Corporations are not people; money is not speech

Today’s Supreme Court ruling is an Alice in Wonderland exercise. The five-justice majority reached the outcome it sought — an outcome that greatly expands the legal rights and political power of corporations — by trying to redefine basic reality.

No matter what the Court majority may prefer to argue or believe, corporations are not people and money is not speech. They simply are not.

Nor did the Founding Fathers perceive them as such. The notion that corporations — a useful legal fiction created by government — should have the same rights as natural human beings would have astounded Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Marshall. The theory of natural rights that animated the Declaration of Independence proclaimed that it is people and only people who are endowed with inalienable, natural rights. At the time, they did not even extend that theory to apply to those people who were held as slaves.

Corporations and unions are merely tools. And like any manmade tool, they can be remade however we wish to make them perform better in our service. They are not natural persons with rights inherent in their existence. If we choose to endow corporations with certain rights and deny them other rights so they might better serve our purposes, we ought to be perfectly free to do so. They are our creations.

Yet at its core, the Supreme Court’s majority decision in Citizens United attempts to erase that distinction and give corporations and people equal standing. The judges proclaimed point blank that it is in fact unconstitutional to treat corporations and people differently in matters of political speech:

“Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion.”

In other words, inanimate, lifeless corporations cannot be “disfavored speakers” under the Constitution. They must be given the same natural rights as human beings.

And these judges proclaim themselves originalists. Amazing.

Justice John Paul Stevens, writing for the minority, is clearly confounded by what his colleagues are attempting:

“Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed
and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.”

To rule that Congress cannot limit the rights of corporations that are invented by man and controlled by man — to endow those legal fictions with the same natural rights as living, human beings — is absurd. To claim the U.S. Constitution as the basis for that ruling is an outright fabrication.

636 comments Add your comment

getalife

January 21st, 2010
5:33 pm

$5000 Dishwasher

January 21st, 2010
5:37 pm

Jay – I think you’re right on this one…. Sorta…..

I don’t think I’ve ever agreed with you until this one.

Truth is, I’m still on the fence here.

The issue of Free Speech is our MOST cherished right here in the US.

People say all sorts of stuff, including me, in these blogs and we need to watch what is happening here.

Be careful folks….

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!

January 21st, 2010
5:38 pm

I agree the Atlanta Journal Constitution is a tool.

RW-(the original)

January 21st, 2010
5:40 pm

This is a pretty far out premise that only individuals have a right to political speech. Very few individuals could afford to buy network airtime so what you would have is far reaching silencing of the American electorate. After all, if people band together to form a group so they can afford to get their message out then it’s a group and a group isn’t a person it’s something formed by people so by Jay B and the SCOTUS minority logic the group could now be denied their rights.

Taxpayer

January 21st, 2010
5:41 pm

Taxpayer

January 21st, 2010
5:44 pm

I mean really. What next! Representation without taxation. Oops!

Progressive Herpes

January 21st, 2010
5:45 pm

U toucha my rights I breaka your face

Ridgerunner

January 21st, 2010
5:47 pm

Flintlocks are not Sig-Sauer 9mm’s and quills and lead type are not computers. So what?

A right is a right !

P.S. “Nor did the Founding Fathers perceive them as such. The notion that corporations — a useful legal fiction created by government — should have the same rights as natural human beings would have astounded Thomas Jefferson, James Madison and John Marshall.”

I think those same Founding Fathers would be astounded by the absolute corruption of the 10th Amendment, pornography as free speech and abortion on demand to name a few.

This only solidifies my belief that once you determine you have the right (a Liberal or Conservative Justice) to get away from original intent that you cheapen the Constitution. You libs. like it when it goes your way …………. now suck it up. What goes around comes around.

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
5:47 pm

I didn’t catch that earlier, that the court ruled that corporations have the same rights of speech as an individual is ludicrous.

RW,

I feel that a majority of the American electorate is silenced – the centrists. The fringe groups that do band together like the Swiftboaters and MoveOn are the ones that get heard and a majority of the electorate do not take the time to research their twisting illogical claims. As far as corporations, they are not a group of people with a message, they are a business whose only goal is profit and using politicians to help them manipulate their profits is wrong in my book. But then again, my book isn’t on the top selling list.

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
5:48 pm

One of the reasons my book isn’t on the top sellers list is my atrocious grammar!

