Clarence Thomas and the Billionaire.

[Seymour Flops]

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.

Clarence Thomas never (while on the USSC) ruled in favor of a billionaire or anyone else by himself. There were at least four other justices who also participated in that ruling. Yet Thomas is constantly singled out by Democrats.

I won't bother asking why that would be. The answer is blindingly obvious and it has been the same since he was first nominated for the USSC.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

It is much more than about Hillary my man. That was just the excuse to justify the very bad ruling.

Do you like dark money in politics? Super Pacs?

The founding fathers warned us about this. Too bad they didn't spell it out in the Constitution.

What constitutional amendment is against Citizens United?


House Joint Resolution 21, the “People's Rights Amendment” overturns Citizens United and makes clear that the rights protected by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons.

 

[sealybobo]

Clarence Thomas never (while on the USSC) ruled in favor of a billionaire or anyone else by himself. There were at least four other justices who also participated in that ruling. Yet Thomas is constantly singled out by Democrats.

I won't bother asking why that would be. The answer is blindingly obvious and it has been the same since he was first nominated for the USSC.

Oh I know all the other con justices do it too. We just have proof Clarence gets gifts for doing so.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

If you really want to take money out of our politics, sign the petition.

Sign the petition: Demand Congress overturn Citizens United and end unlimited amounts of political spending that influence our elections

Sign the petition: Demand the U.S. House of Representatives support, the bipartisan Democracy For All constitutional amendment that would return democracy to the people.

actionnetwork.org

Us liberals are.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

It is much more than about Hillary my man. That was just the excuse to justify the very bad ruling.

Do you like dark money in politics? Super Pacs?

The founding fathers warned us about this. Too bad they didn't spell it out in the Constitution.

What constitutional amendment is against Citizens United?


House Joint Resolution 21, the “People's Rights Amendment” overturns Citizens United and makes clear that the rights protected by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons.

It is much more than about Hillary my man. That was just the excuse to justify the very bad ruling.

Free speech must be crushed, if it makes Hillary look bad.

Do you like dark money in politics? Super Pacs?

Do you like free speech?

What constitutional amendment is against Citizens United?

None of them.

So, Thomas didn't pass legislation?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

It is much more than about Hillary my man. That was just the excuse to justify the very bad ruling.

Free speech must be crushed, if it makes Hillary look bad.

Do you like dark money in politics? Super Pacs?

Do you like free speech?

What constitutional amendment is against Citizens United?

None of them.

So, Thomas didn't pass legislation?

Hillary is living rent free in your head.

This is far bigger than one person.

 

[sealybobo]

It is much more than about Hillary my man. That was just the excuse to justify the very bad ruling.

Free speech must be crushed, if it makes Hillary look bad.

Do you like dark money in politics? Super Pacs?

Do you like free speech?

What constitutional amendment is against Citizens United?

None of them.

So, Thomas didn't pass legislation?

The ceo of the corporation has free speech. His employees have free speech. He should not use the corporation to influence our politics. One person one vote.

I think our founding fathers warned us against this and the rich/corporations have been trying to give corporations the rights of people ever since the country was founded. It was a no back then why yes now?

Here's what pisses me off. Trump Corporation was found guilty of tax fraud. But not Trump himself? This is bullshit! You can't send the company to prison. See how this is fucked up? The rich play by different rules. You defend it.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

If you really want to take money out of our politics, sign the petition.

Sign the petition: Demand Congress overturn Citizens United and end unlimited amounts of political spending that influence our elections

Sign the petition: Demand the U.S. House of Representatives support, the bipartisan Democracy For All constitutional amendment that would return democracy to the people.

actionnetwork.org

Us liberals are.

How can we take money out of politics? The federal government spent over $6 trillion last year.
And they influence trillions more. We'd have to get the government out of the economy first.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Hillary is living rent free in your head.

This is far bigger than one person.

And she'll never be president.

 

[sealybobo]

Hillary is living rent free in your head.

This is far bigger than one person.

