the real John Roberts revealed...

[JohnWxy]

[havocmom]

1. Did anybody ever get to the bottom of how he managed to adopt those Irish kids?

:shrug:

[Demeter]

9. What, a Good Catholic Rich Man Like Him?

[havocmom]

15. Irish laws are SUPPOSED to be pretty strict

There was some discussion about that when he was up for confirmation.

[louis-t]

2. I need to see posters of HIM with the Hitler mustache.

[Tippy]

3. Good one.....

[CJCRANE]

Maybe Harriet Myers wouldn't have been so bad after all...

[blm]

4. Some of us saw the Fascism marching along for the last few decades and warned others here.....

we were ignored or laughed at.

Your graphic is TOO, TOO true.

[BrklynLiberal]

12. Sinclair Lewis warned the US about it in 1935

"When fascism comes to America, it will be wrapped in the flag and carrying a cross."
It Can't Happen Here

[blm]

17. Unfortunately, even some DUers don't see the Fascism, even after the last ten years of blatant

corporatism and this Roberts' SC ruling.

[shireen]

5. why?

I don't like his conservative policies, but the use of the swastika makes me uncomfortable because of its association to the holocaust.

[MineralMan]

6. Using the swastika in this country as a political tool is a major

mistake, no matter who does it.

[JohnWxy]

7. except when it applies. Ruling corporations have the same rights as people is blatantly fallacious.

Making a ruling that is nonsense, and completely unsupportable indicates he is doing this as a matter of ideology. Corporations are not people. THey are not "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". They are machines. Economic machines which are granted by the gonvernment certain powers in order to conduct business. Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution. The corporation was an adaptation to business needs that evolved in the law. That does NOT, however, mean that corporations enjoy rights as human beings do. Only people have rights.

The decision to grant corporations the unlimited right of free speech will result in the government being owned and managed by corporations. The system where Government is run with business and corporate interests as it's first priority is known as Fascism.

[harkadog]

8. It doesn't apply here.

You don't have a clue about the economic and political structure of Germany, do you?

[immoderate]

10. Why not? Sounds like Fascism to me.

Germany was only one of many fascist countries.

--imm

[BrklynLiberal]

11. The Swastika has had many meanings thruout history...

Its association with Fascist Germany is the latest..but currently best known.
It is a symbol of Fascism.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swastika

Because of its use by Hitler and the Nazis and, in modern times, by neo-Nazis and other hate groups, the swastika is largely associated with Nazism and white supremacy (see Western use of the Swastika in the early 20th century) in most of the Western countries. As a result, all of its use, or its use as a Nazi or hate symbol is prohibited in some jurisdictions. Because of the stigma attached to the symbol, many buildings that have contained the symbol as decoration have had the symbol removed. Steven Heller, of the School of Visual Arts, has argued that from the moment it was "misappropriated" by the Nazis, it became a mark and weapon of hate, and could not be redeemed.<57>

[JohnWxy]

18. Well now, are you talking about the Germany of today? That would be quite irrelevant wouldn't it?

[MineralMan]

16. It's the easy way out. Instead of providing information regarding

the man's positions, you post a lame reference to Hitler's Germany. It's a lazy thing to do, and doesn't actually apply, in any case.

Perhaps it is the best you're capable of. If that's the case, then I'd advise skipping the commentary. If not, then please try harder.

[JohnWxy]

19. I suggest you read what the hell I posted

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=103&topic_id=512695&mesg_id=512718

" Making a ruling that is nonsense, and completely unsupportable indicates he is doing this as a matter of ideology. Corporations are not people. THey are not "endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights". They are machines. Economic machines which are granted by the gonvernment certain powers in order to conduct business. Corporations are not mentioned in the constitution. The corporation was an adaptation to business needs that evolved in the law. That does NOT, however, mean that corporations enjoy rights as human beings do. Only people have rights.

The decision to grant corporations the unlimited right of free speech will result in the government being owned and managed by corporations. The system where Government is run with business and corporate interests as it's first priority is known as Fascism."

[JohnWxy]

20. and here:

Do Corporations have a right to free speech, it looks like the Roberts court plans on granting it

"They want to give corporations the right of freedom of speech like citizens have. This is bullshit. They also keep talking like a corporation and a union are the same. bullshit. A union has a governing board elected on a one man one vote principal. A corporate board of directors is controlled by the largest shareholders. IT is NOT based upon each shareholder haveing an equal vote. A corporation is an economic artifice given certain rights (e.g. to form contracts, and to file suits in court) of individuals FOR PURPOSE OF ENGAGING IN BUSINESS TRANSACTIONS. That does NOT mean they really are people, with inalienable rights recognized by the Constitution. They are economic machines. Machines do not have rights!

If managers, business owners want to form an organization of businessmen they can (and do) and they can engage in campaigning for candidates and issues just as unions can. That does not mean a corporation should be treated like an organization of people or like a person. A corporation is an economic machine. Arguing it has a right to free speech is bullshit."

[JohnWxy]

21. and read this:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=103&topic_id=479748


This is just an excerpt go to link to read my entire post.

" Roberts: "...let's say, if you have 10 individuals and they each contribute $1,000 to a corporation, and they say, "We want this corporation to convey a particular message," why can't they do that, when if they did that as a partnership, it would be all right?"

ELENA KAGAN: Well, it sounds to me as though the corporation that you're describing is the corporation of the kind that we have in this case, where one can assume that the members all sign on to the corporation's ideological mission, where the corporation, in fact, has an ideological mission."


With regard to the hypothetical situation Roberts mused about, the reality is corporations are controlled by the stockholders who own the most shares of common stock. One or a few stockholders can hold a significant percentage of the stock outstanding and they have far more control over what the corporation does than thousands of other stockholders who own far fewer shares of stock. Influence over the what the board of directors and the CEO decides is based on how much of the corporation you own. This is entirely different than a pertnership or an organization of businessmen or a union where each member has a vote equal to that of each of the other members.

With a corporation millions of dollars contributed by thousands of stockholders and customers can be (and usually is) controlled by a relative few major stockholders. The concentration of control in the hands of a few, means Roberts hypothetical situation of stockholders with equal influence on what the corporation does, is not an accurate depiction of reality with regard to 99% of the corporations in the U.S. KAGAN could have pointed this out but did not.

The whole idea of Corporations having a RIGHT to Free speech is asinine. Corporations are granted limited rights as economic entities to engage in business transactions. They have none of the responsiblities of citizens. They are machines created to accumulate wealth. A machine does not have rights which we have recognized humans have. A machine does not have the right to vote nor does it have a right to free speech. Free speech can only be exercised by humans because human beings have a concience. Corporations, like all machines, do not have conciences. They only have 'purpose' but no sense of responsibility. Therefor there is no such thing as "free speech" as far as corporations and machines go. "
(more)

[Cronus Protagonist]

13. I wonder what kinds of things this guy has hidden in his closet

I expect that we could open a goodwill shop of horrors if he were investigated thoroughly. Mr. Flynt, are you listening? Help us out here.

[Bitwit1234]

14. Isn't there some way his interview with congress can be made public

then each item he was asked and answered reviewed and checked to see if there is a blatant lie there. If they can impeach a president over lying about a sex act, why in the hell can't this creep be impeached for lying to congress. And while we are at it how about Alitio.

[JohnWxy]

22. Here's the link to the transcripts of the confirmation hearing of John Roberts. Once they're

approved and appointed, they are pretty much on there for life.

http://www.asksam.com/ebooks/releases.asp?file=JGRHearing.ask