The Corporate Supreme Court by Ralph Nader

[Better Believe It]

The following statement is not copyrighted material. BBI

The Corporate Supreme Court
by Ralph Nader
July 18, 2011

Five Supreme Court Justices--Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito and Kennedy are entrenching, in a whirlwind of judicial dictates, judicial legislating and sheer ideological judgments, a mega-corporate supremacy over the rights and remedies of individuals. The artificial entity called "the corporation" has no mention in our Constitution whose preamble starts with "We the People," not "We the Corporation."

Taken together the decisions are brazenly over-riding sensible precedents, tearing apart the state common law of torts and blocking class actions, shoving aside jury verdicts, limiting people's "standing to sue", pre-empting state jurisdictions--anything that serves to centralize power and hand it over to the corporate conquistadores.

Here are some examples. (For more see thecorporatecourt.com). Remember the disastrous Exxon Valdez oil spill in Alaska's Prince William Sound twenty two years ago? It destroyed marine life and the livelihoods of many landowners, fishermen and native Alaskans. Its toxic effects continue to this day.

Well, after years of litigation by Alaskan fishermen, the Supreme Court took the case to review a $5 billion award the trial court had assessed in punitive damages. A 5 to 3 decision lowered the sum to $507.5 million which is less than what Exxon made in interest by delaying the case for twenty years. Moreover, the drunken Exxon captain's oil tanker calamity raised the price of gasoline at the pump for awhile. Exxon actually made a profit despite its discharge of 50 million gallons.

The unelected, life-tenured corporate court was just getting started and every year they tighten the noose of corporatism around the American people.

In Bush v. Gore (5-4 decision), the Court picked the more corporate president of the United States in 2000, leaving constitutional scholars thunderstruck at this breathtaking seizure of the electoral process, stopping the Florida Supreme Court's ongoing state-wide recount. The five Republican Justices behaved as political hacks conducting a judicial coup d'etat.

But then what do you expect from justices like Thomas and Scalia who participate in a Koch brothers' political retreat or engage in extrajudicial activities that shake the public confidence in the highest court of the land.

Last year came the Citizens United v. FEC case where the Republican majority went out of its way to decide a question that the parties to the appeal never asked. In a predatory "frolic and detour," the 5 justices declared that corporations (including foreign companies) no longer have to obey the prohibitory federal law and their own court's precedents.

Corporations like Pfizer, Aetna, Chevron, GM, Citigroup, Monsanto can spend unlimited funds (without asking their shareholders) in independent expenditures to oppose or support candidates for public office from a local city council election to federal Congressional and Presidential elections.

Once again our judicial dictatorship has spoken for corporate privilege and power overriding the rights of individual voters.

Eighty percent of the American people, reported a Washington Post poll, reject the Court's view that a business corporation is entitled to the same free speech rights as citizens.

Chances are very high that in cases between workers and companies, consumers and companies, communities and corporations, tax payers and military contractors--big business wins.

Inanimate corporations created by state government charters have risen as Frankensteins to control the people through one judicial activist decision after another. It was the Supreme Court in 1886 that started treating a corporation as a "person" for purposes of the equal protection right in the fourteenth amendment. Actually the scribe manufactured that conclusion in the headnotes even though the Court's opinion did not go that far. But then it was off to the races. These inanimate giants, astride the globe, have privileges and immunities that "We the People" can only dream about, yet they have equal constitutional rights with us (except for the right against self-incrimination (Fifth Amendment) and more limited privacy rights.)

What is behind these five corporate Justices' decisions is a commercial philosophy that big business knows best for you and your children. These Justices intend to drive this political jurisprudence to further extremes, so long as they are in command, to twist our founders clear writings that the Constitution was for the supremacy of human beings.

To see how extreme the five corporate justices are, consider the strong contrary view of one of their conservative heroes, the late Chief Justice William Rehnquist in a case where a plurality of justices threw out a California regulation requiring an insert in utility bills inviting residential ratepayers to band together to advance their interests against Pacific Gas and Electric. The prevailing justices said--get this--that it violated the electric company monopoly's first amendment right to remain silent and not respond to the insert's message.

Conservative Justice Rehnquist's dissent contained these words--so totally rejected by the present-day usurpers: "Extension of the individual freedom of conscience decisions to business corporations strains the rationale of those cases beyond the breaking point. To ascribe to such artificial entities an "intellect" or "mind" for freedom of conscience purposes is to confuse metaphor with reality."