Bud Wiser

January 21st, 2010
5:48 pm

So are these corporations run by men or machines?

Fools.

You and Obowo must have attended the same classes in stupidity. Obowo goes on TV with George Steffynopolice, and says that the voters in Mass were angry not about just his one year in office, but the last eight years?

First of all his math sucks, because 8 + 1 = nine years. Secondly (now stay with me here), the voters were so mad at the Republicans (for their 8 years of mismanagement) that they elected a Republican; because of Bush they elected another Republican?

I know how stupid Obowo thinks his drooling followers are, because they fall for that garbage like a stink bug on a cow t*rd. He insults the intelligence of every Democrat with an ignorant statement like that, and with that kind of statement, there are soon going to be a lot more non-Democrats.

It is just the arrogance that leads him to believe everyone is as stupid as they, or just simply the fact that he is as stupid as he thinks his trolls are, either way, America loses.

DoggoneGA

January 21st, 2010
5:49 pm

“After all, if people band together to form a group so they can afford to get their message out then it’s a group and a group isn’t a person it’s something formed by people so by Jay B and the SCOTUS minority logic the group could now be denied their rights.”

But I see a BIG difference. A group that comes together to fund advertisements is only spending the money of people who choose to give to that group, presumably because they agree with it’s aims. A corporation or union will now be spending the money of people who might vehemently disgree with their aims, but will have no say in how that money is spent.

And, to me, the bigger issue is that they can now spend that money from “general” funds, which in the case of corporations means – basically – that the more money they spend on political advertising, the less money there is to distribute to their shareholders. So they are, as far as I’m concerned, stealing “my” money for THEIR own purposes.

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
5:52 pm

Yeah, what Doggone wrote.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
5:53 pm

All of this left wing paranoia about “big corporations” is as usual, not based in reality.

If anything, this ruling could end up being a tool that’s used to limit the government, and perhaps even cut it down to size at the knees.

The enemy, as usual, is the government. Not private business.

RW-(the original)

January 21st, 2010
5:53 pm

Bosch,

The group versus corporation is just an illustration of how absurd it is to say free speech ends as soon as it comes from a conspiracy of two or more. Frankly I hope you aren’t naive enough to think corporate money hasn’t flowed to shadow groups to get out their same message and this just makes things more transparent. Now you can vote for the politician at the ballot box and vote with your wallet if you don’t like a corporate message.

Besides the biggest part of the ruling didn’t change anything except allow speech that was perfectly lawful 31 days or more from an election to stay legal all the way up to the election.

Kamchak

January 21st, 2010
5:53 pm

Bosch

Off topic–have you seen this yet?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fiSRIw5PjfM

Pro-Business

January 21st, 2010
5:53 pm

This ruling was WAY overdue!

Corporations and unions way far too little influence on elections.

Thank you SCOTUS for ruling on behalf of the little quiet guy.

N-GA

January 21st, 2010
5:54 pm

Once again the right goes after the sacred Constitution. First they attack personal liberties and now they silence the voters.

Before you know it we will be like Italy and Germany in the 1930’s.

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
5:54 pm

Kamchak,

No, I hadn’t. Damn. That was amazing, it looks like that guy snapped his neck. What were you writing about violence in Africa? I hadn’t heard that either. Like I told you the other day, you are more up on soccer news than me!

American Woman

January 21st, 2010
5:54 pm

I’m sad to say the fringe folks who pleaded with me in 2008 to reject the two-party myth and embrace their fringe conspiracies and crazy warnings were right. This SCOTUS ruling is not the beginning of the end of what we grew up believing about America, it’s the door closing, finalizing something that was in the works for decades. The ongoing Repub/Dem, Consv/Lib, Right/Left division is just a little game to keep us BUSY. HA! We fell for it!!! There never WAS any difference, and there has ever only been one winner: the men whose faces we’ll never know. The puppet changes, and we all busy ourselves in the game, thinking we know everything, but really knowing nothing.

