The United States Supreme Court has ruled that Corporations can now defend themselves against ruthless politicians who are bent on their destruction, and this is only fare. Why would you restrict a corporation from defending itself in the public arena, in the political arena? Would you also say that a corporation cannot defend itself in a court of law? Would you have corporations stripped of every right that an individual has? Just how far would you go in making corporations defenseless against those who seek their destruction?
And what about Unions, should they be denied the right of free speech too? Should they not be able to present to the public their position on election issues? Just how much do you want to restrict public discourse during an election, just how much information do you want to hold back from the voter?
The best thing about this ruling is that it will lift that ridiculous ban on groups like the NRA from presenting issue ads within 60 days of an election. This in itself is cause for celebration. We will now be able to hear the other side of the gun issue right up until the election takes place, which is when we need to hear it, not 60 days prior when no one is listening.
Some say that this ruling will take the power away from the people, but I say that it will do just the opposite. During these last few elections my voice on gun control has not been heard because the organization that I belong to, the NRA, was muzzled by the federal government from presenting issue ads, but no more. I will now have my voice heard through the NRA. This is what we call freedom, the freedom to present to the intelligent electorate all of the facts so that they can make an informed decision when they vote. The key phrase here is “intelligent electorate”, the liberals do not believe that we are intelligent.
There are of course some issues about this ruling that will have to be dealt with by congress though legislation such as the ability of foreign corporations to spend money in our elections, and other issues that will arise in the future, but that is normal, it is part of the process, the world will not come to an end. There is no reason for anyone to demonize the Supreme Court for this ruling, like President Obama did when he said that this ruling “strikes at our democracy”, and that the ruling is “devastating to the public interest”, and that his administration will need to “repair the damage” done by the Supreme Court.
Does Obama really think that the five Justices who were in favor of this ruling want to damage our country, damage our Republic? Is he insane? Some might argue that saying such a thing is like the pot calling the kettle black, meaning that some believe that it is Obama who is out to destroy this country, not the Supreme Court, and in fact I would ague that the Supreme Court is the one thing that will stand in his way.
I will now end by quoting myself from my home page (my channel):
“President Bush’s greatest legacy will be his appointments of Alito and Roberts to the Supreme Court; they have, and will continue to fight for our freedom.”
jbranstetter04
Here is the ruling in its entirety. You might want to read it instead of watching The Simpson’s: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
High court shows it might be willing to act boldly
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. and his conservative colleagues overturned two of the court’s past decisions to upend federal legislation that says corporations may not use their profits to support or oppose candidates and to declare unconstitutional a large portion of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance reform act passed in 2002.
The dissent was written by Stevens, he wrote of his conservative colleagues’ “agenda” and said they had transformed a simple case about whether a conservative group’s movie about Hillary Rodham Clinton violated McCain-Feingold into a constitutional quandary. “Essentially, five justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.”
But Roberts bristled at Stevens’s charge that the majority’s opinion showed it was not “serious about judicial restraint.”
“This approach is based on a false premise: that our practice of avoiding unnecessary (and unnecessarily broad) constitutional holdings somehow trumps our obligation faithfully to interpret the law,” Roberts wrote. “It should go without saying, however, that we cannot embrace a narrow ground of decision simply because it is narrow; it must also be right.”
Roberts seemed to be speaking to liberals when he wrote that stare decisis cannot be seen as an “inexorable command.”
“If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional and the government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants,” he said, referring to previous court decisions.
Duration : 0:10:49
[youtube viXX5lx5dDI]
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
the patriot act was …
the patriot act was formed in a time our national security was at risk to fight terrorism we need to use this act somehow or at least the stategy that was used to make the patriot act fly, and overide this decsion by creating an act that protects us(WE THE PEOPLE) we are being threaten as a free nation by this ruling.
it should be as simple as a corporation is not a person
therefor making the ruling null and void.
where’s GEORGE WASHINGTON? i know he still exits in spirit.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
i say we outright …
i say we outright boycott any and all corporations that abuse this ruling. name them, make them very public and don’ t do business with them. they need all of us(THE MAJORITY) more than we need them. put them out of business…. fight this ruling….We need to check the Patriot Act and deem this ruling to be a threat to our national security therefor giving the people of this country every right to overturn this decision.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
the laws were meant …
the laws were meant to protect all citizens of this country not just those who can afford it. laws should not be manipulated to the point they become a paradox. the election will be bought it will be senselees to vote. this a matter of national security this Supreme Court decision should be overturned under the patriot act as the patriot act has made all sorts of allowances regarding other national security issues,why not this ? this is treason,it is a matter of the interpetation of law.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Just as a …
Just as a government speaks through it’s voters, the corporation should speak through it’s shareholders actions. Through It’s customers opinions and loyalty. Not through a CEO’s special interest motivations. We’re giving up our individuality here. No longer our voice but now THE VOICE.
.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
Pack your bags …
Pack your bags People. Your country just took a down your neck. billion dollar corporations now own Washington. Obama. im sorry i voted for you now. you are not doing what you promised.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
The Radical …
The Radical Progressive Left has their panties in a knot because THEIR corporate media just LOST its monopoly on political speech.
