RIP USA

[Atticus]

I'm not expecting anything to come of this, but...

 

On January 21, 2010, with its ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations are persons, entitled by the U.S. Constitution to buy elections and run our government. Human beings are people; corporations are legal fictions. The Supreme Court is misguided in principle, and wrong on the law. In a democracy, the people rule.

 

 

I can't believe I missed that part of the opinion

[Atticus]

1 U.S.C. 1:

 

§ 1. Words denoting number, gender, and so forth

 

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—

 

words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;

words importing the plural include the singular;

words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;

words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;

the words “insane” and “insane person” and “lunatic” shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis;

the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;

“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;

“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;

“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;

“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.

[watch me fall]

I say we round up all the lobbyists and put them in internment camps for a few years.

 

Seconded. These people (especially the tobacco lobbyists) are killing my state.

[bleedorange]

Do you all believe in the bogeyman?

[Leo]

I say we round up all the lobbyists and put them in internment camps for a few years.

Until Halliburton, or some other like-minded corporation (since they now are seen as persons, corporations will be attributed with minds), demands that the politicians they paid (placed) into office enact legislation establishing internment camps as morally necessary and begin locking the rest of us up.

[Atticus]

Until Halliburton, or some other like-minded corporation (since they now are seen as persons, corporations will be attributed with minds), demands that the politicians they paid (placed) into office enact legislation establishing internment camps as morally necessary and begin locking the rest of us up.

 

see this:

 

The 14th Amendment, states that "no state shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law." The amendment was adopted during Reconstruction to protect recently emancipated slaves in a hostile South. But in the landmark case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), the Court, invoking the 14th Amendment, defined corporations as "persons" and ruled that California could not tax corporations differently than individuals. It followed that, as legal "persons," corporations had First Amendment rights as well.

 

this decision does not NOW define corporations as people, people. the United States Code (promulgated by Congress, not this Supreme Court), quoted above, defines "person" to include corporations.

[M. (hristine]

Until Halliburton, or some other like-minded corporation (since they now are seen as persons, corporations will be attributed with minds), demands that the politicians they paid (placed) into office enact legislation establishing internment camps as morally necessary and begin locking the rest of us up.

"Nobody expects the McCarthy Inquisition!"

 

this decision does not NOW define corporations as people, people. the United States Code (promulgated by Congress, not this Supreme Court), quoted above, defines "person" to include corporations.

Oh, I was just answering the question, "Since when?"

[MattZ]

Poon is right. Corporations have been people (so to speak) for a long time. That's not the issue here.

[bleedorange]

bleedorange- of course, you are right. I am being hyperbolic -- Plessy v Ferguson was precedent. I certainly don't stand for the proposition that overturning precedent is, by definition, improper (or activist). At the same time, I've heard enough from Justice Scalia to know that if the shoe was on the other foot here, he'd be excoriating the liberal justices for overturning a 20 yr old precedent by citing (primarily) to dissenting opinions. Be honest with me. The liberals do this, and Scalia just sits on his hands? Put another way, why is it when liberals overturn precedent, they are activist, but when the conservatives do it, they are just "overturning precedent that was established through activist decisions."

 

As I've said many times in this thread, I pass no judgment on whether the right decision was reached here. The First Amendment is a very tricky thing. That's not my beef.

 

 

 

Poon- you are 100% right. My response to bleedorange above tries to get at what I was getting at.

 

You're still misusing the term "activist." An activist judge isn't just someone who overturns precedent. An activist judge sees the Constitution as a "living, breathing" document (such a bogus term) and essentially creates law out of nothing. The best examples off the top of my head are Griswold and Roe v. Wade. Finding a right to privacy somewhere in the penumbras of the Constitution, when there is no mention of a right to privacy anywhere. To reach that kind of decision, years and years of precedent had to have been overturned because all the cases leading up to it were decided on what is actually written in the Constitution. This is where an originalist would have a problem with overturning precedent, but it is based on his or her originalist views of how the Constitution is to be interpreted.

 

If a justice wanted to overturn Griswold or Roe v. Wade, it wouldn't be defined as an activist decision. It would be based on the originalist viewpoint that this right does not exist in the Constitution. So it would involve overturning 40-50 years of precedent, sure. But that does not make it an activist decision.