That being said, it was nice having a little hope for awhile. (Thanks for the lovely evening, I enjoyed it!) Hope is kinda like expensive booze: smoove goin down, warm from the inside out, taking all those edges away, but temporary, solving nothing, and sorely missed when it’s gone.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
5:54 pm

A corporation or union will now be spending the money of people who might vehemently disgree with their aims, but will have no say in how that money is spent.
————————–
But it’s okay for the government to steal money and use it for what they want, with total disregard to our wishes.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
5:55 pm

Once again the right goes after the sacred Constitution. First they attack personal liberties and now they silence the voters.
———————————————–
Personal liberties were never attacked, unless you happened to be a foreign terrorist. Which of course, Democrats stick up for and love.

So explain how voters are silenced by this ruling. Can’t wait to see your logic.

RW-(the original)

January 21st, 2010
5:55 pm

DoggoneGA,

I don’t believe Obama has nationalized enough American business to where you’re forced to work for, buy from, or invest in them….yet.

LA

January 21st, 2010
5:55 pm

“I agree the Atlanta Journal Constitution is a tool.”

LOLOL

Best quote today!

DoggoneGA

January 21st, 2010
5:57 pm

“But it’s okay for the government to steal money and use it for what they want, with total disregard to our wishes”

yep

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
5:58 pm

NRB,

The government does not steal our money, it collects taxes. We have to pay taxes, and no, you don’t get a say in what they spend the money on after they have been elected. You have a vote and you do have the choice to spend your money on a corporation or not.

Normal

January 21st, 2010
5:58 pm

Josef, below…

Good night all…

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:00 pm

NRB2

AWESOME! You’re back.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:00 pm

Bosch, theft is theft. They take too much and without our permission. Which is why this ruling is good, it could lead to lower taxation and the dismantling of the ruling elites in Washington. And voting isn’t the only way to accomplish that either.

devans00

January 21st, 2010
6:01 pm

Until a corporation has blood coursing through its veins and poops, it’s not a human being. Nor should it have the rights and privileges of humans. By definition of existing to create profits for shareholders, corporations are anti human.

Corporations don’t care about poisoning the land or human populations because it’s more fiscally beneficial to pay fines rather than spend more to avoid poisoning in the first place. Corporations don’t care about the future because it doesn’t have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews or friends to worry about the future of.

Too bad so many government guardians have no problem selling the rest of us out for a few shekels of gold.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:02 pm

“The government does not steal our money, it collects taxes”

Yes it does and the answer to that naive statement is that the government takes our tax money for politician pet projects.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:03 pm

“Corporations don’t care about the future because it doesn’t have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews or friends to worry about the future of.”

Neither do politicians.

Kamchak

January 21st, 2010
6:04 pm

DoggoneGA

January 21st, 2010
6:05 pm

“They take too much and without our permission”

Bbut they DO have your permission. By choosing to live in this country you give tacit agreement to our form of government. And that agreement encompasses that the elected representatives will set tax levels as they see fit, and agree upon AND get the President to sign.

Plus, you choose to pay taxes. I’ve told you before, it is perfectly possible AND legal to live in this country without paying taxes. It’s not easy, but it’s possible. So any taxes you pay are YOUR choice – and you pay them.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:05 pm

Corporations don’t care about poisoning the land or human populations because it’s more fiscally beneficial to pay fines rather than spend more to avoid poisoning in the first place.
————————-
This would be relevant had Bill Clinton not moved all manufacturing overseas and to Mexico.

Paul

January 21st, 2010
6:06 pm

Jay

I’ve grappled with this on and off throughout the day. As I read through the decision it appeared to me the majority opinion was concerned with speech and speech alone. Regardless of who says it, who pays for it, whatever the vehicle of that speech is.

Taking that approach, one can almost shrug off consideration of where speech originates. A person writing a letter to the editor? Or a corporation spending $5 million on an ad campaign?

About the only remedy I can see is one I posted earlier – redraw our laws so politicians (and other ‘public figures’) enjoy the same legal protections from defamation, libel and slander. Impose penalties based upon income or budget.

This Court had no problem with deferring to previous decisions. Maybe in another ten years we’ll have another Court with the willingness to overcome a prior decision.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:07 pm

Plus, you choose to pay taxes. I’ve told you before, it is perfectly possible AND legal to live in this country without paying taxes. It’s not easy, but it’s possible. So any taxes you pay are YOUR choice – and you pay them.
—————————–

I actually agree with you there. If you set up some good real estate investments, and your own business, it truly is possible to pay zero income taxes.

However, we shouldn’t have to do that to avoid taxes. This is why a 10% flat tax is critical to our well being and freedom.

