Yesterday we didn't see a Supreme Court ruling we saw law

[NJmaverick]

being made by the right wing five.

[joeybee12]

1. Judidical activism at its finest...n/t

[Echo In Light]

10. Yes. Another projective criticism the RW uses

[mnhtnbb]

2. Hey, after seeing the right wing five tell us who is president, why not?

[NJmaverick]

3. True, guess you could say they were testing the waters on that one

[mmonk]

4. That is correct.

It is a law very similar to the one that made corporations people in the first place. Bad law I might add.

[NJmaverick]

6. People that don't have to pay taxes like we do or are limited in their campaign contributions

like we are. People who don't serve in our nation's military or serve on juries or do anything to help our nation. People of international orgin that have little to no interest in our nation's well being.

[mmonk]

11. Yep.

[FreakinDJ]

5. The original decision granting Personhood to Corporations

was equally bigoted

John A. Bingham the member of Congress who is known to have been chiefly responsible for the phraseology of Section One when it was drafted by the Joint Committee in 1866, had, during the previous decade and as early as 1856-1859, employed not one but all three of the same clauses and concepts he later used in Section One. More important still, Bingham employed these guarantees specifically and in a context which suggested that free Negroes and mulattoes rather than corporations and business enterprise unquestionably were the persons' to which he then referred.


Before the Supreme Court determined that corporations were persons and hence had constitutional rights female citizens had decided that the Fourteenth Amendment should be interpreted to give them the right to vote. In Minor v. Happersett the Supreme Court ruled that "women" were not persons for the purposes of the Fourteenth Amendment.

http://www.iiipublishing.com/afd/santaclara.html

[LuckyTheDog]

7. Make THIS your Facebook status

"Money is not speech and human beings -- not corporations -- are persons entitled to constitutional rights. If you agree, copy this into your Facebook status and encourage others to do the same."

[timeforpeace]

8. Either way it went it was law.

[Romulox]

9. This is a truism--EVERY SCOTUS opinion has the force of law. nt

[mac56]

12. But.... but... the RW is opposed to "ruling from the bench"!!!!!1!

:eyes:

[NJmaverick]

15. The rank hypocrisy makes me wretch

[mac56]

18. Remember, Republicans are less bothered by hypocrisy than normal people are.

[NJmaverick]

19. So it seems

[tranche]

13. Isn't this the lesson DU wanted Obama to learn?

[Kablooie]

14. There are no standards the SCOTUS are held to other than the other judge's opinions.

They are perfectly free to redefine and make law all they want to as a group.

[immoderate]

21. Yes. The law is what the Supreme Court says it is.

They don't get paid for making good law, just law.

--imm

[mzmolly]

16. Exactly. Their job is to interpret law, not make it.

:(

[NJmaverick]

17. Not any more. The days of SCOTUS protection our civil liberties

or even just the American people are over and gone.

[B Calm]

20. That's exactly what I saw too. So why don't our congress make a

new law forbidding corporations funding elections?