A peek under the robes of an increasingly partisan court
" ... just another political body"
In another 5-4 vote Monday, and without bothering to hear arguments in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court blithely tossed out a longstanding Montana law that barred corporations from making campaign contributions in state elections. States’ rights, it seems, must bow to corporate power in the Roberts court.
Or as Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock noted afterward, “It is a sad day for our democracy and for those of us who still want to believe that the United States Supreme Court is anything more than another political body.”
Bullock’s condemnation of the nation’s highest court as just “another political body” may sound harsh to some ears, but it is depressingly accurate. The Montana law had been on the books for 100 years, and for most of those 100 years its constitutionality had not been called into serious question. It was considered well within established law.
The absurd notions that have now forced its demise — corporations are people and speech is money — are novel law that has been imposed upon Montana and the rest of the country by an increasingly activist, inventive and yes, partisan Supreme Court.
Let’s be honest about this: The increasingly partisan nature of the court is not an accident. It did not occur by magic, but by concerted effort. For at least a quarter of a century, the Republican Party has made the creation of such a court one of its primary goals. The same sort of rigid ideological tests that the party has imposed on candidates for elective office have also been imposed on those it supports for nomination to the federal judiciary. Over a generation, that campaign has succeeded in creating a court that is far more friendly to the powerful than to the individual citizen.
The “smoking gun” in that evolution is of course the court’s “Citizens United” decision, in which the conservative majority decided that bans or limits on corporate expenditures are unconstitutional because “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
That finding is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. It contradicts common sense, it contradicts history, it contradicts what we can see taking place in plain sight at this very moment and it contradicts the elected politicians who passed campaign-finance laws in the first place. Unlike the unelected justices, those politicians know the system intimately; they know firsthand what power can be wielded by unlimited money spent anonymously.
The people of Montana know it as well. I would strongly advise those interested in the issue to read last year’s 5-2 decision of the Montana Supreme Court (available here) as it attempted to uphold and defend their state’s law against the conservative judicial majority in Washington. The decision lays out in clear language that state’s difficult history in trying to fend off outside corporate control.
It’s also important to note that neither of the two dissenters on the Montana court embraced the logic of the Citizens’ United decision. Instead, they based their dissent on the fact that Montana had no choice but to bow to the federal court’s greater authority, however irrational it might be.
One of those dissenters, Justice James C. Nelson, used the opportunity to express his clear and eloquent disgust with the decision of his federal counterparts. I cannot recommend it more highly.
Here’s part of what he had to say:
“For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield inordinate power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins; the transition is seamless and overlapping.
In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s “open marketplace” of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian corporatists. Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.
Furthermore, it defies reality to suggest that millions of dollars in slick television and Internet ads — put out by entities whose purpose and expertise, in the first place, is to persuade people to buy what’s being sold—carry the same weight as the fliers of citizen candidates and the letters to the editor of John and Mary Public. It is utter nonsense to think that ordinary citizens or candidates can spend enough to place their experience, wisdom, and views before the voters and keep pace with the virtually unlimited spending capability of corporations to place corporate views before the electorate….
I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of “independent expenditures” expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the “quid pro quo” of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty. And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely.
I cannot agree with the holding that the prevention of corruption in the form of independent expenditures is not a compelling state interest. There is no plausible reason why a state would not want to protect the integrity of its election process against corruption and undue influence; to do otherwise would render the fundamental right to vote a meaningless exercise….
Lastly, I am compelled to say something about corporate “personhood.” While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in the law, I find the entire concept offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers — not constitutional rights, but legislatively conferred powers — that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business.
Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”
President Obama, name that man to the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,368 comments Add your comment
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
12:36 pm
“There are and always will be exemptions to any entity.”
Not from this health care mandate. Buy insurance by 2014 or pay a fine.
If you’re exempt from car insurance, SS, etc. then it doesn’t compare to Obamacare.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
12:36 pm
The hyper-partisan justices need to be shown the door
Kagan, sotomayor, Breyer and Ginsburg
All douchebag partisans (joking)
East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)
June 26th, 2012
12:36 pm
Those who want this law overturned should be careful what you wish for. The alternative to the healthcare reform law is to eliminate the 65 and under language from medicare and viola a government single payer system is born for all. There would be no question as to whether or not that would withstand a legal challenge.