Here is the one argument cons have that I find difficult to argue. If unions can, why can't corporations? Perhaps we need to say unions can't get involved in politics either?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

The ceo of the corporation has free speech. His employees have free speech. He should not use the corporation to influence our politics. One person one vote.

I think our founding fathers warned us against this and the rich/corporations have been trying to give corporations the rights of people ever since the country was founded. It was a no back then why yes now?

Here's what pisses me off. Trump Corporation was found guilty of tax fraud. But not Trump himself? This is bullshit! You can't send the company to prison. See how this is fucked up? The rich play by different rules. You defend it.

The ceo of the corporation has free speech. His employees have free speech. He should not use the corporation to influence our politics. One person one vote.

And if a bunch of people contribute to a corporation to make a movie?

 

[sealybobo]

How can we take money out of politics? The federal government spent over $6 trillion last year.
And they influence trillions more. We'd have to get the government out of the economy first.

I think about all the money the tv and radio stations make on those god damn commercials.

So true. It is an economy in and of itself. Or an industry.

It's why I don't want religion to end. It's a great economy. The churches don't have to produce anything. Just pray over water and sell it as holy water. Pass the hat. Marry us. Bury us. Baptize us. Why would I want to break up this racket? It's a good industry.

 

[sealybobo]

The ceo of the corporation has free speech. His employees have free speech. He should not use the corporation to influence our politics. One person one vote.

And if a bunch of people contribute to a corporation to make a movie?

Yes people who make a movie is okay.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

And she'll never be president.

Thank Odin, maybe one day you will move past her and not let her control you every thought.

Though, after all this time I do not hold out much hope for you.

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is much more than about Hillary my man. That was just the excuse to justify the very bad ruling.

Do you like dark money in politics? Super Pacs?

The founding fathers warned us about this. Too bad they didn't spell it out in the Constitution.

What constitutional amendment is against Citizens United?


House Joint Resolution 21, the “People's Rights Amendment” overturns Citizens United and makes clear that the rights protected by the Constitution are the rights of natural persons.

Your second sentence is completely refusted by the rest of your post. Your post explains exactly why the court ruled the way it did. The founders did not spell out what you wish they had spelled out. The courts must go by what is in the Constitution, not what we might wish were there.

There is no exception for "dark money" or "Super Pacs" in the Constitution's protection of free speech. If you want the constitution to forbid corporations from participating in public discourse, feel free to advocate for that, as is your right.

You'll have to word it pretty carefully. Corporations, PACs, unions, and all other organizations are made up of or owned by "natural persons," so it would be impossible to limit the speech of organizations without limiting the speech of the individuals who make them up.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Yes people who make a movie is okay.

But it was against the law!

What if people want to contribute to run ads?

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Thank Odin, maybe one day you will move past her and not let her control you every thought.

Maybe. If there is video.
Splashing her with holy water.......wooden stake, etc.

 

[RhodyPatriot]

All you MAGA trash were 10000% behind the war in Iraq,

Nope, I was a Democrat who voted for John Kerry and Obama.

Just like many districts in the Midwest that went from Obama to Trump. (Ya know, the "racists".)

It's your side (and by side I mean the Establishment of both parties), that now embraces the Cheneys and the War Machine, as long as they tell you they're against Trump that's all it takes.

The simplistic, binary lie you've bought into from the corporate media has eviscerated your ability to parse nuance.

And that is precisely what may keep you trapped within their matrix forever.

Now back to your "resisting".

 

[sealybobo]

Thank Odin, maybe one day you will move past her and not let her control you every thought.

Though, after all this time I do not hold out much hope for you.

Do you think they will be any kinder to President Whitmer? President Harris? President Cortez?

 

[sealybobo]

But it was against the law!

What if people want to contribute to run ads?

How can we move towards campaign finance reform and take big money out of politics? The politicians don't side with We the People anymore. They side with Big Corps. You don't like it, supposedly. Supposedly you want to drain the swamp. Campaign finance reform IS draining the swamp.