benefits as a person, you have to play by the same rules.

---

Indeed, and I think the founders would have issues with corporate personhood because it getting to the point of unchecked power, much like the crown back in the day.

Agree that if in fact corporations are people, GM should be doing some time in the pen. Ditto PG&E with the San Bruno explosion. The feds found them criminally liable, so shouldn't their board go to the klink?

beelzebear;842300500 said:

---

Agree that if in face corporations are people, GM should be doing some time in the pen. Ditto PG&E with the San Bruno explosion. The feds found them criminally liable, so shouldn't their board go to the klink?

---

Again, how would you determine who on the board is culpable? Is culpability solely based on being on the board at the time of the incident? If it's something that the board wasn't even aware of because it got swallowed somewhere below them, are they still personally liable? If it's something that happened in the engineering arm, does it make sense for the board to be liable rather than the executives in that division? If it never made it past the desk of a single VP who brushed it under the rug, does it make sense for all the other executives in that division to be liable?

Keep in mind that a Board's duties are to hire the CEO or GM and provide guidance for the general direction and strategy of the business. They're not supposed to micro-manage and meddle in your general day-to-day stuff. With that in mind how can you ascertain that the board was negligent in GM not issuing a recall?

pingpong2;842300502 said:

---

Again, how would you determine who on the board is culpable? Is culpability solely based on being on the board at the time of the incident? If it's something that the board wasn't even aware of because it got swallowed somewhere below them, are they still personally liable? If it's something that happened in the engineering arm, does it make sense for the board to be liable rather than the executives in that division? If it never made it past the desk of a single VP who brushed it under the rug, does it make sense for all the other executives in that division to be liable?

Keep in mind that a Board's duties are to hire the CEO or GM and provide guidance for the general direction and strategy of the business. They're not supposed to micro-manage and meddle in your general day-to-day stuff. With that in mind how can you ascertain that the board was negligent in GM not issuing a recall?

---

I know little about corp governance and BOD but I believe they're ultimately responsible, just like a non-profit board.

Of course this is one of the BIG disparities between "human" personhood and corporation personhood - how do you lock up a corporation if a crime was committed, while in "human" personhood it's not an issue. Since you can't, well that's a loophole...and yup, it's being exploited.

beelzebear;842300500 said:

---

Indeed, and I think the founders would have issues with corporate personhood because it getting to the point of unchecked power, much like the crown back in the day.

Agree that if in fact corporations are people, GM should be doing some time in the pen. Ditto PG&E with the San Bruno explosion. The feds found them criminally liable, so shouldn't their board go to the klink?

---

I say electrocute the By Laws, water board the Articles of Incorporation, and behead the Minute Book!