Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Clarence Thomas’

The activist corporate conservative justices have reinterpreted the US Constitution over the decades giving corporations all the legal rights and none of the responsibilities of real people, and then giving corporations free speech rights, which has then been used to roll back 100 years of campaign finance spending laws.

These conservative justices are not and never have been original intent jurists, as they claim. If anybody tells you the US Constitution is not a legal contract that is open to reinterpretation in a manner inconsistent with the desires of the founding fathers, they are wrong, and all you need to do is point to the modern conservative justices who represent only one economic class in the United States, and it isn’t the 99 percent (currently Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and Anthony Kennedy).

Since Neil Gorsuch made his way to a supreme court seat earlier this year, I’ve been waiting for all to see that the Republicans who control the US House of Representatives, the US Senate, and the United States presidency will not under any circumstances come up with legislation banning abortions. That would give their base a lot of hope such legislation could withstand a challenge in front of the conservatively loaded US Supreme Court.

In addition, the US Republican-dominated US Senate will never vote to end the filibuster on legislation so that the conservatives in the Senate can disappoint their grassroots base again. That won’t happen because doing so would raise the hopes of the Republican faithful that their dreams of saving tens of thousands of the unborn every year would be fulfilled, and this great wedge issue would be legally resolved. Perhaps then many of the faithful would begin to clamor for a more equitable distribution of income, wealth, and political power, and the leadership cannot have that.

Ergo, conservatism, as it is largely practiced in the Republican Party, is only about letting corporations and the rich legally run wild over everybody else while redistributing income and wealth from the 99 to the 1 percent. But the Republican Party is not the only representative body in the US government who performs this function on behalf of the wealthy.

So too are corporate Democrats, such as Hillary and Bill Clinton, Wall Street Senators Ron Wyden and Joe Biden and many others.

Advertisements

Read Full Post »

The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday turned away a Republican Party challenge to a federal campaign finance restriction that prevents political parties from raising unlimited amounts of cash to spend on supporting candidates.

The Republican Party of Louisiana had argued that a provision of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act violates free speech rights under the U.S. Constitution. But the justices let stand a lower court’s ruling that rejected the Republican challenge.

Apparently, the Court’s corrupt class warfare corporate wing (John Roberts, Anthony Kennedy, Neil Gorsuch, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito) has decided that only corporations and people have constitutionally guaranteed free speech rights and not political parties. This is stunning inasmuch as corporations and political parties are not mentioned in the US Constitution, and the only reason why any court would approve of giving corporations any kind of personhood rights is to shift the balance of political power from individual voters to the rich and powerful via their wealth accumulation legal tools known as corporations.

In other words, the court’s corporate wing, whose members have historically come from well-to-do families, is playing class warfare by perverting the meaning of the great document in favor of the rich. By playing make believe that corporations have constitutionally guaranteed legal rights, the court is able to provide a legal lie that corporations have free speech rights, and then by insisting that spending money is free speech, they’ve effectively and deliberately given the airwaves to the only organizations and people who can afford to take them, which happens to be the corporations and rich people with all the money.

This is precisely why the corporate-leaning court in recent years has rolled back campaign finance restrictions. In 2010, the court paved the way to unlimited outside spending on elections in a case called FEC v. Citizens United that concerned corporate spending. Given its bias toward class warfare against the 99 percent, it is shocking the court turned this new case away.

Since the corporate wing of the Supreme Court is in the majority, the US Supreme Court is now a wholly owned subsidiary of the most powerful US corporations and billionaires. Actually, it has been for quite some time.

Read Full Post »

63461582

The corporate wing of the US Supreme Court, a commodity purchased by the Koch Brothers long ago, is likely going to hand down the Koch Brothers influenced, or ordered, decision against public employee unions, just as it destroyed legal precedents with its Koch Brothers influenced, or ordered, decision in the Citizen’s United case. The Koch Brothers wing of the court include Clarence Thomas, Antonin Scalia, John Roberts, Samuel Alito and sometimes Anthony Kennedy. To be fair, the Warren Buffett/George Soros wing of the US Supreme Court are the remaining justices.