MoreRightthanLeft
June 26th, 2012
12:36 pm
you do know Obamacare is not about your health..please tell me you dont think he cares about your health, please tell me youre not that dumb…
My concern, if and when obabamcare is long gone..do the rpubs have a plan…please dont tell me your going to make it a priority when you get to office..i heard enough lies and bs from oblama…Please Pres Romney, do the right thing!!
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
12:37 pm
Bookman rule number one: when someone disagrees with you, they are hyper-partisan
When they agree with you, they are judicious and moderate
Erwin's cat
June 26th, 2012
12:38 pm
not that i agree with the “corps are people” mantra…but corps do pay taxes and can give equally to any candidate, they are not confined to either party ideology…so playing field is not upset….and nothing is set it stone…the constitution is amendable
Lord Help Us
June 26th, 2012
12:38 pm
‘Please Pres Romney, do the right thing!!’
Which would be…??? a return to the old status quo…single payer…
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
12:39 pm
Romney will implement better healthcare reform
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
12:41 pm
“Romney will implement better healthcare reform”
like the one in Mass??? the one that’s EXACTLY like Obama’s plan???
Thomas Heyward Jr.
June 26th, 2012
12:41 pm
The Ron Paul army and other defenders of Personal Liberty……care NOT……….to peek under any government lawyer’s robe.
.
We leave that to girly men and other government pensioners/parasites.
.
And maybe the TSA…………(The Sandusky AgencyZ).
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
12:41 pm
E. Cat — “mantra…but corps do pay taxes and can give equally to any candidate”
Surely you’re not saying that the mere act of remitting taxes somehow creates a right for the taxed entity to vote, are you?
If so, I need to go talk to my estate attorney about getting a couple of extra cracks at the ballot box in November.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
12:42 pm
Way to stoke unnecessary cynicism about the court Jay
You did a good job today: you played your role in continuing to divide America
Sick
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
12:42 pm
USinUK — “like the one in Mass??? the one that’s EXACTLY like Obama’s plan???”
Well, you have to understand that they don’t know what was in Romneycare to start with. You see, they will have to pass it before they can see what’s in it.
n
June 26th, 2012
12:42 pm
Perhaps Scalia and Thomas’s ossified arteries (like those of many of the hordes of cranky, semi-senile middle aged and elderly Senators & Congressmen ) will finally succumb to the ever increasing stress of making crazed, irrational, and noxious decisions and sending the country into a continuous death spiral.
Maybe Obama will be re-elected and can appoint certifiably sane folks to replace them.
One can only hope.
barking frog
June 26th, 2012
12:42 pm
Jm
not unless he is elected.
RB from Gwinnett
June 26th, 2012
12:42 pm
Josef, when his opinion is just shy of 100% far left propaganda full of half truths being delivered from a pulpit as important to this city as the AJC, he’s doing a disservice to the people of this city. We the people deserve better.
I’d bet North Korea’s “opinion writers” are as objective in their posts as Jay. Think about it.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
12:42 pm
Usinuk that movie is absurd, and sad.
Says the guy who wrote that the Beatles were just an OK band.
(Huge eye roll and grin)
Corporal, you are not qualified to shine Carter’s boots. You’ve never accomplished anything at all remotely close to what that man has and you are very bitter about it.
Your religion and your politics have poisoned you. Because you have perverted both.
I suspect that most people recognize that there are essentially two kinds of Christians in this country.
First there is the Jimmy Carter type. The kind whose roots are centered in the civil rights movement and who has tried with much fervor to help the poor, the weak, the disenfranchised and the infirm. Regardless of their politics or views.
The there is the Republican type. Whose roots are centered in the Ku Klux Klan. And who is exemplified by Jerry Falwell, Pat Robertson, Ralph Reed, Newt Gingrich, George Walker Bush and several of our bloggers here. This kind works against the poor, the weak and the infirm. And seeks to further disenfranchise them. (Unless they believe lock, stock and barrel in the religion of Republicanism.)
The worst of the worst of this type have almost no compassion and are fiercely proud of their intolerance and self-righteousness. I would go so far as to say that more than a few of them actually enjoy seeing other human beings suffer.
They detest other religions, belief systems and even go so far as to speak of “false denominations”. They advocate endlessly for violence and hatred of other entire groups of people.
