United States News
See other United States News Articles
Title: The Fascinating History of How Corporations Became "People" -- Thanks to Corrupt Courts Working for the 1%
Source:
Alternet
URL Source: http://www.alternet.org/economy/153 ... working_for_the_1/?page=entire
Published: Nov 26, 2011
Author: Joshua Holland
Post Date: 2011-11-26 09:11:23 by mininggold
Keywords: None
Views: 13086
Comments: 58
The Fascinating History of How Corporations Became "People" -- Thanks to Corrupt Courts Working for the 1% Occupiers could direct their energy not only at Wall Street, but also at its enablers, in Congress, and ultimately, at the high court. Perhaps there were truly free markets before the industrial revolution, where townspeople and farmers gathered in a square to exchange livestock, produce and handmade tools. In our modern world, such a market does not exist. Governments set up the rules of the game, and those rules have an enormous impact on our economic outcomes. In 2007, the year of the crash, the top 1 percent of American households took in almost two-and-a-half times the share of our nation's pre-tax income that they had grabbed in the 40 years folliwing World War Two. This was no accident – the rules of the market underwent profound changes that led to the upward redistribution of trillions in income over the past 30 years. The rules are set by Congress – under a mountain of lobbying dollars – but they are adjudicated by the courts. The Supreme Court, with a right-wing majority under Chief Justice John Roberts, has become a body that leans too far toward the “1 percent” to be considered a neutral arbiter. So whether they know all the ins and outs of the court's profound rightward shift or not, those protesting across the country as part of the Occupy movement are motivated by its corruption as well. While conservatives constantly rail against judges "legislating from the bench," it is far more common for right-leaning jurists to engage in “judicial activism” than those of a liberal bent. That's what a 2005 study by Yale University legal scholar Paul Gewirtz and Chad Golder found. According to the scholars, those justices most frequently labeled "conservative" were among the most likely to strike down statutes passed by Congress, while those most frequently labeled "liberal" were the least likely to do so. A 2007 study by University of Chicago law professor Thomas J. Miles and Cass R. Sunstein looked at the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies, and found a similar trend. The Supreme Court's "conservative" justices were again the most likely to engage in this form of "activism," while the "liberal" justices were most likely to exercise judicial restraint. SNIP Read more at:
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: All, A K A Stone, Lucysmom (#0)
ping
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
Sounds more like criminal behavior than free speech to me, but then by real conservative standards I'm a libtard.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
Yeah they just love that name calling and the plagiarizing of material and posts. That way they don't have to waste their precious lives doing research.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
We all, on both sides, namecall, but accusing someone of plagirarizism, the deliberate theft of another's copyrighted works is a pretty serious charge, can you show documented proof here where someone has done this mininggold?
"OWS! Liberals! Their goal is to find a way to live within the means of the working class rich, but without the work."
Ping!
I know what you're thinking fred, he did accuse me of that a while back, but it was because I used a quote and didn't put the persons name on it, I still don't know if it was copy righted, but I would never deliberately call something my own if it had been. But if you stop and think about it, there isn't a spoken word you can post here, that hasn't been posted somewhere else, not a thought, not a sentence you may have posted, it's all been said before, but unless that person has applied for and gotten a copy right on that quote, it belongs to anyone who uses it.
"OWS! Liberals! Their goal is to find a way to live within the means of the working class rich, but without the work."
If I post uncopyrighted work from another student in a class, or work from a previous paper the anti-plagiarism software detects when I post an assignment online, I would get sanctioned. You don't need a copy right on the material to plagiarize.
We're not talking "word" we're talking cutting and pasting whole passages. Mike is correct.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
Mike is correct. Your halo is slipping....&;-) Anyway, I am no thief, not deliberately.
"OWS! Liberals! Their goal is to find a way to live within the means of the working class rich, but without the work."
Nor am I many of the things you've called me, but that doesn't matter one iota to you - "do unto others" and all that.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
Anyway, I am no thief, not deliberately. I just love how you 'conservative' Teabaggers refuse to take any personal responsibility, resist any show of remorse or apology and try to blame others when caught in a lie.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
They're special you know.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
Special and too smart to be caught. Same pathological behavior that's rampant among inmates.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
They're the same people who argue that we don't need no government to protect us from fraud and theft, it's the individual's responsibility to protect himself.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
Yet they want a huge military spread all over the world enforcing our system on others. I think they see it as a way to keep their younguns off the street while getting the education they missed AND still being paid. With free health care for life and the GI Bill thrown in.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
But we and our property can't be safe...oh forget it - now I'm hopelessly confused.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
Those people are making their arguments on the thread dealing with those arguments. Why aren't you making your arguments there? Why are you posting hit and run, insulting statements concerning another thread in a different and irrelevant thread?