The object of their decision, of course, is to tip the scales of justice more and more into the hands of their billionaire backers, and away from legal precedents, the Constitution, and the vast majority of US citizens, and the Democratic Party.

The case is simple enough in the soon to be decided Friedrichs v California teachers Association case. Some union members don’t enjoy paying union dues, but they enjoy the benefits of union/management negotiations. So they want a free ride.

“Earlier this month the justices heard oral arguments in the case that turns on the so-called no-free-lunch provision of the union contract in a school district near Anaheim, Calif. It requires teachers to pay a portion of the union’s dues even if they choose not to join. Several teachers sued, claiming that violates their First Amendment rights. Unions take political positions, the teachers noted, with which they might not agree.

By the union’s logic, all teachers benefit from the salary scale it negotiates. So shouldn’t all have to pay their share of the cost of negotiating a contract? Can’t the free-speech issue can be addressed by giving nonmembers a discount — subtracting an amount proportional to what the union spends on political activities?”

The plaintiff, Rebecca “Freeride” Friedrichs doesn’t even want to pay that trivial fee. So she was mysteriously discovered by a billionaire organization, the National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation (NRTWLDF), according to PRWatch.

“The NRTWC has deep connections within the national right-wing network led by the Koch brothers. Reed Larson, who led the national right to work groups for over three decades, hails from Wichita, Kansas, the hometown of Charles and David Koch. Larson became an early leader of the right-wing John Birch Society in Kansas, which Fred Koch (the father of Charles and David) helped found. Several other founders and early leaders of the NRTWC were members and leaders of the John Birch Society, specifically the Wichita chapter of which Fred Koch was an active member.

The groups remain tied to the Kochs. In 2012, the Kochs’ Freedom Partners group funneled $1 million to the National Right to Work Committee, while the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave a $15,000 grant to the NRTWLDF, which has also received significant funding from the Koch-connected DonorsTrust and Donors Capital Fund. Today, at least three former Koch associates work as attorneys for the NRTWLDF.”

One can rightly suspect the Koch Brothers and their buddies are going after public sector labor unions because those unions largely support Democratic Party candidates. On the national level, Koch Brothers rivals, such as billionaire hedge fund managers Warren Buffett and George Soros, largely control what the Democratic Party does legislatively.

However, the result of this battle between billionaire titans is another nail in the coffin of the middle class, with the weakening of labor unions if Justice Kennedy decides in favor of the Koch Brothers, which means Rebecca Friedrichs has allowed herself to be just another brick in the wall of this never-ending struggle.

– See more at: http://www.prwatch.org/news/2014/06/12498/who-behind-national-right-work-committee-and-its-anti-union-crusade#sthash.0BWV56Iy.dpuf

As Supreme Court weighs unions, middle class hangs in the balance–Chicago Tribune

Click here for more on the story from the New York Times.

Read Full Post »

Read Full Post »

money2If money is free speech, then so too are cocaine, cigarettes, gold, silver, services of a prostitutes, and just about everything else you can think of.

If, as the US Supreme Court has ruled, the government is severely restricted in regulating money in politics because money is free speech, then the government also has to be severely restricted in how it regulates cocaine, cigarettes, child pornography, services of prostitutes, and just about everything else you can think of.

There is a simple reason why these assertions are true.

Money is not speech. Money is a medium of exchange. That’s the heart of the matter.

A medium of exchange is something that buyers will exchange with a seller when they want to purchase goods or services from the seller. While many things could be used as a medium of exchange in an economy, money is the most common and useful medium of exchange in our society.

In 1976, the US Supreme Court ruled in Buckley v. Valeo that spending money was speech. Thirty-four years later, the US Supreme Court rolled back 100 years of legal precedence in the Citizen’s United case and severely restricted the US government’s ability to regulate the expenditure of money in politics, since money was speech. Since then, the court has further rolled back the US government’s ability to regulate the money being spent in politics. Strange as it may seem to the court’s less honest jurors, the First  Amendment doesn’t mention money, but it does protect speech, not money.