It’s not like the government needs the money.

Paul

January 21st, 2010
6:08 pm

Make that “This Court had no problem with NOT deferring to previous decisions.”

DoggoneGA

January 21st, 2010
6:08 pm

“Maybe in another ten years we’ll have another Court with the willingness to overcome a prior decision.”

And let’s hope it doesn’t take 100 years…like this decision did.

Ridgerunner

January 21st, 2010
6:11 pm

N-GA:

See my 5:47 ……….

I hear you but if liberal, centrist and conservative justices were all “originalists” we wouldn’t have most of these problems. The Constitution is a contract, a legal document just like any other. It means what it says and says what it means at the time it was written just like the deed to your house or your will.

It should be interpreted vertically but not horizontally.

Example:

You have the right against an unreasonable search of your home without probable cause and a warrant. However, back then they didn’t know yachts, mobile homes and even aircraft could become peoples homes. So in later years, those types of rulings are a natural vertical addition.

However, what the court often does is completely (i.e., the 10 Amendment/Commerce Clause and the so called right to abortion) ignore the clear language of the Constitution (or add spurious language/concepts) and apply a horizontal interpretation by denying or inventing a right.

That’s when the Constitution is cheapened and even prostituted.

I Report (-: You Whine )-: mmm, mmmm, mmmmm!

January 21st, 2010
6:11 pm

Bud Wiser- You have to understand that Bookman and obozo weren’t educated, they were indoctrinated.

How else could they come up with such weird ideas?

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:12 pm

Me thinks liberals have selective amnesia.

In Jay’s mind, Bill Clinton was this perfect president who did nothing wrong.

Taxpayer

January 21st, 2010
6:12 pm


So are these corporations run by men or machines?

Chinese men, Russian men, Saudi men, Iranian men, a man doing God’s work — Goldman’s CEO… How does it feel to know that countries around the world will finally have a say in what we can legally do right here at home. “Suck it up” is right.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:13 pm

“It’s not like the government needs the money.”

Exactly

Fair Tax

What we need is to redo the entire tax code. The IRS is an outdated bureaucracy.

RW-(the original)

January 21st, 2010
6:13 pm

SoCo,

If you make it up here after have the codeine I saw a question you had downstairs. This decision doesn’t allow corporations to finance campaigns or parties, nor does it allow direct contributions except from individuals with the same limits that were already in place.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:14 pm

Taxpayer, stop being a racist xenophobe. They just want to work and earn a living! They’re doing the work that YOU won’t do.

Paul

January 21st, 2010
6:14 pm

Doggone/GA

[[A corporation or union will now be spending the money of people who might vehemently disgree with their aims, but will have no say in how that money is spent.]]

An excellent point. If one joins PETA one can guess at what the advocacy will be. If one’s a GE shareholder? So in this case we have a select few within an organization deciding how the money of the owners will be spent. Many people, many dollars, yet one voice?

I gotta think there’s some way someone could make a disparate impact argument on this.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:16 pm

What’s up LA. I see the libs are in a frenzy because a group of people other than government cronies had their rights protected today.

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
6:16 pm

NRB,

Collecting taxes is not theft. You do not get to chose how a government spends the money – trust me, today I read an article about some projects my local yahoos are wanted to spend the state’s money on made me almost fall out of my chair. I’ll be writing them later.

And as Doggone wrote (she’s always a step ahead of my thoughts) you chose to live here, and you can vote out those who you think are not spending the money in the budget wisely.

Taxpayer

January 21st, 2010
6:16 pm

This would be relevant had Bill Clinton not moved all manufacturing overseas and to Mexico.

It sure is a good thing that all those piles of ash from coal-fired power plants were shipped overseas and all those mountain tops were cut off overseas and all those lead painted toys and tainted milk and… .

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
6:17 pm

And again, I am a total discredit to my wonderful Engrish teachers tonight.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:18 pm

“I see the libs are in a frenzy because a group of people other than government cronies had their rights protected today.”

Yeah, and AmVet wrote a thesis on why I am an idiot. These clowns are in total denial that America hates liberalism.

Taxpayer

January 21st, 2010
6:19 pm

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:14 pm
Taxpayer, stop being a racist xenophobe. They just want to work and earn a living! They’re doing the work that YOU won’t do.