And it is because of them and their Christian animus towards others that church attendance in this country and around the civilized world is dropping faster than a drunken Tammy Faye in stilettos…
East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)
June 26th, 2012
12:43 pm
..do the rpubs have a plan…
**************************************
They do not. Wait it goes something like: “I will not settle for a temporary fix. I will work with both sides of the aisle for a permanant solution”
And just like the tatoo you got on spring break when you were drunk off your azzzz, you are not sure what it is or how much it cost but it is permanent.
Ahem
June 26th, 2012
12:43 pm
And all the little proggies cried “wee wee wee” all the way home. Any one confused as to why Sotomayor and Kagan were put on the court?!? Ginsburg? Hmmm…
Matti
June 26th, 2012
12:43 pm
“and what does he get for that bravery? dicks like Scout questioning his leadership skills and bravery.”
Once again, indeed.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
12:43 pm
Usinuk
Romneycare not the same as obamacare
Romney will implement healthcare reforms that will pass scotus review
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
12:44 pm
“Says the guy who wrote that the Beatles were just an OK band.”
well, let’s be fair … their music did VASTLY improve once they started doing drugs …
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
12:44 pm
RB — “he’s doing a disservice to the people of this city.”
I wasn’t aware that Jay worked for the city.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
12:44 pm
Based on his later views, I now question if he would have had the fortitude to carry out those responsibilities.
Fortitude?
It would take a lot more fortitude to ignore such orders, actually.
carlosgvv
June 26th, 2012
12:44 pm
I don’t think there were any boomers when Carter was in the Navy.
BeeJay
June 26th, 2012
12:45 pm
For an increasingly “partisan” Supreme Court, you blame ONLY one party? The court is stacked by partisan presidents as vacancies come up. Your stace is a real dumbass one. If the vote went the way you, as a liberal, Obama-ass-kissing sycophant, wanted, you wouldn’t be hollering “partisan” at all, now would you? DA.
MoreRightthanLeft
June 26th, 2012
12:45 pm
well lets defintley pass it before we read it…I believe Mitt will hire the smartest and brightest to fix problems..he will find solutions.He has made very good decisions his entire business career..career? something obama has never had.. Mitt is well qualified, but…he is a politician,..and i will hold him accountable and he will serve one term just like barry, if you screw it up..
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
12:46 pm
Usinuk has been gone so long she has forgotten the difference between a state and the federal government
Oh dear. Usinuk, back to kindergarten for you
208 more days
June 26th, 2012
12:46 pm
I personally do not approve of the CU ruling. Unless someone wants to make it a constutional amendment, we are stuck with it.
I see a lot of statements declaring this a GOP advantage, but surely no democrats take advantage of it……do they?
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
12:46 pm
their music did VASTLY improve once they started doing drugs …
Pretty sure their drug usage preceded all but their very earliest recording.
Dekalb comments
June 26th, 2012
12:46 pm
Jm-pass TPLOST silly people @ 12:43
Please enlighten us. I’m sure you have facts to support your assertions
(1) Please list the differences between RMoneycare and the ACA
(2) Please describe the health care reform that RMoney plans to introduce as soon as he is installed
Curious minds want to know.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
12:47 pm
All usinuk knows is they both have an individual mandate
So she thinks they’re the same
Hahahahahsshaha too funny
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
12:47 pm
I don’t think there were any boomers when Carter was in the Navy.
Should I admit that I scanned that as “boners” (and that it was much funnier that way)?
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
12:47 pm
Carlosgvv — “I don’t think there were any boomers when Carter was in the Navy.”
It seems that Carter was one of the earliest Naval officers to work in the nuclear program.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Naval_career
larry
June 26th, 2012
12:48 pm
..do the rpubs have a plan…
Here’s their plan…… Health Savings Accounts and tort reform . Also, dont get sick.
Good Luck.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
12:48 pm
“Usinuk has been gone so long she has forgotten the difference between a state and the federal government”
aw, diddums … you seem to forget that Mittens was in charge of SAID STATE, so we have, in fact SEEN his plan … which is how we have what we’ve got now
PJ
June 26th, 2012
12:49 pm
Jim163 @12:30 pm
You say tomato I say tomoto. It has the word insurance in its name and that makes it insurance.