If a medium of exchange such as money is free speech, then no government anyplace under the US Constitution can restrict your use of it to purchase anything, such as prostitutes and illegal drugs. Based on the logic of the US Supreme Court, the next time you’re arrested for using your free speech rights to purchase cocaine or prostitutes, you should defend yourself through the “spending money is free speech” legal illogic, and take it all the way to the US Supreme Court. The corrupt wing of that court (Clarence Thomas, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, Antonin Scalia and Anthony Kennedy) have no choice but to side with you if they desire to be consistent in their opinions.

Obviously, any medium of exchange has free speech rights. What about gold? What about bartering? What about cigarettes? Cigarettes and gold have been used as medium’s of exchange, and they too have free speech rights.

Dictionary.com defines barter as, “to exchange in trade, as one commodity for another; trade.”

People trade dollars for goods and services, and so anybody who uses money or any other medium of exchange to purchase anything is merely exercising his or her free speech rights.

Since money is a medium of exchange, and is now considered free speech (even if not one cent of US currency can speak a single syllable of English), it stands to reason that the equal protection clause of the US Constitution’s Fourteenth Amendment protects the free speech rights of other forms of medium of exchange–such as bartering.

Long before money was even an idea, people bartered in order to exchange goods and services.

Say that Short Fat Fanny wants to purchase political advertising on the local television station in Fargo, North Dakota. She doesn’t have any money, but she can offer services. And since Fanny is a prostitute and is willing to barter with William, the manager of the television station, for air time, Fanny’s services are clearly just as much free speech as say a Political Action Committee (PAC) using money to purchase air time on William’s station. Fanny’s services are a medium of exchange. Just like a PAC exchanges money for air time, Fanny exchanges services for air time, and maybe tosses in some crack heroin as part of the bargain. Crack heroin now becomes free speech and has First Amendment rights.

People have used cigarettes, gold, fish, crack heroin, sea shells and other things as medium of exchanges, and therefore anything that can be used as a medium of exchange in the purchase of goods and services should be protected First Amendment rights, according to the logic of the court.

In effect, although the corporate propaganda machine doesn’t want you to know this, the supreme court’s decision to give the action of spending money free speech rights, and the court’s later decisions in Citizen’s United and other cases that rolled back the government’s ability to regulate money in politics, extends beyond politics and into every area of government regulation, since spending money is protected as free speech by the First Amendment.

Citizen’s United and Buckley v. Valeo have opened a whole new ball game in the world of politics, and in everyday life.

One can only conclude that the corrupt corporate wing of the US Supreme Court has made some incredibly stupid decisions in these cases, or they made some deliberate political decisions in helping the 1 percent in their war against the middle class.

However, these are not stupid little boys on the court, we can be rest assured that the decisions made in equating spending money to free speech, and limiting the government’s abilities to regulate money in politics, was done in order to allow the 1 percent to use as much money as they could to purchase every iota of advertising space on the air waves and in print during election cycles. That way, the corrupt wing of the court no doubt reasoned, they can keep the 99 percent ill informed and confused as to where politicians actually stand on issues, and to confuse the voters on ballot issues, as well.

The justices made the above rulings in order to rig the economic and political games for the 1 percent and against the 99 percent. In other words, the justices mentioned above are avowed class warriors on behalf of the super rich.

Read Full Post »

Anywhere in the world, a thing is a thing, a person is a person, and an idea is an idea, except in the United States, where an idea is a person with more constitutional rights and political power than citizens, thanks to the soundly corrupted legal logic of the Koch Brothers wing of the United States Supreme Court.

Anybody with half a brain can see that a business corporation is “an imaginary business model given the legal rules to exist and operate by legislative authorization under the legal fiction of being an “artificial person.”

