Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

[Grumblenuts]

1. Antidistortion​

The fact that corporations are different from human beings might seem to need no elaboration, except that the majority opinion almost completely elides it. Austin set forth some of the basic differences. Unlike natural persons, corporations have "limited liability" for their owners and managers, "perpetual life," separation of ownership and control, "and favorable treatment of the accumulation and distribution of assets ... that enhance their ability to attract capital and to deploy their resources in ways that maximize the return on their shareholders' investments." 494 U. S., at 658-659. Unlike voters in U. S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.70 Unlike other interest groups, business corporations have been "effectively delegated responsibility for ensuring society's economic welfare";71 they inescapably structure the life of every citizen. " '[T]he resources in the treasury of a business corporation,' " furthermore, " 'are not an indication of popular support for the corporation's political ideas.' " Id., at 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U. S., at 258). " 'They reflect instead the economically motivated decisions of investors and customers. The availability of these resources may make a corporation a formidable political presence, even though the power of the corporation may be no reflection of the power of its ideas.' " 494 U. S., at 659 (quoting MCFL, 479 U. S., at 258).72

It might also be added that corporations have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. Corporations help structure and facilitate the activities of human beings, to be sure, and their "personhood" often serves as a useful legal fiction. But they are not themselves members of "We the People" by whom and for whom our Constitution was established.

 

[Grumblenuts]

The lawsuit was brought by the people. Hence "Citizens United". It was never about Corporations or Unions. It was about squashing the voice of the people not under the two parties control.

Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[pknopp]

Citizens United (organization) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by Citizens United. Under the McCain-Feingold law, a federal court in Washington, D.C., ruled that Citizens United would be barred from advertising its film.

Think about it. A group would have been banned from advertising their movie. Talk about third world.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Corporations did not bring the lawsuit.

Citizens United is a conservative 501(c)(4) nonprofit organization

i.e., a corporation.

 

[pknopp]

i.e., a corporation.

Organization does not equal corporation.

The Women's CLub here in town is an organization. It is not a corporation.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Organization does not equal corporation.

The Women's CLub here in town is an organization. It is not a corporation.

Semantics.
Corporation:

noun

1. a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Are you trying to say Citizens United is not "a company or group of people authorized to act as a single entity (legally a person) and recognized as such in law"?

Yes. That's exactly what you're trying to say. Like an idiot.

 

[Grumblenuts]

 

[Papageorgio]

You did no such thing. This is what you said:

"There's no comparison, moron. Soros spends billions of dollars influencing thousands of American politicians and iour goverment. All you have is one guy spending a few thousand on one justge"


1. Yes there is a comparison. George isn't even the top donor in either party. I just looked that up. A comparison would be the Koch family. Now Harlan Crow is another example.
2. Rich people spend billions of dollars influencing every Republican every day. You care?
3. You stated no law.

Got a link?
This is the link I have, Organization Profiles

 

[easyt65]

Report on Clarence Thomas' travel habits is 'politics plain and simple': expert

Calls for the resignation of Justice Clarence Thomas are unfounded, an expert told Fox News Digital, and there is no "there there" when it comes to a report on his travels.

www.foxnews.com

Another racist attack by lying Democrats on Clarence Thomas exposed.

 

[sealybobo]

I simply stated the law. I can't help it if your a big fucking moron who doesn't know that law.

Why do you like Citizens United decision?

 

[sealybobo]

Is his family getting a billion dollar investment from the Chinese?

Is his son getting $80 a month salary being on the Board of Directors of a foreign energy company?

Did he go to Moscow and be given $2.5 million dollars in cash by the wife of the Mayor?

Did he steal an election from the American people?

No he took gifts and probably money from a billionaire and he passes legislation for billionaires wishes, not We the People.

You poor right wingers sure are hypocrites when it comes to wanting to drain the swamp.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Why do you like Citizens United decision?

It was an outrageous decision. Outrageous!!!

No one should be allowed to make a movie that makes Hillary look bad. No one!!!

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

No he took gifts and probably money from a billionaire and he passes legislation for billionaires wishes, not We the People.

You poor right wingers sure are hypocrites when it comes to wanting to drain the swamp.

No he took gifts and probably money from a billionaire and he passes legislation for billionaires wishes, not We the People.

That's awful!!!

What legislation did he pass?

How did he pass it? Be specific.

 

[sealybobo]

Which is why we have disclosure laws and rules on gifts for elected officials and members of the judiciary, employees of the Fed Govt and the military.

All we are asking is that Thomas follow them and that is a bridge too far for you. Odd hill for you to choose to die on

I'm sure there are liberal attorneys out there who can tell you each and every time Clarence has sided with Billionaires over We the People.