Finally ALL corporations (not just MSNBC, CNBC, FOX, PBS, ABC, NBC) have equal access to air time!
As long as the advertising is correct and not a lie, then we can NEVER have too much information!
BTW, there are all kinds of laws on the books to prevent Defamation which is any wrongful injury to the reputation of a person or entity.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
wow, an actual …
wow, an actual thoughtfullview on the issue, rather than the same bland oh no corporations are the spawn of satan and will control everything now bs.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
I do not think …
I do not think corporations should be involved in our politial process. Niether should unions. But the american public is to blame for this not the corporations and the unions. If people would read what is going on about politicians and issues and not take only 1 source we would not have this problem. and as far as the time we have not allowed this we did have slavery in this country for 84 years or so and it was wrong the whole time. lets not discuss how it is tradition.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
If corporations …
If corporations have no free speech, then the New York Times, Fox News and YouTube have no free speech. This means congress can regulate every Newspaper article, every television show and every video and comment posted on You Tube. This is incompatible with a free society.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
When are right wing …
When are right wing fascists going shut up and listen to facts, rather than engage in nonsense dialogue that involves their circular logic. Here is a clue, don’t look at things from a corporate centric view. But, I know by your fake patriot dis-info babbling that it would be impossible. If the corporation did something wrong the individual (’s) who was part of the contract would be taken to court! Get it yet? We all know by now that you a corporate shill boot-licker so stop trying.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
I understand your …
I understand your concerns, as they are my concerns too. I just see it as a matter of law. I am not a lawyer, and I did not study this case, but I trust in the 5 Justices that ruled the way that they did. The others I cannot speak of, but I hope that they ruled based on law and not what they think is best for the country, because that is their job, the law, not how they feel. Now it is up to congress to fine tune this thing, or to the people to change the constitution.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
yes there is a big …
yes there is a big difference. i have no problem with the NRA givivng opinion based not lie based adds during elections. You know however that the real power here is going to be HUGE corporations who have profit motives only. Not principals or ideals, but profit motives. Say a security firm wants a govt. contract to protect a city from crime. They may fight against the NRA to take away your gun rights so they can profit better. Im saying thats fucked. Dont care if their liberal or conservative.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
“Corporations …
“Corporations should NEVER be in courts because their original existence was contracted and sanctioned by the government to “serve the public interest.” Case closed.”
You’re delusional. You need to join the real world. So now you are saying that people should not be allowed to sue corporations for their negligence. So what are we supposed to do, let the corporations just walk all over us?
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
“You…always talk …
“You…always talk about keeping govt out of business…how about keeping business out of govt ”
I agree with you in principle about keeping corporations from having “too” much influence in how our country is run, but here is the but, butt don’t get excited, they’re controlled by the government so I don’t see why they shouldn’t be allowed to inform the voter on the issues. There’s a difference between regular corporations and ones like the NRA that advocate on behalf of regular Americans.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
So we shut a few …
So we shut a few dissenting people up because they might influence the way people vote? Hmmmm… where have I heard that before?
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
I didn’t realise …
I didn’t realise you got off by people calling you names. Again, if you want people to take you seriously then don’t do what you’re doing now… if not then keep it up!
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
how about tea …
how about tea bagging persons?
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
whay do you hate …
whay do you hate America? Do you want the terrorists to win?
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
at least …
at least jbranstetter04 had a comeback. His may have been to call me gay which doesnt bother me cause i think gay people rock. yours is just kinda sad
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
George Soros has …
George Soros has some competition. Why would we want only some rich people to have free speech? Either all rich people or no rich people.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
If corporations are …
If corporations are equivalent to persons and must have free speech…what about Artificial Intelligence programs? Shouldn t the free speech argument also work for them? Why shouldn t they be considered a person and have free speech too?
The whole concept is ridiculous, corporations are not people and that is all. Corporations do not vote, die, go to prison or even able to talk in a microphone. Corporations are legal entities and not persons. Argueing the opposite is simply stupid.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
lol and add that …
lol and add that one to why the WHOLE world laughs at the United States. What happened to you America? You are the laughing stock of the world.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
@mwg323 You are a …
@mwg323 You are a dirty neo-conservative Trotskyite just like Bill Kristol and Charles Krauthammer. Globalists and communists like you are just scum. I hope you enjoy living like a roach in the corporate state. You dumbass. I hope you get gonorrhea.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
The court’s …
The court’s decision is ridiculous. Our country was founded to prevent such corporate control as expressed through such companies as the Virginia Company. But ever since, we’ve been losing ground. This is the last straw. “Defend themselves”…HA! What a ridiculous justification for the undermining of our electoral process.
February 25th, 2010 at 8:31 am
It is fortunate …
It is fortunate that Thomas Jefferson is DEAD, because his head would explode. The five Justices, many x-corporate shills, know nothing (strike that – CARE nothing) about the foundations of this country. Jefferson wanted protections against monopolies written into the constitution: he knew the people needed to be protected from the corporation. “The definition of Fascism is the marriage or corporation and state.” By definition, these five justices and anyone who supports this are Fascist.