Rightwingers NEED to KNOW: Bush/Reagan ENTIRELY to blame for 'corporate free speech' decision.

[lostnfound]

Everyone here may have known it, but this is a critical issue, and disinformation is deeper than you think. I wouldn't have guessed anyone could blame Obama for the Supreme Court decision overturning limits on corporate funding of political advertising, but with the distortion that is Fox News, anything is apparently possible.

A fellow I know (a nice guy -- pleasant, polite, good at his job -- but sadly, a Fox, Rush and Drudge addict) was extremely upset with the recent Supreme Court decision..and extremely upset with Obama about it.

In other news, the sky is green and the grass is blue.

Needless to say, a google search verified that ALL 5 justices who voted for this decision were appointed by Reagan/Bush -- Alito (W), Scalia (W), Roberts (W), Kennedy (Reagan) and Thomas (Bush I).
The 4 justices who voted against this decision were Sotomayor (Obama), Breyer (Clinton), Ginsburg (Clinton), and Stevens (Ford).

Needless to say, people who watch Fox News do NOT know which justices voted FOR this decision. It seems that the anger about the decision was subverted (by Fox?) into anger about Obama mentioning it in the State of the Union address and the two issues could be linked together because the underlying facts were never mentioned or researched. I don't think this confusion was an accident.

I suggest that it would be useful for this decision to be repeatedly discussed with anyone who might be confused about the end result of Republican presidencies. There are many rightwingers who have been persuaded that THEIR party is the populist one, and most of them think that corporations corrupt the political system too much. I am not suggesting that alliances with the tea-party gang are in the interests of anyone here, as has been suggested by the occasional other. But acquainting the rightwingers with a few of the facts about this key issue that affects us all may slowly make a dent in the armor or slow down the tide. The backlash and irrational hatred or fear which has been whipped up by their media is dangerous. For those of us with relatives or friends who have been sucked in by it, it is quite disheartening to say the least. Getting the truth out there can help.

[Kolesar]

1. The horribly politicized Iraq war debate -> Bush victory November 2004 -> Alito and Roberts

eom

[Land Shark]

2. K&R

[HughBeaumont]

3. Scalia was a Reagan appointment.

Agree with the content. "Activist Judges" is a Republican talking point that falls flat on its face, considering how on important issues such as this and Bush vs Gore get decided with a political bent instead of a judicial one. There are only politician judges on the R side of things, which further damages the purpose of the SCOTUS.

[lostnfound]

7. Oops. Thanks for correcting me on it.

Too much of a hurry this morning before breakfast.

[Zen Democrat]

4. Scalia was appointed by Reagan, not W.

The Supreme Court majority is a symbol for the entire Republican Party -- bait and switch. They claimed to be strict constructionists who oppose judicial activism, yet they rule as the lunatic fringe. I think there should be a clear process to impeach justices who gain a seat on the court though lying and obfuscating under oath. For the past 50 years, Republicans chanted to impeach Chief Justice Warren and Justice Douglas, that I explicitly remember. There were billboards in Texas back then.

Can someone tell me when was the last time the United States had a Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appointed by a Democrat?

[Enthusiast]

5. I agree with you, lostnfound.

The SCOTUS vote needs to become public knowledge and quickly.

This vote could turn into a windfall for progressive candidates, but only if the vote is widely understood by the public.

The public is already angry but their anger needs to be directed toward those who are deserving of it.

[Tippy]

6. Lets get back to the basics...This is about getting re-elected

They don't believe in truth, it's about their version of the truth.. We can engage the Teaparty types till the cows come home, they will not change their minds. Truth has been on our side, we can use facts till the moon falls from the sky, they will not believe. They might start asking questions if (their own) begin telling the truth, such as the Republican leadership, or until their talking heads get their heads out of their asses and do what is right. THEY MIGHT begin to investigate themselves.
I remember when I first heard of THINK TANKS, think tanks came into being to help the Republicans win elections at any cost.

[intheflow]

8. Did you point the facts out to your nice-but-delusional friend?

I certainly hope so!

[lostnfound]

11. Directly, no. Indirectly, yes.

Can't do it myself. Inappropriate because it could be misinterpreted as harassment in the workplace.
Someone else talked it over with him.

[opihimoimoi]

9. KnR.... :o)

[JoeyT]

10. I'm not sure how much good it'll do to point this out to them.

Most of them are absolutely ecstatic over this decision.
So pointing out it's the fault of Bush/Reagan/Bush isn't going to change a whole lot.

[EFerrari]

12. If you tell them now Hugo Chavez can buy our next election via CITGO

maybe they'll begin to get it. lol

[UTUSN]

14. Ah!1 The secret agenda REVEALED!1 You'd just luerve that, wouldn't you!1 n/t

[EFerrari]

15. It's just another battle in our War on Golf!

lol

:hi:

[UTUSN]

13. It FITS the RAYGUN/Poppy profiles totally, since

RAYGUN and Nancy were total corporate-welfare whores themselves, soaking up all the cash and bennies they could from G.E. and any corporation that flung it at them. And Poppy and his clan (Oh, how I resisted using "KKKlan"!1) are fully known here for their pillaging of the national treasure for their own benefit and their investments in Nazis.

[LaPera]

16. Yes I agree.

[bridgit]

17. In Petronius' Satyricon, a career in law was submitted as one containing...

Noble pursuits for truth, justice, reason, civil balance, etc, all the yada-yada stuff; but as well ample thoughts and positions consistent with the nurturing of personal integrities, so-much-so, that the gates of hell could not rend it from hands of what is jurisprudence - what is just & whole, so here's what I don't get...

Why are there even thought to be such things as right-wing justices and left-wing justices? After thousands of years of examples to reference: why is not the law codified as yet? Beyond, of course, the incidence of tech and societal changes and upgrades i.e. driving while sexting, etc, correcting environmental issues - themselves already too subject to push me/pull me, up/down, back/forth, right/left divisions

How is it possible a SCOTUS, any SCOTUS, to think corporations inhabit the same inalienable rights as people - American citizens? How are they able to pull from not just any document but The Constitution corporate rights and hand them to corporations?

"How?" may be a place to start. I'd like to understand "why" they are able, and when they do so (if they consider themsleves so legally, mentally gymnastic upon the breadth of their knowledge base, so certain) why do they insist on voting in a block? That's the tag for me. There is no cross over. Only the same four smirks

All those highlighted, finger-leafed law ref libraries their shelves sagging, burdeoned from the weight of tedious, vast injustices resolved or hopfully so - and so I start to think that it has less to do with a 4-5,000,000$ law library than it does the plain, old, simple, "You double dipped the chip!" "What!? Who me?! I'm just standing here minding your own buisnes" semantical twisting of sentence after sentence, article after article filled with malleable words to be toyed with

Cause with bush as a Yale cheerleader, and Reagan a pitch man first and formost: the rest seems very doable by way of lifetime SCOTUS appointment


http://www.corporatepolicy.org/issues/constit.htm

http://www.aei.org/book/40

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Controlling_Corporations/Challenge_Corp_Personhood.html

http://www.commondreams.org/view/2010/01/21-10

^

^

^

^