It was left to another conservative jurist, the late Justice Byron White, dissenting in the corporatist decision First Nat'l Bank v. Bellotti (1978) to recognize the essential principle.

Corporations, Justice White wrote, are "in a position to control vast amounts of economic power which may, if not regulated, dominate not only the economy but also the very heart of our democracy, the electoral process." The state, he continued, has a compelling interest in "preventing institutions which have been permitted to amass wealth as a result of special advantages extended by the State for certain economic purposes from using that wealth to acquire an unfair advantage in the political process... The state need not permit its own creation to consume it." (emphasis added)

Never have I urged impeachment of Supreme Court justices. I do so now, for the sake of ending the Supreme Court's corporate-judicial dictatorship that is not accountable under our system of checks and balance in any other way.

http://www.nader.org/index.php?/archives/2294-The-Corporate-Supreme-Court.html

[Uncle Joe]

1. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, Better Believe It.

[defendandprotect]

22. KR

[white_wolf]

2. You should have made up a name instead of Nader.

After a lot of people K&R then tell them it is by Nader just to confirm how many here shoot the messenger.

[Better Believe It]

3. Good suggestion. How about Nalph Rader?

:)

Oh hell. Can't use it!

Just found a music group calling itself Nalph Rader!

http://www.myspace.com/nalphrader

[Bobbie Jo]

17. Fuck Nalph Rader

:)

[Snotcicles]

20. Nack Fuder. nt

[electropop]

50. Do you actually even know anything about Nader?

Unless you're a freeper, I think you would be amazed if you would read his stuff. He's the only one who has consistently stood up to the corporate takeover and destruction of America. For nearly 50 years. Find me one thing he's ever said or done that a true American patriot could disagree with.

[Bobbie Jo]

56. Indeed I do...

Aside from the gratuitous "freeper" reference, I know he has done far more to further his own interests than to affect any actual progress toward the "ideals" he supposedly "stands for."

This has been hashed and rehashed here ad nauseum. So rather than provide examples to support my opinion, I would refer you to the 'search function,' as I have weighed in on the Nader issue pretty consistently since I arrived here in '06.

Edit: typo

[electropop]

57. His own interests? Nader the billionaire?

Sure...

Apologies for the freeper reference.

[FreakinDJ]

59. Where is the "Donate to Ralph's Campaign" button

He really needs to find a better Indian IT company to write his web articles

[electropop]

61. Sorry, forgot I was in Republocrat territory.

"Indian IT" - you're a hoot.

Puh-leeeze. I was an avid Democrat for 40 years. I phone-banked for Kerry. But after he folded in Bush's 2nd stolen election, I began to understand the Repug-Democrat collusion.

I also remembered that Nader has saved my life. He's the reason US cars have seat belts. I was in a major car crash in 2001 (not my fault). I'd be dead right now if Nader had not gone toe-to-toe with GM and the US government and demanded mandatory seatbelts. Have you had a clean glass of water lately? Breathed without choking to death? Thank Nader.

The Dems have swerved to the right and they are not who they used to be. If you're wondering what ever happened to Democratic values, Democrats (in office) have abandoned them (and they have abandoned us). We the people have a vague memory of them, but that's fading...

[FreakinDJ]

64. Ralph uses the Campaign Trail like a Cash Register

and has ridden the "Coat Tails" of his succesful consumer protection litigation for too long

How much was Ralph's Attorney Fees

because at the end of the day that is ALL he cares about

[Bobbie Jo]

60. Rather...

Nader the egotist.

No problem, much appreciated.

[electropop]

62. Egotist? Of course. He's in public life.

What else would motivate anybody in public life?

Oh yeah, money, sex, power...

[noiretextatique]

77. utter bullshit eom

[Bobbie Jo]

81. ?

Care to elaborate?

[noiretextatique]

78. utter bullshit eom

[noiretextatique]

86. of course. i think nader is consistently correct in his analysis

if not his tactics. and honestly, i do not fault him for his tactics. in a democracy, which is what we supposedly labor under, i can't blame a participant in the supposed process, as many still do. i do object to the supreme court's intervention in the process that would have proven gore the winner of the 2000 election, in spite of nader's, and others, participation in the process.

[zeos3]

74. +1

[saras]

72. +1000! Woo hoo!

