Page 1 of 1 pages
Hi, Y’all !
Really, is anyone surprised that the right-wingers are behaving like fascists? That’s what they are!
May I state, as a qualifier, that not every republican is a right-winger. Come to think of it, we used to have Liberal Republicans, like Bush 41, before the Soviet Union collapsed and our domestic fascists needed another enemy.
Still, let’s keep in mind that there are those in this country who wish to be rich and powerful and, since they can’t literally sell their souls to the devil, they do it by manipulating our government and twisting the laws like a balloon animal. Any time a right-winger wants to do anything or even opens his mouth, look for the way he or one of his friends profits.
It leaves me sad and sickened to realize that we are going to have twenty to forty more years of rulings in favor of corporations and the lackeys.
Ta-Ta !
Posted by Aunty Rightwing on Dec 5, 2007 at 3:17 PM
<blockquote><i>“The Bush-Roberts Court rejects this commitment to liberty and equality. Under Chief Justice John Roberts and his major domo Antonin Scalia,
Posted by Natalie on Dec 6, 2007 at 1:13 AM
Welcome back, Natalie.
Your incisive comments on Kelo are exactly right. Why would Fortunato argue that the Leftist Supremes’ decision in favor of stealing poor peoples’ property be the fault of Conservatives? Leftists like Fortunato generally are clueless, but this is ridiculous.
Note, too, that Fortunato cited six unanimous(!) decisions in his attempt to prove that Conservatives are stomping all over the rights of the common man:
* Whren v. United States, 1996
* Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 2006
* United States v. Grubbs, 2006
* Long Island Care at Home Ltd. v. Coke, 2007
* DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 2006
* Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 2006
So, of the eight court cases Fortunato cited as proof that the Conservatives were attacking the peoples’ rights, six were unanimous and one was a Liberal attack on the peoples’ rights.
Then Fortunato says that “the court
Posted by scorp on Dec 6, 2007 at 3:05 PM
Hi scorp,
Actually, when I initially wrote my post, I didn’t see there was a second page to the article. Luckily for me I noticed before I posted. I never thought he would even mention Kelo. But on page 2 he did, and although he didn’t actually say so, he certainly endeavored to make the implication that the decision was driven by the “Bush-Roberts” wing of the court. A tricky little trick to tar the conservative wing using technically correct designations, I would strongly suspect.
<blockquote><i>“Workers and taxpayers cannot fight against corporations that take property for the benefit of profit-making, and they are just as powerless to seek redress in court when a town
Posted by Natalie on Dec 6, 2007 at 4:07 PM
I didn’t see any reference to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), in which the Court decided that the State of California could not tax corporations differently than it did individuals. It is very often cited as the decision that, in effect, granted corporations the status as legal “persons” and therefore protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. They were then considered to be entitled to Constitutional protections as though a living human being.
The timeframe of the article was much more recent than that decision, but there’s no doubt that as a precedent, it has had a profound effect on the role of corporations in legal and popular culture. It’s rare that anyone questions the validity of the “corporation as person” analogy, these days.
Probably most people don’t regard it as questionable.
It does occur to me to wonder whether an entity that is a creation of human beings, but that is not limited by natural lifespan or human frailties, ought to get the same rights as you and I. Perhaps it has some level of functionality, but in a legal contest between an individual and a corporation, where the latter may well have a lot more resources it can bring to bear, it’s hard to see how the legal playing field is inherently even.
Posted by Kuya on Dec 7, 2007 at 1:19 AM
Page 1 of 1 pages
SAVE 53% OFFTHE NEWSSTAND PRICE!
Reader Comments
Hi, Y’all !
Really, is anyone surprised that the right-wingers are behaving like fascists? That’s what they are!
May I state, as a qualifier, that not every republican is a right-winger. Come to think of it, we used to have Liberal Republicans, like Bush 41, before the Soviet Union collapsed and our domestic fascists needed another enemy.
Still, let’s keep in mind that there are those in this country who wish to be rich and powerful and, since they can’t literally sell their souls to the devil, they do it by manipulating our government and twisting the laws like a balloon animal. Any time a right-winger wants to do anything or even opens his mouth, look for the way he or one of his friends profits.
It leaves me sad and sickened to realize that we are going to have twenty to forty more years of rulings in favor of corporations and the lackeys.
Ta-Ta !
<blockquote><i>“The Bush-Roberts Court rejects this commitment to liberty and equality. Under Chief Justice John Roberts and his major domo Antonin Scalia,
Welcome back, Natalie.
Your incisive comments on Kelo are exactly right. Why would Fortunato argue that the Leftist Supremes’ decision in favor of stealing poor peoples’ property be the fault of Conservatives? Leftists like Fortunato generally are clueless, but this is ridiculous.
Note, too, that Fortunato cited six unanimous(!) decisions in his attempt to prove that Conservatives are stomping all over the rights of the common man:
* Whren v. United States, 1996
* Los Angeles County v. Rettele, 2006
* United States v. Grubbs, 2006
* Long Island Care at Home Ltd. v. Coke, 2007
* DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 2006
* Rumsfeld v. FAIR, 2006
So, of the eight court cases Fortunato cited as proof that the Conservatives were attacking the peoples’ rights, six were unanimous and one was a Liberal attack on the peoples’ rights.
Then Fortunato says that “the court
Hi scorp,
Actually, when I initially wrote my post, I didn’t see there was a second page to the article. Luckily for me I noticed before I posted. I never thought he would even mention Kelo. But on page 2 he did, and although he didn’t actually say so, he certainly endeavored to make the implication that the decision was driven by the “Bush-Roberts” wing of the court. A tricky little trick to tar the conservative wing using technically correct designations, I would strongly suspect.
<blockquote><i>“Workers and taxpayers cannot fight against corporations that take property for the benefit of profit-making, and they are just as powerless to seek redress in court when a town
I didn’t see any reference to Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad (1886), in which the Court decided that the State of California could not tax corporations differently than it did individuals. It is very often cited as the decision that, in effect, granted corporations the status as legal “persons” and therefore protected by the due process clause of the 14th Amendment. They were then considered to be entitled to Constitutional protections as though a living human being.
The timeframe of the article was much more recent than that decision, but there’s no doubt that as a precedent, it has had a profound effect on the role of corporations in legal and popular culture. It’s rare that anyone questions the validity of the “corporation as person” analogy, these days.
Probably most people don’t regard it as questionable.
It does occur to me to wonder whether an entity that is a creation of human beings, but that is not limited by natural lifespan or human frailties, ought to get the same rights as you and I. Perhaps it has some level of functionality, but in a legal contest between an individual and a corporation, where the latter may well have a lot more resources it can bring to bear, it’s hard to see how the legal playing field is inherently even.
register a new account »Posting Security