Quit trying to inject your beliefs and thoughts into my words, clueless.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:20 pm

NRB2

Check out the wisdom of AmVet.

Oh great, the Minister of Misinformation is back.

Last night was perhaps the most bizarre I have ever seen on any AJC blog. And I have seen numerous blogging meltdowns. But this was almost surreal. Both hysterical and appalling all at the same time!

Talk about the epitome of a public humiliation and the resulting obliviousness! It was truly jaw dropping. Most here simply could not believe what they were reading. And if you think I’m even slightly exaggerating, go back and take a look for yourselves.

But would somebody here please explain to me what could possibly possess someone/anyone to the point that they would insist on going to a party over and over and over again when they were constantly derided and publicly humiliated for being such an obnoxious lout? Where they were laughed at and scorned for their endless neanderthal comments, unprovoked personal attacks and childish behavior by VIRTUALLY EVERYONE THERE?

To wit, I’ve made one general, non-personal comment so far today and was called stupid for it. No provocation whatsoever. But in LA’s parallel reality HE is the victim. Always and forever.

I mean seriously, if I was ever man-handled and shown to be an outright liar and serial fool like LA was last night – repeatedly – by our host, among several others, I would NEVER EVER come back here again.

To what end? For more of the same??? Does this guy have even a shred of personal pride?

But it is cheap entertainment.

(tick, tick, tick…)

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
6:20 pm

It’s weird how Blog God has started mixing up the posts – I had two in a row, now Taxpayer’s is in between. Blog God must be taking SoCo’s meds.

RW-(the original)

January 21st, 2010
6:22 pm

Bud & Andy,

That bit about electing Republicans because the voters are mad at Republicans wasn’t even the nuttiest thing Obama said to Snuffalufagus.

“If there’s one thing that I regret this year is that we were so busy just getting stuff done and dealing with the immediate crises that were in front of us that I think we lost some of that sense of speaking directly to the American people about what their core values are and why we have to make sure those institutions are matching up with those values,” Obama told ABC News’ George Stephanopoulos in an exclusive interview at the White House.

The president said he made a mistake in assuming that if he focused on policy decisions, the American people would understand the reasoning behind them.

“That I do think is a mistake of mine,” Obama said. “I think the assumption was if I just focus on policy, if I just focus on this provision or that law or if we’re making a good rational decision here, then people will get it.”

Not only is that jaw droppingly arrogant he acts as if he wasn’t in our face enough.

SPEECHES, COMMENTS & REMARKS: 411, NEWS CONFERENCES: 42, INTERVIEWS: 158, TOWN HALL MEETINGS: 23<

This year he’ll probably just take over a network or two.

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2010/01/20/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry6119525.shtml

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:22 pm

And as Doggone wrote (she’s always a step ahead of my thoughts) you chose to live here, and you can vote out those who you think are not spending the money in the budget wisely.

——————–

Actually, we’re going to bully and intimidate these worthless idiots. Voting doesn’t work. Voting is for dummycrats who can’t make their own way in life, and put politicians in power to steal from the productive class on their behalf.

They need either put in the flat tax or a 10% flat tax, or face the consequences.

If you think last summer was bad with the health bill protests, just you wait.

Pro-Business

January 21st, 2010
6:23 pm

LA – another hysterical conservative.

And I mean Glen Beck funny too!!!

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
6:23 pm

NRB,

Bully and intimidation? So that’s your way? Nice. What consequences? If the Corporal was on the board, as a former Secret Service agent, that could be trouble for you.

Taxpayer

January 21st, 2010
6:24 pm

Bosch,

It’s like the posts get a time-stamp before they get posted or something. Strange little gremlins.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:24 pm

LA, just ignore AMVET. His is actually a sad story. I’m all for personal responsibility, but even harsh ol’ me has a soft spot for those who truly cannot control their drinking.

Bud Wiser

January 21st, 2010
6:25 pm

Taxtaker, you once more display the drooling stupidity of your cohorts. Do the Saudis vote here, the Chinese? God man, you are ignorant.

And, you and all of your other tools have been somewhat silent on my 5:48, about Obowo’s train of logic, if one can call the Kenyan logical.

I knew you people were to stupid or over the top socialist to refute me … you flee from the truth and logic like a rat scurrying back into the shadows when the sun comes out.

