Coup

[madamesilverspurs]

---

[Myrina]

1. ... completed what they started in 2000 ...

:mad:

[dgibby]

5. Completed what Prescott Bush and his buddies started in the '40's.

BFEE is probably dancing in the streets today.

[deminks]

6. Yup, they decided that one, and they decided all the next ones.

Can't have any populist person of color wrecking their big plans.

[Echo In Light]

14. Yes - but that's just a "conspiracy theory."

:sarcasm:

[kenny blankenship]

2. For the second time in a decade

This is one of the darkest days for America I've lived to see.

[G_j]

3. K&R

[KittyWampus]

4. Agreed. Unions will now have to step up to the plate.

[BP2]

10. Unions vs the Corporations - who's going to have deeper pockets to contribute to the campaigns of

candidates who support Big Business?

No guessing required on that one!

[TexasObserver]

7. It's time to expand the Supreme Court to 15 members.

Dust off FDR's plan and get us a new Supreme Court majority. This one is anti democratic, a relic of the early Depression days.

[DisgustedInMN]

8. The sellout is complete.

Time to look for a real underground.

America, I mourn your passing. Perhaps we will rebuild the dream from your ashes.

[earth mom]

9. The only thing left now is pitchforks, but everyone is too weighed down & afraid to go there.

[readmoreoften]

15. I'm not scared.

(Goin on a banker hunt. Gonna catch a BIG one.... I'm not scared. )

[madamesilverspurs]

11. The "for sale" signs on congress

are no longer necessary.


---

[madamesilverspurs]

12. Andrea Mitchell on MSNBC is doing in-depth analysis

on John Edwards' love child.


Sheeyut.

[Subdivisions]

13. Again. n/t

[piratefish08]

16. Right under the noses of the largest majority we've had in years.

it's just fucking sad.

[chat_noir]

17. Supreme Loophole

The Supreme Court in their calculated effort to overturn campaign finance laws has opened a loophole for foreign control of our government. The effort by Chief Justice Roberts and the conservatives on the court to justify corporate dominance over our election process is a threat to Homeland security.

Most large corporations now consider themselves "multi-national" corporations with international owners, international interests and objectives, and potentially foreign government owned corporations based in the US. Exactly where would the Supreme Court draw this line? Today there is a clear and indisputable line between foreign government involvements in our elections process. But when foreign governments buy US corporations through their government owned business, these businesses become proxies of that government. Thus the Supreme Court is allowing direct access to our government. This gives foreign powers more control than US citizens.

Even the more fundamental aspects of the Supreme Courts’ activism in this case are dangerous to our country. Where in our Constitution does it equate money with Free Speech? The right to petition the Government can be done with out giving a politician a single penny. Free Speech can be accomplished without a dime. If money equals Free Speech, than those with more money get more Free Speech. This is the antithesis of “One Man, One Vote” and “Fair and equal representation for all”.

And where in our Constitution does it state that Corporations/Unions are citizens (born or naturalized) that grants them the rights of citizens? Corporations cannot be jailed like citizens. Would it not be fair to assume that collections of individuals can freely express their speech outside of the entities they belong?

The move by the Supreme Court to table this issue in crisis mode is meant to bring it up before Justice Kennedy retires, and while the public is distracted with health care reform, is disgraceful. The calculated manner in which the issue was being tabled constitute an “Activist Court.” There is no way that Justice Scalia’s "Originalism Doctrine" can justify that this was our Founders intentions. The reckless actions by the Court constitute a breach of national security.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724_Comments.html#

[DisgustedInMN]

18. Excellent piece.

Does anyone know if it's possible to impeach and remove Supreme Court Justices for treason?

Or should we just hire...