[SidDithers]

4. Fuck Ralph Nader...nt

Sid

[AlabamaLibrul]

7. Adding to the discussion as always

Stay classy

[Name removed]

8. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Scurrilous]

9. +1

:thumbsup:

[Forkboy]

12. Where did you get that specialized keyboard?

It just has three keys... "Rec", "Unrec" and "Fuck Ralph Nader". Best Buy has everything these days, I tell ya!

[SidDithers]

44. It also has "Fuck Jane Hamsher" too...nt

Sid

[Forkboy]

46. Awesome...don't even need to think!

Just whack the key! You even get a 25% chance of hitting the right one! :thumbsup:

[mmonk]

5. And all the time I thought they were on the court to save babies

and replace liberal activist judges.

[dissidentboomer]

6. Yep. Thanks, he's 100% right.

[defendandprotect]

25. "judicial dictatorship for corporate privilege and power overriding rights of individuals" --

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Forkboy]

13. I don't even like Nader half the time, but at least I read it.

Remember when Passion of the Christ or Fahrenheit 9/11 came out, and all those on the Right bitched and moaned without ever even bothering to see them? Exact same mentality at work here. :crazy:

[fascisthunter]

18. you will almost never hear them argue against what he states

[defendandprotect]

23. "every year they tighten the noose of corporatism around the American people"

Couldn't be more correct --

Corporate/fascism --

[Forkboy]

27. Always had mixed feelings on him.

Didn't vote for him (though the Green Party platform was tempting, and what ours should be like...and used to be like). I tried to talk some friends out of voting for him (convinced 2, failed on 3 in '96, zero conversions in 2000 out of 6 people), but out of the 2000 Election his run was about the only thing that was actually democratic about it. We're all told from grade school on that anyone can run for president in this country, that America is special because of this. I saw a ton of Dems then and now that feel they were owed those votes, and that he was wrong to run simply because it hurt our party. I think that's a major copout (note that you will never once see these same people talk about the Dems in Florida that voted for Bush in 2000, for instance). It's incumbent on us to earn votes, not expect someone from another party to run when it's convenient for a different party than theirs. Imagine the reaction if the Greens said they would have won had the Dems not fielded a candidate. The same people saying that about the Greens would be mortified at the suggestion, yet it's the exact same argument many of them make.

A lot of the people who hate Nader will tell us how important democracy is, but they sure seem to hate it when it doesn't go down how they wanted. So I defend him here a lot. The criticism are, more often than not, shallow, undemocratic, hypocritical, arrogant and spoiled. There are a few people who raise good points of criticism about him on a regular basis, and they can be fun to discuss the issue with, but they're few and far between.

[fascisthunter]

28. I was never THAT crazy about him either

but the prejudice against him and anger makes me think there is more to hating him for the 200 election, because we know that election was stolen and Bush was appointed by the SUpreme COurt. Nader did not cause that to happen, but they will state as much without looking at all the evidence pointing to a stolen election.

I think many hate him for his stance against corporations.

[ProSense]

11. Nader knows

just how to fix that: stay home in 2012.

[MilesColtrane]

52. Yeah, he's a fucking genius at political strategy.

[FLPanhandle]

14. You helped make it that way Ralphie.

So fuck you.

[Maru Kitteh]

16. + a brazillion. n/t

[fascisthunter]

24. No he didn't, but keep blaming him

[FLPanhandle]

26. Yes he did, but keep worshiping him

Oh and sending him money just like the republicans do. Every dollar helps that republican enabler.

[fascisthunter]

31. I don't, which proves how simplistic you are being

if you really disliked the GOP that much, you'd agree with his stance on issues.

That election BTW, was stolen and the SUpreme Court stepped in and appointed Bush. Be honest.

[FLPanhandle]

35. Shows how simplistic you are

You judge someone by their words not their actions.

Be honest.

[fascisthunter]

37. Well, That Successfully Ignored Most of What I Wrote

What he did was run for president, he lost... that's democracy not some conspiratorial agenda of Nader's.

What was a conspiracy was what happened to prevent a complete recount and then having the Supreme Court appointing Bush as President. Very strange how you could choose to ignore that yet pretend he actually had something to do with Gore's loss. I voted for Gore and helped him run... and no, I do not blame Nader. Does your hatred of him have anything to do with his stance on issues?

[FLPanhandle]

40. He runs against and writes against Democrats, thus enabling the Republicans

Like it or not, we have a two party system in this country. There is only one party that can effectively fight the Republicans and he conducts a flanking attack on the Democrats when they need to focus on the Republicans.

Say it doesn't matter all you want, but he is a republican enabler by attacking the Democrats during elections.

