*

*
Blue Heron in flight

Thursday, January 21, 2010

You just keep me hanging on.


“A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law.  Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it.” Chief Justice John Marshall - Dartmouth decision


Not content to merely throw the Bush/Gore presidential election to its favored boy, in its munificent wisdom, the august SCOTUS has embarked on phase two of its plan to emasculate the constitution. Today's decision gives corporations "personhood" and unlimited campaign spending power. The five/four decision overturns over a hundred years of decided law and puts the concept of stare decisis on its head: "Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established."

We have a lot of societal problems today; access to health care, terrorism, illiteracy, unemployment, it seems to me that the plight of the poor lobbyist doesn't exactly rise to the fore. There's just not enough big money floating around buying votes, is there? With this idiotic and blatantly partisan decision, the ability of the big corporations and Wall Street to influence elections gets much easier.  Once again the activist Stevens' Court takes the side of the machine over the individual. May a passing wind blow some small gust of humanity into their ossified, toxic personages.



11 comments:

Anonymous said...

today also happens to be the anniversary of the original Roe v. Wade decision; probably just a coincidence but quien sabe?

G.

Anonymous said...

i like Vanilla Fudge's version way better; dig the go-go dancers...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_aWFaZgwerY

Anonymous said...

To the five supreme beings sitting; shouldn't you give a seat to the two standing women, especially the one recovering from cancer?

Anonymous said...

Stevens messed up Obama's oath at the inaugural, too; stop in the name of love.

Anonymous said...

Robert,
I tried to post a comment on your blog about the "wrath of God" or the non-"wrath of God" (as a courtesy and respect for others I capitalize the word "God;" I haven't gone so far as to spell the word "G-d" as another web page does.) I couldn't find the link which allowed me to post my comment--all I could do was read other people's comments--Bible thumpers. But I wonder, and this was going to be my comment: If God acts in mysterious ways and we can't know why God does or permits so many horrible bad things, like the earthquake in Haiti, how can some people know that God has required us not to eat pork, or be circumcised, or be modest (no bikinis or less), and so forth. People who say the Bible told me so should know that it was written by men--with all sorts of different objectives and long after the events reported actually occurred.
By the way, I have a favorite Bible passage, you might want to read it and you will probably subscribe to its recommendations. I do. Read it, Ecclesiates 9, verses 4 through 10.
Robert, also I never told your mother that you complain too much in your writing. What I told your mother was that brother John "was a very serious young man." I don't know how she got that confused, but she can and does. But your writings do contain a lot of complaints. About the Supreme Court saying corporations may campaign for candidates, I haven't read the opinion yet, but I am much happier about their adds identifying the entity that is pushing the position than having it kept secret--I hope the entity that buys the add still has to be identified. And the "corporations" should have been careful about what they "wish for." Here in Davis an election to approve a small residential development was lost because the developer places so many ads in the paper and sent out so many mailers that nearly everyone in the city was disgusted with him and his project. And he was really a nice guy--he got ripped off by a public relations consultant in town who was paid by the paper that was printed. We should have been thankful, however, because his advertising campaign helped our postal service. Remember, junk mail is what supports the post office; and some of us old folks still need it.
Finally, you did complain too much about your trip to Hawaii. The airplane flight wasn't that bad--it landed softly. You weren't on a troop ship as I was which was my first trip to Hawaii and we weren't even allowed off the ship.
Me, I like my warm weather vacations in Jamaica, where the two thousand we spend for a week, for two of us, support two Jamaican families for a year. Also, even at age 81, I like to look at pretty girls--and many are still very pretty in their forties and fifties (I admire Sarah Palin for her looks, nearly fifty and having had five kids.) And in the Jamaica, in some resorts, where we stay, the amount of clothing is very sparse--and the less the better.
UNCLE NORM

NYSTAN said...

bob-go back and read what chomsky was saying years ago abou the corporate structure...I am sure Noam is an unpopular man in a conservative town like Fallbrook, and probably so was George Orwell or for that matter Stanley Kubrick (OK-I am pulling some legs...just kidding!)
The whole thing is frightening....and how does one trump the fucking court? Who do they answer to? So much for checks and balances.
Democracy is FUCKED as we stand and don't tell me to write to my senator....

Anonymous said...

I am not in favor of this decision either, but in partisan fashion, you neglected to mention that the AFL-CIO supported the majority.

Blue Heron said...

The labor unions are also a beneficiary of the new reading, however I never saw them overtly pushing for its passage. The ability of big business to put new money in play will dwarf the ability of big labor, methinks, but a pox on both of them.

Anonymous said...

i dig Uncle Norm, heed his words.

Anonymous said...

Republicans sit - the rest of you bitches can stand...

Anonymous said...

Stan, it's not that Noam Chomsky is unpopular here in Fallbrook, it's like i doubt if half a dozen people here know who he was, or is; Noam, is that a name out of the Bible?