How can I help?
They will readily admit it's an extremely flawed system and needs to be totally destroyed, yet they seem to want it to be present everywhere else in the world. By military might if necessary and all without our taxes going up.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
Yet they want a huge military spread all over the world enforcing our system on others. Who wants that?
Why are you posting hit and run, insulting statements concerning another thread in a different and irrelevant thread? This is my thread and I give my permission for posters to post whatever they want.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
Lack of congruence won't be confined to a single thread it seems.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
LOL! Sorry, but you own nothing here.
Oh, the Tea Partiers are now antiwar? I fail to see where their candidates or their actions back that up.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
Witty, but irrelevant.
Sorry, but you own nothing here. Start your own thread then or complain to Stone.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
Says who?
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
Here, let me help... Who are you pulling for in 2012?
I did, yet you two are addressing points made in it, here. I'm simply asking why? No need to complain to anyone, I'm enjoying myself.
Says who? I did. I thought you saw it. If not...
BTW, I thought you should know this... I agree, corporations are not people and should not be considered people.
Amazing. Has it ever occurred to you that Congress has in the past and are to this day passing unconstitutional legislation? I could list many, but you probably are already aware of them. So do you think it's somehow par for the course that conservatives, who by the very definition of the word are the ones who want to preserve the constitution, and the institutions and traditions that came with America's founding, would be more likely to strike down unconstitutional legislation over a period of years? I would certainly hope they would do just that. Does it bother you, that with the massive amount of unconstitutional legislation that has already been passed, that the left doesn't seem as interested in striking any of it down?
So do you think it's somehow par for the course that conservatives, who by the very definition of the word are the ones who want to preserve the constitution, and the institutions and traditions that came with America's founding, would be more likely to strike down unconstitutional legislation over a period of years? I would certainly hope they would do just that. Does it bother you, that with the massive amount of unconstitutional legislation that has already been passed, that the left doesn't seem as interested in striking any of it down? Yet the Pubby controlled Scotus said that a piece of paper that owes it's very existence to the state has free speech when it comes to donating money to that same Congress. And there is nothing that King Paul can do about it other than appointing more judges.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
I hope that you noted that I said 'conservative' not Republican.
The definition of which changes with the wind. And directly leads to the 'Divided We Fall' scenario.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
And that is clearly unconstitutional and anti-American. America was founded on individual rights, not rights assigned as part of any group. And there is nothing that King Paul can do about it other than appointing more judges. Sure there is. I've already stated that the bully pulpit and the backing of a large and loud American public can go a long way. We've seen it time and time again.
The definition of which changes with the wind. The definition of Republican certainly seems to change with the wind. The definition of Conservative has not changed.
Depends on who is using the word.
Wall Street owns the country…Our laws are the output of a system which clothes rascals in robes and honesty in rags. The [political] parties lie to us and the political speakers mislead us…Money rules. Mary Elizabeth Lease, 1890
No, it doesn't. American conservatism is a set ideology. There are no gray areas. One is either a conservative or something else pretending to be a conservative. If one pretends, or lies to try to pass his own philosophy off as conservative, that cannot change the definition of the set ideology of conservatism.
American conservatism is a set ideology. There are no gray areas. One is either a conservative or something else pretending to be a conservative. If one pretends, or lies to try to pass his own philosophy off as conservative, that cannot change the definition of the set ideology of conservatism. Actually it changes according to the time frame of history it is meant to 'conserve'.
"ROTFLMAO... Perfect! She longs... for someone to Teabag her. a man that squats on top of a women's face and lowers his genitals into her mouth during sex, known as "teabagging" She aches for it"... ~~~JWpegler. Head Tea Bagger and Tea Party supporter extraordinaire, explicitly expressing his fantasies in public about other posters.
We're talking American conservatism. There is only one time frame.
Comments (42 - 58) not displayed.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#2. To: mininggold (#0)
At a 2010 conference, former Rep. Alan Grayson, D-Florida, put the potential impact of Citizens United in stark terms. “We’re now in a situation,” he told the crowd, “where a lobbyist can walk into my office…and say, ‘I’ve got five million dollars to spend, and I can spend it for you or against you. Which do you prefer?’”
