———- Forwarded message ———-
From: Harold Somer <harold.somer@gmail.com>
Date: Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 9:19 PM
Subject: he Recent Supreme Court Decision- Speech is Money / Money is Speech

Dear All-of-You:

A consensus among the Democrats and Republicans in the Congress have agreed on the need to edit and modify the Preamble to The Constitution, to wit:

WE THE CORPORATIONS OF AMERICA, IN ORDER TO FORM A MORE PERFECT MARKET PLACE, ENHANCE FREE ENTERPRISE, PROMOTE PROSPERITY AND TRANQUILITY

AMONG THE PEOPLE, TO PROMOTE THE GENERAL WELFARE AND TO SECURE THE BLESSINGS OF THE FREE MARKET FOR OURSELVES  AND OUR POSTERITY, DO ORDAIN AND ESTABLISH  THIS CONSTITUTION FOR  THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICAN. – SELAH

In the words of the outstanding American Rush Limbaugh, this declaration affirms the truth and wisdom of- WHAT’S GOOD FOR WALL STREET IS  GOOD FOR AMERICA.  SELAH

Affirmed this day by the majority of  the Supreme Court.

Enjoy!

Harold Somer

Hard Copies to be mailed:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts

Associate Justices:

Samuel A. Alito

Anthony M. Kennedy

Antonin G. Scalia

Clarence Thomas*

Stephen G. Breyer

Ruth Bader Ginsburg

Sonia Sotomayor

John Paul Stevens

* Mr. Thomas didn’t have the credentials to be a Traffic Court  Judge.

——————————————

Politico, Jan 22, 2010

The Supreme Court of The United States just decided that a corporation has the same rights as a human being which has great legal implications and does not restrict large corporate money from buying more political influence.  This allowance of corporations to operate as an entity can allow for political speech suppression, the right to the freedom of speech on the internet, websites, books, television and any media.

Basically this means the government has the right to censor free speech and free thoughts of Americans and can use criminal law to enforce its control over the freedoms of Americans.  This goes against the Constitution and basically over rides the constitutional rights that Americans had in the past and opens the door for corruption and censorship in the media.  There are currently 9 Judges on the Supreme Court of the US and this is how they voted.

The  Justices that voted against this decision are Discenters {dissenters?}:

Justice John Paul Stevens

Justice  Sonia Sotomayor

Justice  Steven Breyer

Justice Ruth Ginsburg

The Justices that voted for Allowing More Corporate Interests are:

Justice Clarence Thomas

Justice Antonin Scalia

Justice Samuel Alito Jr.  are all Bush appointees and conservatives ruling from the bench.

Justice Anthony M. Kennedy

Justice John G. Roberts of course broke the tie vote and threw his support to the Bush Judges making him an activist judge. In fact Roberts just voted for what Americans hate the most which is lobbyists and special interest corporate money influencing the people’s business. What right does the Court have to legislate and who gave these judges that right?

The Republicans charged that Sonia Sotomayor would rule from the bench and these judges are deciding to change the Constitution which is an appalling miscarriage of justice.

It was a slim vote of 5 in favor and 4 against and it falls on the conservative appointed judges that work to increase campaign spending by corporations.  In their infinite wisdom the courts also allowed unions to contribute to special favors from politicians in their attempt to appease the democrats which tend to gain more contributions by unions.  This allowance is supposed to make this medicine easier to swallow but corporate interests have deeper pockets.

When you consider the bank lobbyists from Wall Street, the insurance lobbyists, the Health care lobbyists, the oil corporation lobbyists and all the other lobbyists you can see where the Obama legislation will have no effect on his term.  A conservative Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky praised the court for restoring the first Amendment rights of corporations and unions.

The Supreme Court of the United States just opened more doors to lobbyists and special interest groups to fund their own agenda rather than the business of the people.  This reverses a 63 year old law that limits campaign free for all spending and increases lobbyists interests in government.