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

January 21st, 2010
6:25 pm

Well, I can’t hardly wait till the law goes after a corporation that goes out of business for killing a person. If it’s a new one, they’ll go after it for doing a late-term abortion.

If it wasn’t for the fact this ruling gives godly Republicans a big edge in elections, seeing as how most corporations are run by Republicans, I might could be against it.

Anyhow, the next thing we know we’ll go to the polls and be all lined up and along will come a corporation CEO that will say he has the right to 5,000 votes, seeing as how the corporation is worth 5,000 times the average guy.

It will really get bad when the Google canadate goes up against a Microsoft canadate in a election. Who needs movies, when we can get great entertainment from the campaign ads?

Me, from now on I’m treating a business owner with great respeck. You never know when the guy will be picking the person that will be representing you in the next election. And now get ready for all the ads that will start around August: “This message is brought to you by Amway Corporation, your friendly election adviser and seller of wonderful household goods.”

Have a good night everybody.

Taxpayer

January 21st, 2010
6:26 pm

So, since one of the REAL problems facing voters is a lack of jobs, I wonder if anyone in our Georgia legislature noticed that Georgia’s unemployment rate hit 10.3%. I know. The Republicans have already issued a statement blaming that on Obama too.

Taxpayer

January 21st, 2010
6:27 pm

Bud,

Don’t make me take your crayons away. Again. We know how silent you are without them.

DoggoneGA

January 21st, 2010
6:28 pm

“This is why a 10% flat tax is critical to our well being and freedom. ”

A flat tax rate puts a greater burden on those lower on the income level. It’s just another way to give the rich a way to lower their taxes, but not those with less.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:29 pm

Bully and intimidation? So that’s your way? Nice. What consequences? If the Corporal was on the board, as a former Secret Service agent, that could be trouble for you.
————————————–

You will not silence or intimidate me. And the corporal can kiss my real American a$$. The loonies in Washington are going to just have to learn to do with less. Or else.

Kamchak

January 21st, 2010
6:29 pm

Bosch

Posts are getting mixed up. I gave you a link here.

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
6:30 pm

Doggone,

And apparently if the politicians do not implement the FairTax, NRB plans to beat them up.

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:31 pm

A flat tax rate puts a greater burden on those lower on the income level. It’s just another way to give the rich a way to lower their taxes, but not those with less.
——————————————–

It lowers everyone’s taxes. If people in the lower income brackets want to earn more money, then they can go to school, learn a skill, or start a business.

Let’s stop dragging down the whole country just to benefit a bunch of losers who cannot do anything for themselves.

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
6:32 pm

Kamchak,

Damn. It looks like NRB needs to move there so when the soccer players he doesn’t like get out of line in his view, he can just take over.

Kamchak

January 21st, 2010
6:32 pm

I knew you people were to stupid or over the top socialist to refute me …

Or we’re just not that into you.

DoggoneGA

January 21st, 2010
6:32 pm

Has anyone besides me seen the amusing side of this decision? A couple of the BIG objections to Sotomayor was that she would “legislate from the bench” and that she would “ignore precedent”

Yeah? She voted with the MINORITY on this one, in essence upholding 100 years of settled precedent. It was the “conservatives” who legislated from the bench on this one.

getalife

January 21st, 2010
6:32 pm

The election is tainted now.

The day health care d i ed.

Amazing.

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
6:33 pm

NRB,

Or else what?

DoggoneGA

January 21st, 2010
6:34 pm

“NRB plans to beat them up.”

It is sounding more and more like outright threats, isn’t it?

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:34 pm

NRB2

True, but AmVet is a really disturbed person.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:35 pm

“You will not silence or intimidate me. And the corporal can kiss my real American a$$. The loonies in Washington are going to just have to learn to do with less. Or else.”

LOL

That WILL send the libs howling!

Pogo

January 21st, 2010
6:35 pm

Jay, Are the Union Fatcat’s “people” or are they just another special interest wanting to make money? I work with many, many union people who are not pleased with the Democrats right now. Please, an honest answer devoid of any progressive political spin. It is easy to demonize those evil “Corporate” bastards, isn’t it? But what about the union leadership?

DoggoneGA

January 21st, 2010
6:35 pm

“Let’s stop dragging down the whole country just to benefit a bunch of losers who cannot do anything for themselves”

Spoken like a true “compassionate conservative”

Bosch

January 21st, 2010
6:36 pm

Kamchak,

I think some posters here do not realize that we utilize the scroll button quite often.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:37 pm

“Spoken like a true “compassionate conservative”

You mean like liberals, who always want others to give their money away?