Peadawg @12:36 pm
Here are some exemptions. Read them and weep.
http://technorati.com/business/small-business/article/corporate-exemptions-from-the-new-health/
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
12:50 pm
JM — “Usinuk has been gone so long she has forgotten the difference between a state and the federal government Oh dear. Usinuk, back to kindergarten for you”
You too, because a President can’t create, enforce or authorize legislation involving *state* programs.
If you want to talk about *substantive* diffferences between the two programs, then grow up and let’s dance.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
12:50 pm
Jm – http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011/11/15/us/politics/comparing-two-health-care-laws.html
here you go – sorry there aren’t more pictures to help you understand it better …
the two plans are nearly exactly alike, whether you want to acknowledge that or not.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
12:51 pm
Jm
“Romney will implement better healthcare reform”
What’ll that be?
I did go to his website. He said he’d issue an executive order to give waivers to all 50 states.
Based on Pres Obama’s departmental directive regarding children of immigrants, will conservatives stand for Pres Romney NOT ENFORCING THE LAW CONGRESS PASSED? (gotta put the caps in, right?)
Will conservatives be happy with Pres Romney for VIOLATING HIS OATH OF OFFICE?
Will they?
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
12:51 pm
“Bullock’s condemnation of the nation’s highest court as just “another political body” may sound harsh to some ears, but it is depressingly accurate.”
I never thought I would see the say when a liberal such as yourself, Jay, would complain so bitterly about the court upon which (even according to Obama himself) your kind has relied so heavily to effect legislative change that could have never come through the ballot box.
“The Montana law had been on the books for 100 years, and for most of those 100 years its constitutionality had not been called into serious question. It was considered well within established law.”
So was segregation for about 60 years. So I suppose your appeal to the longevity of a law fails.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
12:51 pm
Dekalb
Romneycare penalty was $50, not thousands like obamacare
Erwin's cat
June 26th, 2012
12:51 pm
JHM – “Surely you’re not saying that the mere act of remitting taxes somehow creates a right for the taxed entity to vote, are you?”
not at all…just saying, you can’t expect them to remain quite while writing a check….can you?
Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)
June 26th, 2012
12:51 pm
Doesn’t matter. Romney will never be President.
Which means 4 more years of Romney campaigning…..and then 4 years after that…and 4 years after that….
larry
June 26th, 2012
12:52 pm
I wonder if ACA is overturned , would that mean the HCA in Massachusetts is unconstitutional also ?
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 26th, 2012
12:52 pm
USinUK,
You are on such a roll!!! you’re…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MYITD8TMvcM&feature=related
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
12:52 pm
“Here are some exemptions. Read them and weep.”
That’s corporate, not individual. Try again.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
12:53 pm
“not at all…just saying, you can’t expect them to remain quite while writing a check….can you?”
there’s not being quiet – then there’s buying every effing microphone in town …
TiredOfIt
June 26th, 2012
12:53 pm
Say what you will about Carter, but he didn’t run around the white house joking about trying to fine WMD.
RB from Gwinnett
June 26th, 2012
12:54 pm
JHM, North Korea’s opinion writers don’t work for the people either.
Think…
larry
June 26th, 2012
12:54 pm
If a state can not force you to buy car insurance, they can’t force you to buy health insurance can they?
carlosgvv
June 26th, 2012
12:55 pm
Joe – 12:47
A “bommer” is slang for an ICBM missle firing submarine. I don’t think they were in service during Carter’s Navy years.
Butch Cassidy
June 26th, 2012
12:55 pm
Can’t wait to see these on bumpers everywhere.
Vote For Mitt Romney – The man who lost to the man who lost to Obama.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
12:56 pm
Normal – 12:52 – awwwwwwww … thanks! I’m just trying to live up to when you guys dedicated this to me (ages ago – but it made me laugh) http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgzvTHsOxSQ&feature=related
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
12:56 pm
E. Cat — “not at all…just saying, you can’t expect them to remain quite while writing a check….can you?”
Yes. Because I had to when I was in the Army.
I could vote and make political donations, but I couldn’t attend a partisan political rally.
Regs may have changed, but I don’t see where a political donation creates any kind of rights for someone or something. In fact, I’d say that something like that is uncomfortably close to a BRIBE.
