Supreme Court Ruling Empowers Corporations More Than Labor Unions

If you read the concurring opinion by Justice Roberts (joined by Justice Alito) you will find Roberts clearly stating his prejudice by saying that if the Court could have found in favor of the plaintiff (Citizens United) without overturning existing precedents, it should have done so. BUT, since law and precedents did not facilitate his (their) desired outcome, they riddled settled law from 1907 to present---addressing over-broad questions that no one had asked.

These two arrogant Catholic men who both were guaranteed by Bush and their supporters to not be "judicial activists", together with the other three arrogant Catholic men (Scalia, Thomas and Kennedy) have dealt you a blow you cannot recover from until this decision is somehow reversed---probably by their replacement yet years away. They were put on the Court specifically to overturn Roe v. Wade----but they instead are DEFTLY SKIPPING THAT while putting you into involuntary servitude to corporations in case after case after case. All Christians should be outraged. And all Catholics should be embarrassed to tears. Their "men" of the court are imposters.

Muser of NM 11:07AM January 23, 2010

Look. The bottom line is that a corporation IS NOT A PERSON! There is no guarantee of rights to anything but persons, ie individuals in the Constitution. A corporation isn't even a group of people. It is an abstact entity. A corporation is not even like a PAC, which represents the political views of a group of people. Nobody in a corporation votes, or even agrees to how money is used politically. Such decisions are made by a handful of individuals who control the corporation, who are not beholding to anyone, not the consumers who originally provide the money, not the employees who work for them, and not even shareholders, who generally have no knowledge of these decisions beforehand, and who usually could care less as long as their stock value is going up. This is an extremely bad decision, which has injured or democracy beyond measure. The idea that the people can best corporate influence is unlikely, unless you envision a French Revolution-like senario, inwhich people march to the steps of the Supreme Court, and the Senate, and drag the members out into the street. Why? Simply because a handful of corporate executives can organize a great deal more money faster than 100,000,000 people can.

Bob of TX 9:51AM January 23, 2010

Obviously this rulig is a result of either supreme arrogance or somebody, or bodies, got some cash. How can these idiots presume that there view of the Constitution is more valid than 60 years of Supreme Court rulings that preceded it? How could they come to the short sighted opinion that it is more important to adhere to the infered meanings of printed words on paper than create laws to ensure free elections. Since when are rich groups of investors individuals that need the freedom of speach to represent the needs of their assets; these assets do not posses voices.

In my opinio the cash got transfered to these short sighted dumb asses. May they reap what they sow

Jeff of GA 2:27AM January 23, 2010

Although I haven't read any of the legal briefs I can be rest assured the press has somewhat swayed the argument toward their point of view. I can say this though; this country is for the people and not for corporations or unions. Only way to swing this back into the hands of the people is to start organizing as a people and pool our donations and voting power. Remember, donations does not equal votes only influence. Donations and votes, by an organized group of citizens, will influence members of congress far more than corporations or unions can. The power to persuade by votes has gone out the window if we can’t provide some financial support.

Chris Churchill of TX 9:09PM January 22, 2010