Kamchak

January 21st, 2010
6:37 pm

True, but AmVet is a really disturbed person.

Yet you hump his leg daily.

mmmmm, mmmmmmm, mmmm.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:37 pm

“I think some posters here do not realize that we utilize the scroll button quite often.”

I doubt “some posters” really give a crap about your ability to scroll up and down.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:38 pm

“Yet you hump his leg daily.”

What is it with liberals and animal sex?

DoggoneGA

January 21st, 2010
6:39 pm

“I think some posters here do not realize that we utilize the scroll button quite often”

Mine’s almost worn out. Gonna be time for a new mouse soon.

@@

January 21st, 2010
6:40 pm

Quit whining, jay, this one’s done. The highest court in the land has spoken.

As long as Soros is investing his capital in The Progressive Party, I’ll gladly take the equilibrium offered up by our Supreme Court.

Off-topic! Thank gawd Republicans aren’t falling for this Bi-partisan Deficit Commission.

“Why is Deficit Commission barred from recommending discretionary cuts?”–Mike Pence

Good job, Mike! Call ‘em out on their BS.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:40 pm

“Mine’s almost worn out. Gonna be time for a new mouse soon.”

I bought a new wireless mouse at Apple.

Its greaaaaaaaaat.

Paul

January 21st, 2010
6:41 pm

Doggone/GA

[[NRB plans to beat them up.”

It is sounding more and more like outright threats, isn’t it?]]

A threat, or….

free speech?

:-)

NRB2

January 21st, 2010
6:42 pm

LA, you see “compassion” to libs is using the force of government goon squads to stick a gun to the head of people who work for a living, so that leeches like the ones in Dekalb County can kind of just waffle thorugh life without a care in the world.

If libs are so “compassionate and caring”, then what’s stopping them from starting up a private charity that they can all put their money into?

THey can easily put 50% of their paycheck into it, and the lib charity can spend the money how they see fit.

Those of us who don’t want to support parasites, can keep what we earn and go on with life.

So come on Lib-tards…think “win win”. Let’s set up a 10% flat tax. That way, we all pay into roads, defense, and the other things we really do share.

Then, you guys can put 50% of your money into the Liberal charity fund so that the parasites can still eat and have a roof over their heads.

Come on libs, whaddya think? If you say “no” then you’re greedy.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:42 pm

DEAN: These voters were sending a message to Washington. They asked for change –

MATTHEWS: But she said, “I want to give you the public option” and they said no to her.

DEAN: — and they haven’t gotten change.

MATTHEWS (interrupting): Governor, this is… This is… You’re whistling past the graveyard here.

DEAN: I don’t think so.

MATTHEWS: She ran for the public option.

DEAN: Our polling shows what it shows.

MATTHEWS: But she’s for the public option and she got blown away!

DEAN: People who were for the p-poter… (stammering) voted for the public op… who are for the public option –

MATTHEWS: Why didn’t they vote for the candidate of the public option, then?

DEAN: Because they wanted to send Washington the message: They want real change

MATTHEWS: Voters of Massachusetts agree with you, but they voted Republican? That makes no sense.

DEAN: Oh, it does make –

MATTHEWS: If you went in the voting booth –

DEAN: Chris?

MATTHEWS: — would you have voted for Scott Brown?

DEAN: Chris? I — I — I enjoy –

MATTHEWS: Would you have done this?

DEAN: Of course not.

MATTHEWS: Oh! You rationally would not have voted for the conservative Republican because he’s against health care, but you say the voters are irrational. They somehow send smoke signals in their voting. They vote for a conservative Republican who’s totally against health care to tell the country they want a progressive health care program. That’s crazy!
DEAN: We know what they did.

MATTHEWS: Are voters crazy?

DEAN: We actually know that they did.

MATTHEWS: Are voters crazy?

DEAN: Chris, there’s only one crazy person around here, and I may hold up a mirror. You may see him in a minute here.

MATTHEWS: But you mean that voters…?

DEAN: Don’t be silly.

MATTHEWS: I’m just looking at the results. I’m not cheering them; I’m looking at them. And you’re not looking at them.