Erwin's cat
June 26th, 2012
12:56 pm
USinUK…i guess it’s time to get in the microphone business then
Native Atlantan
June 26th, 2012
12:56 pm
ha…well done Butch…well done…
Dekalb comments
June 26th, 2012
12:57 pm
JMm-TSPLOST @ 12:51
I believe the maximum under the ACA is $300.00. Even if it is higher, the issue everyone is so worked up about is not the amount, it is the fact there is a requirement to purchase private health insurance or be subject to a fee/fine.
The ACA has no enforcement mechanism. The law specifically says if someone is subject to the fee/fine, the IRS may not place a lien, levy, garnishment or any other instruments to collect the fee. Further no one can ever be subject to imprisonment for failure to pay.
Now I have to ask why have the fee if it is uncollectable and failure to pay is not subject to some kind of recourse but that said. As a practical matter the mandate or requirement is aspirational.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
12:57 pm
RB — “JHM, North Korea’s opinion writers don’t work for the people either. Think…”
I *am* thinking. Clearly *you’re* not.
Jay’s an opinion writer. He writes his opinion. If it pizzes you off, then go read someone else’s opinion.
QED.
godless heathen
June 26th, 2012
12:57 pm
Perhaps Scalia and Thomas’s ossified arteries (like those of many of the hordes of cranky, semi-senile middle aged and elderly Senators & Congressmen ) will finally succumb to the ever increasing stress of making crazed, irrational, and noxious decisions
Is this compassionate liberalism again wishing death on those they disagree with?
East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)
June 26th, 2012
12:58 pm
Doesn’t matter. Romney will never be President.
******************************************
Finally someone else who understands the electoral college.
http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/ecalculator#?battleground
Erwin's cat
June 26th, 2012
12:58 pm
JHM – “Regs may have changed, but I don’t see where a political donation creates any kind of rights for someone or something. In fact, I’d say that something like that is uncomfortably close to a BRIBE.”
I agree…and they can bribe both sides equally…I don’t believe it gives either side a political advantage
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
12:59 pm
USinUK – pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout :
“dicks like Scout questioning his leadership skills and bravery.”
Be careful ………… you might go the way of Kamchuck !
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
12:59 pm
I cannot remember what fifth tier band that Jm put ahead of the Beatles, but it was a Grade A belly laugh, for sure! As I noted, the guy is consistent across a wide variety of topics!
The overwhelming majority of you Republicans that call yourselves conservatives are a very bad joke.
You are not conservatives. In many ways, you are anything but.
You are corporatists. And you fight for a corporate government. You love it that Washington DC is corporate owned territory and that there are literally thousands of corproate lobbyists that now run the show in OUR capital. They write the laws that screw you over and you can’t get enough.
Hundreds of billions of dollars every single year in socialism and corporate welfare, handouts, giveaways, bailouts and taxpayer paid subsidies and what do you bitch endlessly about? Poor families getting a tiny slice of that action.
Our civil liberties and civil rights have been shredded in the past few years and who do you root for? The job destroying corporations that Uncle Sam rewards to spy on you.
Please, all of you move to Singapore or some such place so that you can give your sovereignty away there!
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
12:59 pm
Erwin –
– does that mean we’ll be reading about the Erwin’s Cat PAC launching soon???
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:00 pm
Joe Hussein Mama :
Got you goat !!
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
1:00 pm
Scout – doing the time for doing the crime – I have no problem with calling you out for what you are.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:01 pm
RMoney.
I love that.
Think they will put that on his “Every Millionaire Counts” tour bus?
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
1:01 pm
“I believe the maximum under the ACA is $300.00″
You would be wrong. In addition, they do levy the penalty through your taxes, so ultimately they will get it.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:01 pm
Jm163:
“trigger, button, knob, device, initiator …………. whatever”.
John Birch
June 26th, 2012
1:01 pm
Two of the Republican leaning justices are the most likely to go against the party lines, Kennedy and Roberts, with Breyer probably third. The three girls vote the Dem/lib line 98.7% of the time, just like Scalia, Thomas and Alito are staunch conservatives. If Obamanationcare is upheld, it will be because Kennedy and/or Roberrts vote with the libs. I’ve got $10 for anyone that wants to bet Ginsberg, Kagan, or Sotomayor will vote against the obviously unconstitutional ACA.