As for his writings, who cares what he says? I judge him by his actions and on that basis he is shit.

If you see him as a saint or prophet, that's your failing.

My last word on this is...Fuck Nader.

[Better Believe It]

36. Republican Contributions: $10.7 Million for John Kerry vs. $111,700 for Ralph Nader

Republican Contributions: $10.7 Million for John Kerry vs. $111,700 for Ralph Nader

October 19, 2004

Today, the Independent presidential campaign of Ralph Nader and Peter Miguel Camejo released the preliminary findings of research conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics. The findings demonstrate that Senator John Kerry has thousands of contributors who have supported the Republican Party. Kerry has more than ten million dollars donated by Republican donors.

The anti-Nader Democrats have spread their big lie to discredit Nader and silence his anti-war and progressive message that Kerry could not rebut. The anti-Naderites hired Stanley Greenberg to conduct surveys and focus groups to determine how best to smear Nader. They found that falsely claiming Nader was funded and controlled by Republicans was the most effective line they could use ­ a line that can't pass the laugh test when compared to the facts. They announced their findings at the Democratic Convention and then spread the lie through the Naderfactor.com and the United Progressives for Victory.

But the reality was only 700 Republican contributions (no individuals, but individual contributions) had given donations to the Nader campaign and most of the contributors were people Nader had worked with on justice issues in the past. Even among these 700 the Democrats received more money than Nader-Camejo -- $111,700 to $146,000. But, the Democrats continue to use the Big Lie ­ despite the facts.

Preliminary CRP results: 50,000 contributions who have given to President Bush or the Republicans have given $10,697,198 in large contributions to Kerry. This means 100 times more Republican money has been contributed to the Democrats campaign than to the Nader-Camejo campaign. That amount is five times the entire budget of the Nader Presidential campaign! These are preliminary results because there are so many that it is too expensive for the Center to review the donations for final results. Maybe an independent media outlet would like to try, rather than continue to repeat the corporate media's reporting of the malicious Democratic fabrication that the campaign is funded by organized Republicans. We're waiting for the full story on how the Kerry campaign is funded by the Republicans who play both sides of the two party duopoly.

http://www.counterpunch.org/wire10192004.html

[LanternWaste]

63. Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

Post hoc ergo prompter hoc.

[bluestate10]

15. Anything Nader.

:puke:

[fascisthunter]

19. ...can you argue against what he says?

or are you that prejudiced?

[bluestate10]

30. I am prejudiced. I lived 8 years under Nader's boy, W. BTW, fuck Ralph Nader. nt

[fascisthunter]

32. the Supreme Court Appointed Him

THAT election was stolen. Katherine Harris had more to do with the stolen election. I think you and others here are sticking to this BS because you don't like his stance on issues.

You couldn't address one thing he stated.

[LanternWaste]

65. I believe it's more a dogmatic insistence rather than his actual positions

"I think you and others here are sticking to this BS because you don't like his stance on issues..."

I believe it's more a dogmatic reluctance to allow ourselves to see any further than the simplistic, and the convenience of blaming a face rather than a system than it is Nader's actual positions-- notice that no one in the thread appears to have any serious counter-position re: his stances and arguments, merely post-hoc blame and petulant name calling.

[lunasun]

89. People dont mention Harris enough... follow the trail

[Capitalocracy]

75. Yeah, fuck Nader! If only people had NO ONE else to vote for...

then our crappy candidates would always win, no matter how crappy they were!

I understand that we need our side to win, but we also need our side to be relevant in order for it to mean anything. People like Nader could be made irrelevant by a strong Democratic Party. Why are we so afraid of a little competition? Because we think the best way to win is for people to have no other choice? That's not even a winning strategy!

And btw, that election was stolen, and it would've been stolen with or without third-party candidates.

[tabasco]

21. Fuck Ralph Nader.

'nuff said.

[Better Believe It]

29. "Fuck Ralph Nader, nuff said" Isn't that stretching your vocabulary just a bit?

:hi:

[Bobbie Jo]

33. LOL

Maybe he just did the copy/paste thingy. You know how it goes.

[SidDithers]

54. LOL!...

:thumbsup:

Sid

[Lorien]

83. Lol!

:thumbsup:

Those who don't like the message always attack the messenger in the MOST unoriginal of ways! :p

[BzaDem]

34. This is absolutely rich. Before Ralph Nader's behavior in 2000, we had a MAJORITY against this

corporatist understanding of the First Amendment. We had a 5-justice majority that said corporations can be PROHIBITED from electioneering out of their treasury. If Nader butted his ass out in 2000, this would likely continue to be the case.