#3. To: lucysmom (#2)
ounds more like criminal behavior than free speech to me, but then by real conservative standards I'm a libtard.
#4. To: mininggold, lucysmom, A K A Stone, ALL (#3)
"Yeah they just love that name calling and the plagiarizing of material and posts."
#5. To: Murron, Ferret Mike (#4)
#6. To: Fred Mertz (#5)
#7. To: Murron (#6)
"But if you stop and think about it, there isn't a spoken word you can post here, that hasn't been posted somewhere else, not a thought, not a sentence you may have posted, it's all been said before, but unless that person has applied for and gotten a copy right on that quote, it belongs to anyone who uses it."
#8. To: Murron (#6)
But if you stop and think about it, there isn't a spoken word you can post here, that hasn't been posted somewhere else, not a thought, not a sentence you may have posted, it's all been said before, but unless that person has applied for and gotten a copy right on that quote, it belongs to anyone who uses it.
#9. To: lucysmom, Ferret Mike (#8)
We're not talking "word" we're talking cutting and pasting whole passages.
#10. To: Murron (#9)
Anyway, I am no thief, not deliberately.
#11. To: Murron (#9)
Your halo is slipping....&;-)
#12. To: mininggold (#11)
I just love how you 'conservative' Teabaggers refuse to take any personal responsibility, resist any show of remorse or apology and try to blame others when caught in a lie.
#13. To: lucysmom (#12)
They're special you know.
#14. To: mininggold (#13)
Special and too smart to be caught. Same pathological behavior that's rampant among inmates.
#15. To: lucysmom (#14)
(Edited)
They're the same people who argue that we don't need no government to protect us from fraud and theft, it's the individual's responsibility to protect himself.
#16. To: mininggold (#15)
Yet they want a huge military spread all over the world enforcing our system on others.
#17. To: lucysmom (#14)
They're the same people who argue that we don't need no government to protect us from fraud and theft, it's the individual's responsibility to protect himself.
#18. To: lucysmom (#16)
oh forget it - now I'm hopelessly confused.
#19. To: lucysmom (#16)
But we and our property can't be safe...oh forget it - now I'm hopelessly confused.
#20. To: mininggold (#15)
They're the same people who argue that we don't need no government to protect us from fraud and theft, it's the individual's responsibility to protect himself.
#21. To: We The People (#17)
Those people are making their arguments on the thread dealing with those arguments. Why aren't you making your arguments there?
#22. To: We The People (#17)
#23. To: mininggold (#21)
#24. To: We The People (#20)
Who wants that?
#25. To: lucysmom (#22)
Lack of congruence won't be confined to a single thread it seems.
#26. To: We The People (#23)
LOL!
#27. To: We The People (#25)
Witty, but irrelevant.
#28. To: mininggold (#24)
Oh, the Tea Partiers are now antiwar? I fail to see where their candidates or their actions back that up.
#29. To: mininggold (#26)
Start your own thread then or complain to Stone.
#30. To: lucysmom (#27)
Witty, but irrelevant.
#31. To: mininggold, lucysmom (#26)
#32. To: mininggold (#0)
A 2007 study by University of Chicago law professor Thomas J. Miles and Cass R. Sunstein looked at the tendency of judges to strike down decisions by federal regulatory agencies, and found a similar trend. The Supreme Court's "conservative" justices were again the most likely to engage in this form of "activism," while the "liberal" justices were most likely to exercise judicial restraint.
#33. To: We The People (#32)
(Edited)
Amazing. Has it ever occurred to you that Congress has in the past and are to this day passing unconstitutional legislation? I could list many, but you probably are already aware of them.
#34. To: mininggold (#33)
#35. To: We The People (#34)
(Edited)
I hope that you noted that I said 'conservative' not Republican.
#36. To: mininggold (#33)
(Edited)
Yet the Pubby controlled Scotus said that a piece of paper that owes it's very existence to the state has free speech when it comes to donating money to that same Congress.
#37. To: mininggold (#35)
I hope that you noted that I said 'conservative' not Republican.
#38. To: We The People (#37)
The definition of Conservative has not changed.
#39. To: lucysmom (#38)
Depends on who is using the word.
#40. To: We The People (#39)
No, it doesn't.
#41. To: mininggold (#40)
Actually it changes according to the time frame of history it is meant to 'conserve'.
.
.
.
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]