Supreme Court: Enemy of Democracy

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Supreme-Court-Enemy-of-De-by-Rob-Kall-120626-332.html

By Rob Kall (about the author)

The supreme court has shown, with it's overturning of a 100 year old Montana law preventing corporate intervention in elections that it is systematically making elections in the US meaningless. When corporations can outbid the people in buying media coverage, when the richest candidate can buy his way into a primary, as Romney did, when foreign money can flood into elections, the supreme court has become an enemy of democracy.

We must fight this every way we can, non-violently.

Chris Hedges says the way to do it is with protests and civil disobedience. He and Kevin Zeese say, and I totally agree, that electoral politics are a distraction that don't work anymore. Sure, go vote for the lesser of two evils-- there are very few people in America who do not see their vote as such-- but also engage in non-electoral activism.

FULL story at link.

[russspeakeasy]

1. The non-violent part takes soooooo long.

[RobertEarl]

2. Yep

But if we can get people to demonstrate in front of the courts around the country the PTB will decide that the RATS (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalito) will have to go.

There is no other way than to sit and wait. SCOTUS is one third of the government and it is the most corrupt. It has to change.

[russspeakeasy]

5. R..A..T..S..Thanks for that !!

[RobertEarl]

6. Here's where i found RATS

http://www.democraticunderground.com/125149353

[spanone]

3. k&r...

[ProgressiveEconomist]

4. Justice Stevens' brilliant dissent in Citzens United explains why 1st Amdt rights

Justice Stevens' brilliant dissent in Citzens United explains why 1st Amdt rights ought not be given to corporations: They do not have the right to vote, they are immortal, they have no morality and limited legal liability, they can amass huge fortunes, and their only goal is crass profit.

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission :

"Stevens argued that corporations could threaten Representatives and Senators with negative advertising to gain unprecedented leverage. ... Second, Stevens argued that the majority did not place enough emphasis on the need to prevent the 'appearance of corruption' in elections.

Third, Stevens ... discussed how the unique qualities of corporations and other artificial legal entities made them dangerous to democratic elections. These legal entities, he argued, have perpetual life, the ability to amass large sums of money, limited liability, no ability to vote, no morality, no purpose outside of profit-making, and no loyalty. Therefore, he argued, the courts should permit legislatures to regulate corporate participation in the political process.

Legal entities, Stevens wrote, are not 'We the People' for whom our Constitution was established. Therefore, he argued, they should not be given speech protections under the First Amendment. ... Corporate spending is the 'furthest from the core of political expression' protected by the Constitution, ... and corporate spending on politics should be viewed as a business transaction designed by the officers or the boards of directors for no purpose other than profit-making. ...

Fourth, ... corporations 'unfairly influence' the electoral process with vast sums of money that few individuals can match, which distorts the public debate. ... Stevens described 'unfair corporate influence' as the ability to outspend others, to push others out of prime broadcasting spots and to dominate the 'marketplace of ideas'. This process, he argued, puts disproportionate focus on this speech and gives the impression of widespread support regardless of actual support. ...

Stevens referred to the majority's argument that 'there is no such thing as too much speech' as 'facile' and a 'straw man' argument. He called it an incorrect statement of First Amendment law because the Court recognizes numerous exceptions to free speech, such as fighting words, obscenity restrictions, time, place and manner restrictions, etc. Throughout the dissent, Stevens argued that the majority's 'slogan' ignored the possibility that too much speech from one source could 'drown out' other points of view."