 

Originalism versus activism has everything to do with a justice's approach to interpreting the Constitution and nothing to do with overturning or not overturning precedent.

[Leo]

Poon is right. Corporations have been people (so to speak) for a long time. That's not the issue here.

True. They were first treated as "persons" under a tax case out of California in the 1800s which, I guess, led to their being codified as such at a later time.

I don't think, until now, their consideration as "persons" has been used to justify granting them 1st Amendment rights allowing them to advance their self-interests through unlimited funding of political campaigns/issues (albeit indirectly) so that, in the end, they will have a more direct effect on the process than actual persons/citizens.

[bjorn_skurj]

Thanks for that, Pres. What are you going to do about it?

Take a play out of Franklin D.'s book and expand the number of judges on the Supreme Court bench!

[MattZ]

If a justice wanted to overturn Griswold or Roe v. Wade, it wouldn't be defined as an activist decision. It would be based on the originalist viewpoint that this right does not exist in the Constitution. So it would involve overturning 40-50 years of precedent, sure. But that does not make it an activist decision.

 

Originalism versus activism has everything to do with a justice's approach to interpreting the Constitution and nothing to do with overturning or not overturning precedent.

 

All good points, and you are right that I have been somewhat loose with my language re the proper definition of activist.

 

As for substance, though, I don't buy it. Stare decisis and the respect for precedent IS something that is established irrespective of the rationale behind the original decision. In fact, in their approval hearings, Roberts (and maybe Alito?) insisted that Roe v Wade was safe from being overturned. Why? Because it has become established law. As you said, there's no right to privacy in the constitution. If that's the case, taken with your points above, legal precedent wouldn't matter. But it does.

 

So sure, maybe technically, it's not "activist" by definition to overturn precedent. But at this point, I think we are splitting hairs. Especially since you've got people on the other side of the aisle that are just as insistent that there IS a right to privacy in the constitution. And that any precedent that an "activist" decision establishes, overturns established precedent for the very same reason. To get rid of bad precedent to bring the law more into line with the "proper" interpretation of the constitution. So aren't liberals doing the same thing as conservatives?

 

And of course, this all begs the question. If the conservatives are so quick to point to themselves as strict constructionists, why not overturn the ban on direct donations to candidates? The answer: because there is no such thing as a strict constructionist. It is impossible to interpret the constitution literally.

 

Where in this language is it ok to ban direct contributions to candidates?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

It's not in there. But that's ok because the court realizes there are situations where it IS ok to put limits on speech (e.g., yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc). As every sane citizen would agree. So exactly what higher moral ground are conservatives standing on by returning us to a strict constructionist reading of the First Amendment that has an awful lot of wiggle room in it?

 

ETA: one last point re my last point. If you accept my point as a given, that there IS wiggle room in the First Amendment (and I think you have to), then isn't everything a matter of degrees? How much wiggle room exists? And if we are fighting over how much wiggle room there should be, aren't we all in the same "living, breathing" bucket?

[Atticus]

Oh, I was just answering the question, "Since when?"

 

and I was just quoting your prior post to point out that you had already pointed out to the thread that calling a corporation a "person" wasn't some new thing that came about from this case

 

I cleaned it up now

[M. (hristine]

and I was just quoting your prior post to point out that you had already pointed out to the thread that calling a corporation a "person" wasn't some new thing that came about from this case

I hope I never have to be cross examined by you.

[MattZ]

I patiently await responses from Poon and bleedorange. For they are two worthy adversaries.

 

EDIT: actually, I will let you guys have the closing argument. Just interested in what you have to say. I've got nothing else to say. My head hurts.

[Atticus]

I hope I never have to be cross examined by you.

 

N.A.P.E.?

[Atticus]

I patiently await responses from Poon and bleedorange. For they are two worthy adversaries.

 

crap did I miss a question? sorry.