This court has decided to wipe away over 1oo years of US history and is devoted to increase corruption of the democracy once held high in the USA, making it no better than the dictatorship government of Haiti.

The Supreme Court has decided in its own lack of justice that the First Amendment rights extend not only to humans as was the case in the Constitution but to a corporation.  This has far fetched legal implications than you think in regards to lawsuits against a corporation which is now considered an “individual” or human person.

In a 5 to 4 decision the slim majority of one vote was cast to allow corporations to assume a human identity as an individual and the Supreme Court said that corporations “cannot be limited in their campaign contributions” to politicians.   Remember the phrase “Justice is Blind”?

This decision will allow more corporate money to influence public decisions that have a great bearing on Americans in a negative way.   This court’s decision comes at a very important time with mid-term elections this year the rich corporations will sway who gets in to the state elections and who gets to govern.  Big business will decide that -not the voter.  This law is incorrect in its assumption that one individual American is identical to one corporation and this just does not favor the individual who has less influence that a large, rich corporation on a politician.  The corporation obviously has more financial backing, more contributions means more special interests for that corporation and this law is a blatant and corrupt law and changes the Constitution as you knew it.

Really it is of no surprise that this court is a conservative court with its own special interests as you saw during the gore Bush election results which was a total sham of justice.

The dominance of corporate money in politics will loom large in the coming elections and during the health care reform bill the health care industry spent 1 million dollars per day to force lawmakers to stop regulating their industry. The business interests and profits of these large corporations will become more involved in campaign donations in the future.

Politicians are only interested in one thing and that is to remain in power and grab as much campaign dollars as they can to benefit their contributors not the people that elected them.  The bottom line is they are buying your votes to keep their corporations profitable by influencing politicians in Congress.

It is the Republican and Democrat politicians  that are now going to reap the benefits of this new law which allows them to accept any amount of money they wish and your taxpayers dollars are going to the benefit of corporations not the people of the United States.

Big business will get more earmarks, more special laws to protect them and more subsidies for their industry and the taxpayer just became less of a priority.  Big business is now in control of the government with sleazy back room deals which will become the norm as you saw during health care reform there will be 10 more lobbyists to each politician.

What this means is :

Fewer laws to protect consumers against insurance rates rising or rate hikes in credit card interest .

Fewer regulations on corporations that pollute your air, water and the impact of industry vs. global warming.

For instance if the big oil company’s want fewer restrictions on their impact of oil they simply will buy favor with the government by influencing politicians.  How lovely is that?

This new law also overrules 2 previous precedents which was a 2003 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 that restricted the amount of money spent by corporations.  The law also isolates the US as one of the worst political corrupt countries in the world where the Wall Street Banks will and do now do as they please as the financial industry stands to fall again in the future.  There is no stopping corporate interests now in government and your rights were just trampled on by allowing large corporate interest have a greater say than you.

To his credit Justice John Paul Stevens gave a 90 page response to the wrong that has been done in this decision but to no avail. Stevens said the majority that voted in favor of a corrupt political campaign system have made a grave error in judgment in treating corporations as “an individual” or a human being.

The Supreme Court also decided it was fine for Congress to:

Require corporations to disclose their sleazy purchases of politicians

Run disclaimers in their ads for political candidates.

Of course Justice Clarence Thomas voted against the disclaimers and this in effect “keeps hidden” what corporations spend and to whom the money went to.  Justice Clarence Thomas wishes to run the country like Haiti dictators who have taken in 2.7 billion dollars in aid and the money disappeared into thin air.

TAGS: Supreme Court Opens Doors to lobbyists, First amendment rights of corporations, corporate interests in us politics, US Political Limits on Campaign contributions, corporate interests, corporations given same rights as an individual, freedom of speech limited, censorship of the media, Rights Taken away from Americans, Corruption in US politics, Supreme court opens doors to more corruption.
 http://politicolnews.com/supreme-court-m…

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Campaign_fi…
 UPDATED –

Justice Alito’s candid response to Obama’s rebuke

By E.J. Dionne Jr.
The Washington Post – an OP-ED – Monday, February 1, 2010.