It is hard to imagine a negative policy that is MORE a direct result of Ralph Nader and his defenders than unlimited corporate spending on elections.

Of course, DIRECTLY CAUSING the corporate takeover is indeed quite an effective way for Nader to rail against the takeover. But for people other than Nader and his fundraising, his actions did more damage to the next generation of elections than could have even been conceived before 2000.

[CanSocDem]

39. What you're too young to know....

...obviously, is that Nader has been warning us about corporate serfdom for decades. He, correctly it seems, identified both of your political parties as enablers of the corporations. He tried to tell you that, even gave you a chance to secretly acknowledge what every rational person could see, that government WAS NOT serving the public interest.

Rational people everywhere appreciate that his voice is still heard. On this board in particular, voices like yours sound completely irrational.

.

[BzaDem]

41. Apparently, Ralph thinks the best way to stop corporate serfdom is to enable corporate serfdom.

Now of course, some people think it is irrational to point out this obvious fact. After all, telling the truth about their hero makes them very uncomfortable. Truth hurts.

But fortunately, the number of people living in this rational-is-irrational, up-is-down, Nader-is-progressive universe is sufficiently negligible that the potential damage has been reduced. Even 90% of Nader's own (former) supporters figured it out by 2004.

[Name removed]

43. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[The Big Vetolski]

42. Thank you, oh voice of reason from one of my mother countries. nt

[BiggJawn]

38. In further statements, Nader claims Water is Wet, Sunshine is Warm.

Don't tell me some of you were surprised by this revelation of Ralf Nader's. I'm glad he gave at least passing mention of Santa Clara County v. Santa Fe Railroad. (the 1886 case he mentioned)

I had the SCROTUS figured for a corrupt bunch of corporate ass-lickers even before Dumbya had finished packing the court. And I'm just a dumb middle-aged Teeeee-Veeeeee engineer from bumbfuckin' Cornfield, USA.

[Jim Lane]

45. Gee, Ralph, it's almost as if there might actually BE a significant difference between the parties.

Let's put aside the well-worn question of whether Nader is partly to blame for the Bush presidency. Let's, just for this purpose, forget the 2000 election and think about the 2000 campaign.

Central to Nader's campaign was his deprecation -- sometimes outright denial -- of any difference between the two major parties.

Now look at the judicial trend he deplores. The five justices who handed down Citizens United and other pro-corporate decisions were all appointed by Republicans. The four who are now opposing them were all appointed by Democrats. (Justice Stevens, who opposed the Corporate Five in Citizens United and was generally considered a liberal, was appointed by a centrist Republican (Gerald Ford), a type that no longer plays any meaningful role in public life.)

So, Ralph, chew on this: If Al Gore had been inaugurated President in 2001, it's virtually certain that the decisions you deplore would never have been handed down.

Does that fact lead Nader, or any of the Naderites, to want to retract or at least amend some of the statements made during the 2000 campaign?

[Better Believe It]

47. Where does Nader get these silly ideas from?

"Does that fact lead Nader, or any of the Naderites, to want to retract or at least amend some of the statements made during the 2000 campaign?"

You mean like his claim that both major parties are funded by Wall Street and big business and that both major parties are mainly responsive to those financial interests?

What a silly idea!

Everyone knows the Republican Party represents big business/Wall Street and the Democratic Party represents working people.

You sure won't find any Republican enablers in the Democratic Party!

[Jim Lane]

51. You're making a straw man argument.

You've brilliantly refuted the claim that the Democratic Party is perfect. No one here has made that claim.

The statement I actually made was that there are significant differences between the parties. Nader's own analysis of Supreme Court decisions supports my contention. Would you care to address that point?

[electropop]

66. Obama is ruling as Bush III - are you calling Obama a "straw man?"

He speaks with more intelligence and kindness, then does exactly what Bush would do. So if the standard-bearer is a phony, where is the difference between the red and blue wings of the Republocratic Party?