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
1:01 pm
” … just another political body”
When you don’t agree with them.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
1:01 pm
“I cannot remember what fifth tier band that Jm put ahead of the Beatles, but it was a Grade A belly laugh, for sure!”
One Direction!
ragnar danneskjold
June 26th, 2012
1:02 pm
Only leftists think people lose their right to comment on politics when they bind together and pool their funds, as a corporation, or not-for-profit, or a union.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
1:02 pm
Liberals fail every day, they must love it
Romney also didn’t levy a tax on investments to pay for the bill
PJ
June 26th, 2012
1:02 pm
Peadawg @12:52 pm
But, but, but…corporations are People. The SCOTUS say so.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
1:02 pm
Do any on the Right here support the Court’s initial decision, disagree with the Montana court and agree with the Court’s decision to refuse reconsideration?
If so, why?
All I’ve read so far is ducking.
carlosgvv
June 26th, 2012
1:03 pm
To be ruled by ideas for which you have no evidence is generally a sign that something is seriously wrong with your mind. And yet, Jimmy Carter, a “born again Christian”, ruled by tenets which cannot be supported by any evidence, was given our Nation’s nuclear trigger. It’s amazing we havn’t been blown away in WWIII by now. That kind of good luck won’t continue indefinitely. We must start electing atheists and agnostics to our highest political offices and stop giving this kind of power to people who still have a Santa Claus mindset.
RDL
June 26th, 2012
1:03 pm
I don’t bother to read all of this stuff, but I assume someone has told you all that corporations have been “persons” in Georgia for both criminal and civil purposes for a number of years. Check out OCGA 1-3-3 (14). Where ever the term “person” is found in the Georgia Code, the term includes corporations. I would imagine it is the same in many states.
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
1:04 pm
Keep trying PJ. You sure do get an A for effort.
Oblama
June 26th, 2012
1:04 pm
Obama appointed people that agree with his views. What’s new about that? He’s partisan an so are they.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
1:04 pm
“Liberals fail every day, they must love it”
says the “independent”
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:04 pm
USinUK – pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout :
I understand fully. You are a typical liberal that resorts to personal name calling rather than debate.
We are all entitled to our opinions on here.
That’s the American way.
What yours ?
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
1:05 pm
Romney didn’t levy a tax on medical devices to pay for his bill
What’s this, they’re “EXACTLY the same”?
Only due to the largesse of government due many liberals survive
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
1:05 pm
“Obama appointed people that agree with his views. What’s new about that? He’s partisan an so are they.”
which makes him different from every other president … how, exactly???
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
1:05 pm
Romneycare penalty was $50
If the objective is for Mitt to win, I wouldn’t be mentioning “$50” in the same breath as “Romneycare” if I were you.
see also
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qji6J76Hyrw
and
https://www.mahealthconnector.org/portal/binary/com.epicentric.contentmanagement.servlet.ContentDeliveryServlet/About%20Us/Connector%20Programs/Additional%20Resources/cc_benefits1220_pt234.pdf
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
1:06 pm
“You are a typical liberal that resorts to personal name calling rather than debate.”
riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight … and your sliming of Jimmy Carter’s service in the Navy was, what exactly??? showing your fellow vet respect??? you call that “debate”???
josef
June 26th, 2012
1:06 pm
RB
I realize that from the far right perspective Jay probably does look far left. From the far left, he looks pretty centrist. In my experience with him, I have found him to be absolutely blinded by his conservative stances on certain issues. But it matters little what you or I think, it’s his front porch and he’s the boss. And bottom line, he’s quite tolerant of opinions that diverge from his own and gives a lot of us social malcontents a place to come to vent and keeps us off the street. All in all, he does perform a public service.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
1:06 pm
Fees are different from Taxes. Just like offshoring being different from outsourcing, doncha know.
Manchurian-Kenyan Candidate...er, I mean President
June 26th, 2012
1:07 pm
“Instead, they based their dissent on the fact that Montana had no choice but to bow to the federal court’s greater authority, however irrational it might be.”
….replace “Montana” with “Arizona” and we can make the same argument about immigration, right??
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:07 pm
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all Corporations are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator – the United States Supreme Court – with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Personhood. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Corporations, deriving their just powers from the consent of the Board of Governors, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the Corporations to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Profits and Immunity from Law.