The most famous 2 I can recall would be Citizens United and

The Exxon Valdez settlement. I don't recall what the final settlement was but it was a smack in the face to THE PEOPLE who were harmed by that spill. I don't recall the numbers but if the original penalty was $1 billion the Supreme Court knocked it down to $25 million. For the amount of damage they caused and the harm the PEOPLE had to endure, it was an insult. It was a classic example of how whenever it's rich people or corporations vs We the People, when Clarence Thomas and all the other cons are concerned, the rich win every time.

 

[sealybobo]

It was an outrageous decision. Outrageous!!!

No one should be allowed to make a movie that makes Hillary look bad. No one!!!

Whatever the premise was to rule YES to Citizens United, you must admit it was a bad decision.

You right win cons can argue anything is or isn't constitutional.

Our founding fathers warned of big money taking over our country. Has it already happened? I think it has. Not completely. We get to vote but pick one of two rich people to be your representative.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Whatever the premise was to rule YES to Citizens United, you must admit it was a bad decision.

You right win cons can argue anything is or isn't constitutional.

Our founding fathers warned of big money taking over our country. Has it already happened? I think it has. Not completely. We get to vote but pick one of two rich people to be your representative.

Whatever the premise was to rule YES to Citizens United, you must admit it was a bad decision.

They should have stopped a negative movie about Hillary?

You right win cons can argue anything is or isn't constitutional.

We must crush free speech....to protect Hillary.
Hillary's corruption must never be exposed.

 

[sealybobo]

No he took gifts and probably money from a billionaire and he passes legislation for billionaires wishes, not We the People.

That's awful!!!

What legislation did he pass?

How did he pass it? Be specific.

Google Citizens United. It's a decision he weighed in on. And he sides with corporations and the rich and dark money. The exact opposite of what they should have ruled.

You guys can't seriously defend Citizens United can you? I thought we all agreed that was a HORRIBLE decision.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

Big Business Keeps Winning at the Supreme Court

While the nation was focused on big, controversial cases, corporate America was quietly racking up a remarkable string of victories in the high court this term.

www.theatlantic.com

Empirical SCOTUS: The big business court - SCOTUSblog

The current Supreme Court is friendly toward big business. How friendly? If the court’s trajectory continues, perhaps as friendly as any court dating back to the Lochner era, when laissez-faire policies permeated the court’s rulings. Prominent scholars, most notably Lee Epstein, William Landes and R

www.scotusblog.com

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Google Citizens United. It's a decision he weighed in on. And he sides with corporations and the rich and dark money. The exact opposite of what they should have ruled.

You guys can't seriously defend Citizens United can you? I thought we all agreed that was a HORRIBLE decision.

Loading…

www.washingtonpost.com

Big Business Keeps Winning at the Supreme Court

While the nation was focused on big, controversial cases, corporate America was quietly racking up a remarkable string of victories in the high court this term.

www.theatlantic.com

Empirical SCOTUS: The big business court - SCOTUSblog

The current Supreme Court is friendly toward big business. How friendly? If the court’s trajectory continues, perhaps as friendly as any court dating back to the Lochner era, when laissez-faire policies permeated the court’s rulings. Prominent scholars, most notably Lee Epstein, William Landes and R

www.scotusblog.com

Google Citizens United. It's a decision he weighed in on.

Did he pass legislation? Like you claimed?

You guys can't seriously defend Citizens United can you?

Why not?

I thought we all agreed that was a HORRIBLE decision.

Any decision that allows criticism of Hillary is horrible!!!

She was the most qualified candidate in history and was defeated by two amateurs.

What a miscarriage of justice.

 

[The Banker]

"The facts".

What "facts", Monopoly Man? (Who probably lives in his mommy's basement.)

The wealthy elite have control over the establishments of both parties - but there is a much bigger crack on the Republican side of the aisle. The Mitch McConnell wing is with the Democrats as the Uniparty that slavishly serves Big Business/Military interests.

But the Trump wing threatens their cozy little dynamic. Trump was the first Pres not to start a new war since Carter. Not good for business!

And he has his own money, so he simply can't be bought. Also not good for business!

Furthermore, even Democrats like strategist Ruy Texeira (who recently wrote a column about this replete with actual receipts and data) now heartily acknowledge that the Dems have lost working class voters. They now vote Republican, and the most affluent districts vote Democrat. This is reality, whether you want to roll the clock back to 2008 or not.

So continue to lecture us all about the "wealthy elite" while mindlessly repeating the corporate media lies.

We all enjoy the rich irony oh so much.

All you MAGA trash were 10000% behind the war in Iraq, so don't even try to deny it. It seems you forget all the things you said and did back in 2002

Trump was a slave to the GOP establishment and did their exact bidding while also giving handouts to the wealthy elite. Trump handed out trillions to the wealthy elite, and they thrived under him. While he also was the only president to have net negative jobs... terrible

Also Trump gave us 25% of our total debt in just 4 years of failure. trump was a failed president with failed results, just like Bush.