 

I think you're right about the degree point--in this opinion, they very clearly set out 3 arguments why some overriding concern might allow a restriction of free speech in this case, and then dismiss those arguments as not compelling (the dissent rightfully points out that the majority is not really relying on the record on those points, more on their own logic). I think when it comes to direct funding, the Court cites the whole quid-pro-quo argument, and feels that same is compelling enough of an interest to abridge free speech in that interest. this post is worded horribly but I'm in a hurry to score the last donut in the office kitchen.

[bleedorange]

And of course, this all begs the question. If the conservatives are so quick to point to themselves as strict constructionists, why not overturn the ban on direct donations to candidates? The answer: because there is no such thing as a strict constructionist. It is impossible to interpret the constitution literally.

 

Where in this language is it ok to ban direct contributions to candidates?

 

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

It's not in there. But that's ok because the court realizes there are situations where it IS ok to put limits on speech (e.g., yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, etc). As every sane citizen would agree. So exactly what higher moral ground are conservatives standing on by returning us to a strict constructionist reading of the First Amendment that has an awful lot of wiggle room in it?

 

ETA: one last point re my last point. If you accept my point as a given, that there IS wiggle room in the First Amendment (and I think you have to), then isn't everything a matter of degrees? How much wiggle room exists? And if we are fighting over how much wiggle room there should be, aren't we all in the same "living, breathing" bucket?

 

Again, though, strict constructionism is not originalism. I remember Scalia addressing this point in a book and I found this on Wikipedia:

 

Justice Scalia differentiates the two by pointing out that, unlike an originalist, a strict constructionist would not acknowledge that "he uses a cane" means "he walks with a cane" (because, strictly speaking, this is not what "he uses a cane" means).[9] Scalia has averred that he is "not a strict constructionist, and no-one ought to be;" he goes further, calling strict constructionism "a degraded form of textualism that brings the whole philosophy into disrepute."

 

I know you disagree with and do not like Scalia, and that's fine (I'm on record saying he is our finest and smartest justice). There are different ways to interpret the Constitution. That's why we have a Supreme Court.

 

But you call Scalia and conservative or originalist justices hypocritical based on definitions and labels that are either wrong or misapplied. I think Scalia is a lot more consistent with his opinions and voting record than most justices. But when you subscribe to an originalist point of view, that will always be the case.

 

Liberal or activist justices don't have a set framework of interpretation. They pretty much decide cases on whims or personal preferences or find ways to read things in the Constitution when they are not there. Thus, you get inconsistent opinions.

[Sparky speaks]

None dare call it treason?

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/22/call-for-immediate-arrest-of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/

[Guest Speed Racer]

None dare call it treason?

 

I didn't think my eyes could roll that far.

[Atticus]

None dare call it treason?

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/22/call-for-immediate-arrest-of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/

 

sigh

[NightOfJoy]

None dare call it treason?

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/22/call-for-immediate-arrest-of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/

 

Finally, the voice of reason! Lets lock those justices in Gitmo. Boo-yah!

[Atticus]

None dare call it treason?

 

http://www.veteranstoday.com/2010/01/22/call-for-immediate-arrest-of-5-supreme-court-justices-for-treason/

 

Johnny says:

January 22, 2010 at 9:06 pm

 

Democracy died yesterday, the date will become significant. With each passing year, the date of 01/21/10 will become more and more meaningful, it will be mentioned in the same breath as 1776.

 

It’s really a shame, the day was allowed to pass with little mention, just a snippet here and there, a few words from the talking heads, then back we go to the mind numbing gossip of Tiger Woods, John Edwards and Haiti, but mostly it was Haiti. But painfully little coverage, and even less outrage about the most monumental shifts in the very foundation, the government of the Unites States of America.

 

This will absolutely, without the shadow of any doubt, a COMPLETE CERTAINTY, This will change each and every life of each and every citizen of the U.S.

 

My God, I just can’t believe it happened, it really happened. We are all doomed, our concept of American government, America herself, will forever be recognized as Pre-2010 and Post-2010.

 

We are all doomed.

 

well fuck it then

[bjorn_skurj]

"mind-numbing gossip" about Haiti? That's cold.

[Sparky speaks]

Could it get much worse?

 

http://rawstory.com/2010/01/blogger-the-corporate-globalization-electoral-system/