The nation owes a substantial debt to Justice Samuel Alito for his display of unhappiness over President Obama’s criticisms of the Supreme Court’s recent legislation — excuse me, decision — opening our electoral system to a new torrent of corporate money.

- Thank you, Justice Alito,
- Justice Alito mouths “not true”

Alito’s inability to restrain himself during the State of the Union address brought to wide attention a truth that too many have tried to ignore: The Supreme Court is now dominated by a highly politicized conservative majority intent on working its will, even if that means ignoring precedents and the wishes of the elected branches of government.

Obama called the court on this, and Alito shook his head and apparently mouthed “not true.” His was the honest reaction of a judicial activist who believes he has the obligation to impose his version of right reason on the rest of us.

The controversy also exposed the impressive capacity of the conservative judicial revolutionaries to live by double standards without apology.

The movement’s legal theorists and politicians have spent more than four decades attacking alleged judicial abuses by liberals, cheering on the presidents who joined them in their assaults. But now, they are terribly offended that Obama has straightforwardly challenged the handiwork of their judicial comrades.

There is ample precedent for Obama’s firm but respectful rebuke of the court. I know of no one on the right who protested when President Ronald Reagan, in a 1983 article in the Human Life Review, took on the Supreme Court’s Roe v. Wade decision of 10 years earlier.

“Make no mistake, abortion-on-demand is not a right granted by the Constitution,” Reagan wrote. “No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with the court’s result, has argued that the framers of the Constitution intended to create such a right. . . . Nowhere do the plain words of the Constitution even hint at a ‘right’ so sweeping as to permit abortion up to the time the child is ready to be born.” Reagan cited Justice Byron White’s description of Roe as an act of “raw judicial power,” which is actually an excellent description of the court’s ruling on corporate money in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.

Reagan had every right to say what he did. But why do conservatives deny the same right to Obama? Alternatively, why do they think it’s persuasive to argue, as Georgetown Law professor Randy Barnett did last week in the Wall Street Journal, that it’s fine for a president to take issue with the court, except in a State of the Union speech? Isn’t it more honorable to criticize the justices to their faces? Are these jurists so sensitive that they can’t take it? Do they expect everyone to submit quietly to whatever they do?

In fact, conservatives have made the Supreme Court a punching bag since the 1960s, when “Impeach Earl Warren” bumper stickers aimed at the liberal chief justice proliferated in right-wing precincts.

Richard Nixon made the Warren court’s rulings on criminal justice a major issue in his 1968 presidential campaign. “Let us always respect, as I do, our courts and those who serve on them,” he said in his acceptance speech that year. “But let us also recognize that some of our courts, in their decisions, have gone too far in weakening the peace forces as against the criminal forces in this country, and we must act to restore that balance.” Many conservatives cheered this, too.

As for the specifics of Obama’s indictment, Alito’s defenders have said the president was wrong to say that the court’s decision on corporate political spending had reversed “a century of law” and also opened “the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations.” But Obama was not simply referring to court precedents but also to the 1907 Tillman Act, which banned corporate money in electoral campaigns. The court’s recent ruling undermined that policy. Defenders of the decision also say it did not invalidate the existing legal ban on foreign political activity. What they don’t acknowledge is that the ruling opens a loophole for domestic corporations under foreign control to make unlimited campaign expenditures.

Alito did not like the president making an issue of the court’s truly radical intervention in politics. I disagree with Alito on the law and the policy, but I have no problem with his personal expression of displeasure.

On the contrary, I salute him because his candid response brought home to the country how high the stakes are in the battle over the conservative activism of Chief Justice John Roberts’s court.

 ejdionne at washpost.com