We are still in Iraq.
We are still in Afghanistan.
We are still giving gigantic tax breaks to billionaires.
We are seriously debating killing Medicare and Social Security, so we can give tax breaks to billionaires.
We are still being wiretapped en masse by the NSA (a law which Obama voted for as a Senator, and the reason I voted against him).
We are still operating Gitmo and the black prisons overseas.
We are still hiding under Don't Ask Don't Tell, which Obama's administration has defended in court.
We are still banning drug re-importation and artificially boosting their prices.
We are still supporting the Big-Pharma/Big-Insurance medical system that has killed millions of Americans. Only more so under the latest "reforms."
We are still subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, and now we are adding nuclear to the mix.

Which of these Obama positions would Bush not absolutely love?

Which of them would Nader support?

[Jim Lane]

67. You've declined my invitation. I decline yours.

You want a discussion that covers the wars, fiscal policy, health care, civil liberties, gay rights, and the environment.

I find that a little too much to take on in one thread. Instead, I was sticking to the topic of the OP: Nader's criticism of the Supreme Court.

I'd still be interested in hearing from any Nader supporters who want to address that specific subject.

[Bobbie Jo]

69. Where is the OP?

I was interested to see the OP field this one for him/herself.

I suspect there will be no response forthcoming....

[electropop]

71. OK, yes, once on the court, Justices are highly polarized.

I had a look at http://www.scotusblog.com/reference/stat-pack/ to check that.

But who let them sit on the court? Who seriously tried to block Alito, Roberts, Scalia? Where were the Dems? Functionally, they were siding with the Rethugs and the corporatocracy.

[spanone]

48. k&r... truth to power

[electropop]

49. Nader is 100% correct, as always.

The "court" has become a gang of thugs enforcing for the corporate kleptocracy that rules our country.

[raouldukelives]

53. K&R

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

55. Does anybody remember the Democratic filibusters against seating the likes of Scalia and Thomas?

Neither do I.

It's always fun to watch the Supreme Court card played by the party purists that ignore the Senates role in seating SC justices.

[Jim Lane]

68. If Al Gore had been President, Citizens United wouldn't have happened.

Gore would not have appointed Alito and Roberts. Almost certainly, Gore's appointees, like all the other Democratic appointees to the Court, would have taken the opposite view, and our side would have won by 6 to 3.

The issue of the extent to which Senators should oppose a Supreme Court nominee on purely ideological grounds is a complex one. For example, if your view is that Democrats should oppose any nominee with whom they have substantial disagreements, then you have to ask if Republicans should do the same. If so, then no President of either party could put someone on the Court without 60 ideological allies in the Senate.

What's not complex is that there was a huge difference between George Bush and Al Gore. Nader and his supporters should have the decency to acknowledge that their contrary statements in 2000 were wrong.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

84. What has Gore/Nader to do with filubustering nominees?

It's up to the Democrats in the senate to oppose right wing nominees.

The tired, and false, claim that Nader cost Gore the presidency is not even worth refuting.

[saras]

76. What I remember is the party actively DIScouraging people from objecting to these appointments...

[FreakinDJ]

58. Gee - just in time for Republicans to donate to his campaign

Nice touch Ralph - you must have been trolling Progressive Web Sites researching which issue to best Split the Democrat votes with

[Lorien]

85. So you disagree with him then?

The SCOTUS isn't in the pockets of the corporate elite? Gee, guess we know whose disinformation campaign YOU support!

[slipslidingaway]

70. knr nt

[Kall]

73. Does the Democratic Party have to accept any responsibility

for their feckless results, and screwing over of the voters, or is it just all on Ralph Nader?

Ralph Nader's not the one currently putting Social Security, Medicare and Medicaid on the chopping block because after throwing trillions at Wall Street and nursing them back to record profitability, there's apparently just not enough money for those luxuries.

[LoZoccolo]

79. Ralph Nader: automatic unrecommend n/t

[M_A]

80. K&R

As usual Ralph writes true. I find it hysterically funny the amount of hatred toward him. But, I am non-partisan and vote for the candidate with whom I most agree, in the past it has been Ralph, last time it was McKinney. If the Dems would put up someone who had true liberal democratic ideals and the record to back it up then they'd always get my vote...sadly this has not been the case for some election cycles. Never voted "R" in my long life, but won't pull the level for a faux "D" either.

[Lorien]

82. K & R! nt

[Suji to Seoul]

87. And if his hubris and arrogance, as well as his detest for Al Gore, did not control his mind

and if he actually cared about the country, he would have not been an enabler to alito and roberts being on the court.

piss off, ralph! you helped cause it, then you did what any sociopath did. . .blamed the victim of your arrogance.

[bertman]

88. Ralph Nader is one of my heroes. I wish there were more Americans like him. nt