Nov 212012

The fascist five activist Republican Injustices on the Supreme Court are the willing Pawns of plutocratic billionaires like the Koch Brothers, as evidenced by the worst decision since Dred Scott, Citizens United.  Here we have an opportunity to see just how twisted their rationale for misinterpreting the Constitution has become.

21KochSuckersLast week, Justice Samuel Alito Jr. speciously defended the Supreme Court’s disastrous ruling in the 2010 Citizens United case by arguing that the ruling, which allowed unlimited independent campaign spending by corporations and unions, was not really groundbreaking at all. In fact, he said, all it did was reaffirm that corporations have free speech rights and that, without such rights, newspapers would have lost the major press freedom rulings that allowed the publication of the Pentagon Papers and made it easier for newspapers to defend themselves against libel suits in New York Times v. Sullivan.

The question is whether speech that goes to the very heart of government should be limited to certain preferred corporations; namely, media corporations,” he said [Faux Noise delinked] in a speech to the Federalist Society, a conservative group. “Surely the idea that the First Amendment protects only certain privileged voices should be disturbing to anybody who believes in free speech.”

But Justice Alito’s argument wrongly confuses the matter. It is not the corporate structure of media companies that makes them deserving of constitutional protection. It is their function — the vital role that the press plays in American democracy — that sets them apart. In Citizens United, by a 5-to-4 vote, the court ruled that the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, in limiting the amount that organizations could spend, severely restricted First Amendment rights. The law’s purpose and effect, according to the court, was to keep unions and most corporations from conveying facts and opinions to the public, though it exempted media corporations… [emphasis added]

Inserted from <NY Times>

Photo credit: What on Earth

The article’s author is absolutely correct that it is the function of media that sets them apart, but Alito, pictured above with the other two Injustices that associate openly with the Koch Brothers, ignored something even more basic.

The First Amendment to the Constitution of the United Stats:

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.  [emphasis added]

Although Alito interpreted freedom of the press as a part of the freedom of speech, the Constitution clearly defines freedom of the press as an altogether separate right.  If that is apparent to a legal neophyte like me, it is obvious that Alito and the others had to know it.  Therefore, they intentionally ignored the Constitution in an attempt to help plutocrats and their Republican lackeys take control of our nation.

The Supreme Court is the worst place for Koch suckers, because…

Corporations are NOT people!

Money is NOT speech!


  15 Responses to “The Worst Place for Koch Suckers”

  1. Corporations are NOT people!
    Money is NOT speech!
    Cannot say it more clearly—–I hope that Obama can counter these bought bitches now on the SCOTUS

  2. That's the stupidest thing I heard since a half-hour ago when somebody thought it a good analogy to compare guns and spoons. Yeah, I know. (guns kill people vs. spoons made me fat).

  3. I read that Alito interview and I can tell you that I am no Constitutional scholar, but it didn't make sense to me either.  He wanted us to know that without CU the news media wouldn't have equal rights under the law.  Can this guy sleep at night?   What a breath-taking lie.

  4. TomCat, Phyllis and Angelica are right – thanks for this TC!

  5. I put aside some of the things I should have done in favour of doing some reading.  In that reading I came across an article on Alternet which I posted to Care2 regarding Lincoln.  The following is an excerpt from the article:

    Liberals are fond of referring to Lincoln's concern about corporate power, summed up in a letter he is often claimed to have written to Col. William F. Elkins in November 1864:

    "I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for the safety of my country….corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands and the Republic is destroyed."

    Lincoln’s observation is prescient. But here’s the inconvenient truth: Some of the most powerful corporations of his time were wildly enriched by having a friend in one Abraham Lincoln.

    The most prophetic words that ever were spoken!
    "corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places …" — Well I think this is fully manifested in the 2010 SCOTUS decision Citizens United.   With their decision, SCOTUS gave the power of personhood and free speech to corporations. 
    "the money power of the country will endeavour to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands . . ." — Do names like Koch, Adelson, Romney, Rockerfeller, Friess, and a bunch more ring any bells?  Income inequality, cuts to or remodelling of Medicare, Medicaid and Social Security, union busting, working conditions reminiscent of the beginning of the 20th century — evidence of the reign of 'money power'.
    Let us hope that the last four of Lincoln's words do not come true — "…the Republic is destroyed."
    The prime way to ensure that the last four words do not come true is to ensure that the judiciary is balanced and fair.   It seems that this court is not so inclined, preferring instead to do the work of their corporate/political masters.  I agree that Alito has totally 'misconscrewed' the constitution and should go back to law school.  Fortunately, with one maybe two judges looking to retire in the coming few years, with Mr Obama in the White House, there is a chance for more balance in SCOTUS.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.