Just because they think they're the law doesn’t make it legal.

[Octafish]

Another work of genius from Wizard of Whimsy.


Until I hear it's suspended,
I'm going with the Constitution still holds.

That means the turds who interpreted the law
to take power away from We the People
and give it to artificial corporations
are really usurping power for themselves.

Helping corporations through the clowns' interpretation of law,
benefits a very few people,
which, coicindently, includes themselves.

It's clear from the record,
when they use office to usurp powers
from We the People and for themselves,
that’s tyranny.

And that goes no where near the Constitution,
making these clowns most un-American.

[madmax]

1. A definate keeper . nt

[Octafish]

4. For Digital Day

101010

Spells it out in black and white: They are traitors.

[bleever]

2. Roger B. Taney:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_B._Taney

He arguably was more faithful to the essential principles of the Founders, in his awful legacy, than the Roberts court has been in these last months.

And that is saying something.

[Octafish]

5. SCOTUS: People are Property and Corporations have Rights

Thanks for the heads-up on Taney, a most shameful bastard as an American and as a Catholic.

Can't remember the DUer, but the sigline said something like: "Only in America: People can be property and corporations an be people.

[Dr Morbius]

19. Read more about Roger Taney.

He really only made one bad decision; the trouble is, that decision (Dred Scott) was REALLY bad. And he made this ruling shortly after losing his wife and daughter to yellow fever, which neither of them would have contracted had he not insisted on taking them to Virginia Beach. The man was quite old at the time and I think he had grown unstable.

I recently finished a book about the interaction between Taney and Abraham Lincoln called Lincoln and Chief Justice Taney: Slavery, Secession, and the President's War Powers (long title!) by a fellow named James Simon. It was quite an eye-opener.

Incidentally, corporations should have rights. A corporation is an assembly, of a sort; it is a group of people putting resources together to generate a profit. This isn't a bad thing, not at all. The first amendment allows freedom of assembly. Further, although I didn't like it at first myself, the more I learn about law the more convinced I am that for purposes of law, corporations do indeed have the same rights as persons. A person, in legal jargon, is an individual or a group.

The trouble is that these "persons" have been given special treatment by Congress. Corporate persons get special treatment at all levels of government, in fact, so this is a case where some persons are not being given equal treatment under the law. And I have a BIG problem with that!

The other problem with that Citizens United case is the ongoing conceit that spending money is the same thing as freedom of speech. Perhaps spending money could count as freedom of speech if one person was able to speak a billion times louder than everyone else!

[Ghost Dog]

3. Some would replace these clowns with a talkradio tv-thon teabagger tribunal

or the like.

[Octafish]

7. They're getting obvious.

Know your BFEE: Like a NAZI.

[Ghost Dog]

8. Yeah.

Quite.

[DavidDvorkin]

6. No matter how absurd their decisions, those do indeed define what's legal

and Constitutional.

[Octafish]

9. Their decisions show themselves to be partisans.

That means they put party ahead of Constitution.
Hence, they are corrupt traitors.

[DavidDvorkin]

15. You are free to consider them corrupt traitors. Unfortunately

their decisions still become the law of the land.

[glitch]

10. That doesn't make them infallible. What do we do, not mention their mistakes?

They do reverse themselves, from time to time. Especially when a fuss is made of their erronious decisions.

Our duty as We the People to make that fuss.

K & R

[huskerlaw]

13. There's a difference

between "mentioning a mistake" and making a fuss and declaring a decision to be illegal.

[DavidDvorkin]

14. Exactly.

[glitch]

20. Not if you think the decision is illegal. nt

[live love laugh]

11. The clown car is bottomless. nt

[huskerlaw]

12. Uhhh....

if they say it's the law, it IS legal, actually. The Constitution gives the Supreme Court the right to interpret it. The fact that you (and I) don't agree with their interpretation doesn't make it any less legal. Sorry. But if it did, then nothing they do would be legal because there would always be someone who disagreed with it. And every time, the people who disagree would have a valid legal argument on their side. If they didn't, the case would never have made it to the Supreme Court in the first place.

If you don't like a Supreme Court decision, your only recourse is to work to elect Presidents that will select justices that you are more likely to agree with. You don't, however, get to declare that the Supreme Court doesn't have the right to say that something is or is not constitutional/legal. They do have that right. The Constitution gave it to them.

[X_Digger]

16. Small quibble.. 'Judicial Review' is not a constitutional power granted to the courts by the const..

.. but Since Marbury v Madison (1803), the courts have asserted it, and nobody's really disagreed.

[Senator]

17. K&+R

[Warren DeMontague]

18. That movie scared the SHIT out of me!!!

[Count Olaf]

21. check this out- supreme court 'legalizes' bribery

Supreme Court Changes Law- US to drop Jim Clark corruption conviction in Murkowski bribery scandal
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x9294520