DEAN: We –

MATTHEWS: You’re saying no matter who won… Suppose Coakley had won. You would have said that was a victory for progressive Democrats. Wouldn’t it be?

DEAN: No, I woulda said –

MATTHEWS: Wouldn’t you have said it if she won?

DEAN: I — I — I would have said, “Thank God the right person won.”

MATTHEWS: Okay. In other words, if she wins, that’s a victory for your side. If she loses, that’s a victory for your side.

DEAN: I think people are sending a strong message to Washington. They want strong leadership, they want real change, and they don’t want to accommodate the special interests. Most of what the verdict in Massachusetts was is that we’d rather have no bill than what we’ve got. That’s what the verdict in Massachusetts is.

MATTHEWS: Well, they did decide they wanted no bill. This guy with the barn coat that said, “I’m going to vote to kill the bill,” won. I would say that the people who are against the bill won.

DEAN: I think that’s true, but don’t forget there are a lot of people against the bill who were Obama’s core base and voted against Martha Coakley.

MATTHEWS: You want to know what? Martha Coakley was with you, and she lost.

DEAN: Yeah, well, you know… You’re welcome.

MATTHEWS: She was totally with Howard Dean, and she lost.

DEAN: Well… Whether she was or wasn’t, I didn’t follow the campaign all that closely.

MATTHEWS: She votes exactly like you on this issue, with the progressive position –

DEAN: Yeah?

MATTHEWS: — the public option. She said she was for that position and the voters said, “No, thank you.”

MATTHEWS: How did the Republican guy with a truck grab from you…? They grabbed Jack Kennedy from the Democrats! He’s riding around in that truck with Jack Kennedy’s movie saying, “I’m like Jack Kennedy.” How the hell did you guys let him steal your bacon?

AXELROD: Look, I — I — I — I agree with you. As I said, I think we were a little late, duhhh, to recognize, uhh, the potency of his threat, and he was a — a very good, uh, candidate, and he tapped into, uh, a lot of things. The Republican Party is lining up with the banks.

AXELROD: They’re standing with the insurance companies. So they can talk the talk, but when it comes time to walking the walk, they don’t do it, and we’re — I’m — happy to have that contest, uhh, next — uhh, uhh — next November if the president chooses to run in 2012, and we’ll see who the real deal is when it comes to standing up for working people.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:45 pm

“If libs are so “compassionate and caring”, then what’s stopping them from starting up a private charity that they can all put their money into?”

Answer: Most liberals get their degree in art history, yoga, animal sacrifice or african american studies.

IE: They don’t have a clue how to run a business.

RW-(the original)

January 21st, 2010
6:45 pm

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Is that really so hard to understand? And now that loon, Nader, wants to amend the Constitution to rewrite the 1st amendment.

Taxpayer

January 21st, 2010
6:45 pm

Yeah? She voted with the MINORITY on this one, in essence upholding 100 years of settled precedent. It was the “conservatives” who legislated from the bench on this one.

With the Republicans and their claims, every day is opposite day.

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:46 pm

“As long as Soros is investing his capital in The Progressive Party, I’ll gladly take the equilibrium offered up by our Supreme Court.”

DING DING DING!!!!!!!

Paul

January 21st, 2010
6:46 pm

@@ 6:40

Another good idea.

That gets gutted from the start -

LA

January 21st, 2010
6:47 pm

“And now that loon, Nader, wants to amend the Constitution to rewrite the 1st amendment.”

Uh oh, don’t tell BedWet about that! Nadar is his hero!

jt

January 21st, 2010
6:49 pm

If our federal politicians followed the constitution, there would be no reason for any coorperation to campaign/donate.

It is a tricky subject, but if it gets Jay and Sen. Chuck Schumar (D,N.Y.) mad, then it was probably the right decision for liberty loving Americans.

Kamchak

January 21st, 2010
6:49 pm

I think some posters here do not realize that we utilize the scroll button quite often.

Bosch–I generally try to read what’s posted here, except from the two Heathers. I made the point that when a comment isn’t responded to, it’s not because the entire blog was gob-smacked. I see it as someone shining a flashlight on a 40 ft. tall oak tree–at twelve noon–on a cloudless August day.

High school dropout

January 21st, 2010
6:50 pm

When do we stop voting and just see who has the biggest bag of money?