RDL
June 26th, 2012
1:09 pm
Just for yucks and grins, here is the Montana definition of a person under its Rules of Civil Procedure: Definition of Person. As used in this rule, the word “person,” whether or not a citizen or resident of this state and whether or not organized under the laws of this state, includes an individual whether operating in the individual’s own name or under a trade name; an individual’s agent or personal representative; a corporation; a limited liability company; a business trust; an estate; a trust; a partnership; an unincorporated association; and any two or more persons having a joint or common interest or any other legal or commercial entity.
Evidently a corporation can be a person in Montana when it is necessary.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
1:09 pm
Usinuk
If this blog was populated with dozens of ignorant cons, you’d hear me giving the the boot too
Which I do on occasion, in particular with the racist ones
But since jay is racist, he doesn’t seem to mind them much
Obama is over
June 26th, 2012
1:09 pm
Bro @ 12:21
I am well aware of the responsibilities of the Executive Branch. Perhaps you should write the President and remind him of his role- he seems to have forgotten in the midst of all this fund raising. Obama has routinely enacted rules through his agency appointees like the EPA, Energy Dept, and HHS to achieve his goals rather than trying to put together a bipartisan coalition in Congress.Your post confirms that Obama’s executive immigration order last week is illegal and unenforcable because he circumvented Congress- and thus it is not a law. Pure 100% pandering to the Hispanic vote Yes, Washington has been corrupted by lobbyists and money for generations. To imply that the SCOTUS is partisan because of corporate contributions is the height of hypocrisy when the current administration is actively soliciting corporate contributions because Obama needs four more years to complete his agenda for his people. Perhaps the reason major 2008 donors are not supporting Obama this go around is that he has not fulfilled his promises from 2008 and he does not seem to have any new ideas or meaningful agenda moving forward. Who knows, maybe Tyler Perry will write him a check tonight to cover the Dem convention in Charlotte. Otherwise, people may not bother to go.
RB from Gwinnett
June 26th, 2012
1:09 pm
JHM, are you prepared to apply that same logic to the conservatives you disagree with?
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:10 pm
You are a typical liberal that resorts to personal name calling rather than debate.
Ex-pat, looks like you got someone’s goat…
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
1:11 pm
“Downside it, this may be the one addition to abortion that conservatives get impassioned about. “Money is speech and the more speech the better!” Yeah, they’ll convince themselves of that, too.”
I guess if nudity is “speech” than why not money, huh? Have you ever complained here about the former opinion of the court on this blog?
“I did notice that there were plenty of posts of the ‘Jay’s whining again” variety, but near as I could tell, not one of those bloggers would state why they agree with the Court’s decision and think the Wyoming court had it wrong.”
I merely pointed out the irony of liberals bitterly complaining about a ruling from a court they have relied upon heavily to effect de facto legislative change. As to the ruling, I generally think we need to find a way to sever politicians (Democrats and Republicans alike from money) or else we will likely never overcome our problems. But I am at this point numb to the ways in which the actual Constitution has been subverted by all three branches of the federal government throughout this nation’s history. The sad fact is that the SCOTUS has almost always been political to some extent (I mean “separate but equal” sounds almost Orwellian).
“Then again, that’s not a surprise, is it?”
Neither should almost any ruling from the SCOTUS surprise.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
1:11 pm
Scout – or does “Hopefully, like Ensign Pulver, he was in charge of “laundry and morale”.” count as “debate” in your teenytinybrain???
please. the man helped clean up a nuclear meltdown and you’re calling his bravery and capabilities in question? talk about not fit to lick his radioactive boots … but, oh, how I wish you would.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:11 pm
E. Cat — “I agree…and they can bribe both sides equally…I don’t believe it gives either side a political advantage”
Come now. Bribes aren’t protected speech. Whether or not they confer an advantage is irrelevant.
Truth
June 26th, 2012
1:11 pm
“For at least a quarter of a century, the Republican Party has made the creation of such a court one of its primary goals”
So Ginsberg, Sotomayor, and Kagan AREN’T the most partisan of the Justices? RIIIIGHT. I would remind you that Kennedy is a Republican appointee, as was Souter and Stevens. All moderate to liberal. The Democratic appointees, however, vote lock-step down the progressive party line.