The SCOTUS decision is a real turning point.

[Writer]

It's time to gather ye fists and fight for your lives.

Get off yer duffs and fight. Fight from morning to night. Fight like there's no tomorrow - that the sun won't rise again. Fight so that your children won't live in the Simulacrum of fully-commodified politics. The dam has broken and the water has flowed across the breach.

It's time for something more than posts on the internet.

And if you're a leader, it's time to take up the mantle and start organizing.

Use online social networking.

Start protesting. That means taking time out of your life and becoming visible in the streets across the country.

Folks, I'm a moderate Democrat, and this ruling has crossed a very serious and dangerous line that even I won't tolerate.

As someone who is working on her PhD in Mass Communication, I know exactly what fight I will take up.

This ruling is one of the most serious challenges to a working democracy since First National Bank v. Belotti (money as symbolic speech for corporations).http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_National_Bank_of_Boston_v._Bellotti

FIGHT.

[Ian David]

1. I'm sure that tomorrow, Air America will be all over this.

Oh, wait...

[Helga Scow Stern]

8. Oh yeah. I just heard on my local Santa Fe station

that today or tomorrow is the last day for Air America.

[flamingdem]

2. I hope they can tie it up in the courts forever nt

[harkadog]

11. The SC decision is the final decision

What's going to be tied up in courts?

[FrenchieCat]

3. Some serious fucking shit!

:scared:

[doc03]

4. I will go march on Washington tomorrow if someone

organizes it. We need to put millions in Washington on this one, I also think we should have a national sick out or strike. I think this is single worst political event in the history of the USA.

[senseandsensibility]

5. K and R

The fight lives on.

[rhett o rick]

6. Time for action. nt

[Fire1]

7. If people don't understand the ramifications of this, we are

really dead in the water. "Now is the time for all good men to come to the aid of their country." I don't remember the author.

[Solomon]

18. Charles E. Weller

[Fire1]

19. Thanks Solomon. n/t

[Imajika]

9. What explains the ACLU and AFL-CIO..

..supporting this decision?

I mean, if it so horrible, why do two very strong left leaning groups that we generally support concur with this Supreme Court decision?

[Writer]

10. Because it overturns the ban on union money, as well.

Which is all and good, but in my estimation, their money will be more than outmatched by corporate money.

[Imajika]

13. So, they didn't think of that?

I mean, here we have the ACLU and the AFL-CIO intentionally condemning their political worldview to losing?

Are we really so sure all this hyperventilating is necessary. I would agree this decision, at least in the short term, will be marginally more beneficial to the right - but I don't think it is worth throwing in the towel or trying to start a revolution over.

Dunno, maybe I am missing something.

[demwing]

16. what WOULD be worth a revolution?

hyperventilating?

oh jees

[FrenchieCat]

12. The ACLU is not always right you know....

neither are Unions.

[AspenRose]

14. And at the time I thought Eminent Domain was bad

This is much, much worse.

[Writer]

15. THIS IS THE LEGAL ESTABLISHMENT OF A PLUTOCRACY IN THE UNITED STATES. n/t

[ShadowLiberal]

17. Now we're going to have more cases of money & corruption then ever before

What's really bad is the fact that the Supreme Court didn't learn from a case they settled a year or two ago. I forget it's name, but here's the basic story.

-A big corporation in a state (West Virginia) knows they're going to lose a massive amount of money in a lawsuit in so many years.

-The corporation finds 3 judges running for the state supreme court (a 5 member group), and spends a lot of money getting them all elected. In all they spent over 60% of all the money spent on their races.

-The judges are on the state supreme court and now in the big corporation's debt.

-A case comes along where the big corporation loses and is ordered to pay a massive amount of money to someone.

-The big corporation appeals the case to the state supreme court, and surprise surprise, the case is settled by a 3 to 2 vote, with all 3 paid and bought for judges siding with the big corporation.

-The loser of the case manages to get another trial by pointing out how the court was biased against them because of the big corporation's massive donations to their campaigns.

-Two of the paid off judges agree to sit the case out, the third (and one with the most seniority of the judges left) refuses to, and gets to hand pick two fill in judges for the second trial.

-The second time around, surprise surprise, the paid off judge and his two hand picked cronies formed a 3 to 2 majority in favor of the big corporation again.

-The loser appeals to the Supreme Court, and wins a 5-4 decision that their rights to a fair trial was violated and that the paid off judges should have all sat it out. In hindsight it's rather scary that 4 of the 9 supreme court judges didn't think that spending over 60% of all the cash spent on the campaign (not all the cash spent for you, but the entire campaign) made the judges too biased to rule on a case when that extremely generous donor is the plaintiff or defendant.