Only in the good old USA can ideas own things like furniture, antiques, computers, I-phones, office buildings, and factories. Hell, ideas can also hire people, and use slave labor overseas, and it’s all because of something state legislatures created two hundred years ago called a corporate charter, which has been a hell of a good idea for a few organic persons such as shareholders, CEOs, politicians, rich investors, and most likely more than a few US supreme court justices along the way. Got that?

General Motor’s (GM) owns things, like factories, office buildings, and land, but GM is still only an idea, in this case “an imaginary business model given the legal rules to exist and operate by legislative authorization under the legal fiction of being an “artificial person.”

GM is a business model given the legal rules to exist and operate. It doesn’t actually do anything since it’s only an idea given legal sanction. The investors in GM vote for a brain to operate the company and this brain is called the board of directors, which is based on the “rules to exist and operate.”

Next, these people hire another brain called a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) to actually make the decisions for General Motors, because GM is simply an idea without any parts, and without any tangible assets, until the CEO makes decisions on what to purchase, and what business strategies to follow, based on the “rules to exist and operate,” because the idea called GM can’t think for itself.

That’s how GM and Microsoft and Apple Inc. wind up owning tangible stuff. That could also be stated as, “That’s how intangible ideas wind up accumulating billions of dollars of tangible stuff, and distributing income and wealth to its investors and CEOs.”

Anyway, probably the closest thing you might be able to relate to this is a person born without a brain and without parents (Pretend they died an hour after birth). A court (board of directors) decides who is going to care for the baby (corporation that is an idea only so it doesn’t have a brain or a body), the caregivers (CEOs) are going to make decisions for the brain dead person (corporation) based on their judgments. They might buy the brain dead person stock in a corporation, but that brainless person is no more the stock in a corporation than a business corporation is the factory it owns. Got that?

So business corporations are still only ideas, not buildings or machines, and the wealth these ideas accumulate do not make them any different than when an organic person buys a new car. The new car is not the person that owns it, although this is something the corrupt supreme court hasn’t figured out yet, and given the corruption within the court, it isn’t likely to do so anytime soon.

That’s because there are trillions of dollars riding on the court’s decisions, and some of the justices are duck hunting buddies of the rich, or their wives earn hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the rich that bring their cases to the court (like Citizen’s United), or the justices get to go on nice prepaid retreats and hobnob with the wealthy, etc…. You get the picture.

Okay, that’s not the only reason the Koch Brothers wing of the US court decides stuff the way they do. The primary job of the US Supreme Court is to rig the political and economic games for the 1 percent and against the 99 percent. That’s what the Citizen’s United decision was all about.

No where in the US constitution does it mention business corporations or ideas, but you know these original intent justices like to make stuff up whenever such stuff benefits their billionaire buddies.

Check out more below about why shareholders are not corporations and don’t deserve person hood rights.

the-easy-case-against-shareholders-being-corporations-and-deserving-corporate-personhood-part-3–Johnhively.wordpress.com

Read Full Post »

Truth, justice, the Constitution and everything that comes before the US Supreme Court is all about money. If a case comes before it that will destroy 100 years of legal precedence but grant billionaires more political power and ways to steal money from the 99 percent, the corporate wing of the US Supreme Court will rule for it. It’s that simple.

A business corporation is “an imaginary business model given the legal rules to exist and operate by legislative authorization under the legal fiction of being an “artificial person.” Legislative authorization created a process for creating and awarding charters for incorporation.

In other words, the corrupt Koch Brothers wing of the US Supreme Court ruled in the Citizen’s United case that “an imaginary business model given the legal rules to exist and operate by legislative authorization” is a person.

Chief Justice John Roberts (a well known perjurer), Clarence Thomas, Samuel Alito (another well known perjurer), Anthony Kennedy, and Antonin Scalia are either so stupid or so corrupt as to grant personhood rights to an idea. Corruption most likely played the key roll in this case because these are not stupid little boys still wetting their diapers.

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »