The Democrat Party's propaganda arm's vile attacks on the Supreme Court

[West]

https://www.foxnews.com/media/msnbc-host-surprises-the-view-co-host-claiming-supreme-court-flagrantly-corrupt

This dude is very disgusting. They want to remove the justices so that their Marxist takeover goes unchecked

[robosmith]

^Still hasn't learned that FOS LIES to you. 🤮

[herbie]

Another mad opinion quoted as if it was news. Nothing wrong with a Court that decides corporations are people and prioritizes the right to make machine guns above the rights of women, eh?

Edited June 19, 2024 by herbie

[User]

46 minutes ago, herbie said:

Another mad opinion quoted as if it was news. Nothing wrong with a Court that decides corporations are people and prioritizes the right to make machine guns above the rights of women, eh?

The Supreme Court never said corporations are people, nor did they prioritize the right to make machine guns above the rights of women.

Are there any other brainless talking points you want to parrot from your local liberal coffee club meeting? 

[Legato]

1 hour ago, herbie said:

Another mad opinion quoted as if it was news. Nothing wrong with a Court that decides corporations are people and prioritizes the right to make machine guns above the rights of women, eh?

Codswollop.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, User said:

The Supreme Court never said corporations are people, nor did they prioritize the right to make machine guns above the rights of women.

Are there any other brainless talking points you want to parrot from your local liberal coffee club meeting? 

Do you EVER bother to google things before making a fool of yourself?

Quote

How the 14th Amendment Made Corporations Into 'People'

History.com

https://www.history.com › news › 14th-amendment-cor...

 

Jun 15, 2018 — Under U.S. law, these essential rights belong not only to American citizens, but also corporations—thanks to a few key Supreme Court cases and a ...

 

 

[User]

36 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Do you EVER bother to google things before making a fool of yourself?

I don't have to google anything. Unlike you, I have an educated understanding of this subject. 

The claim I responded to was that corporations are people, and you posted what should essentially be considered an Op/Ed talking about the concept of corporate personhood, which isn't stated in the ruling at all. 

The ruling centered entirely on the concept of free speech, which doesn't somehow disappear just because people are in a corporation. 

That doesn't make a corporation a person or give them some kind of personhood. Its no different than if a bunch of people join a union and combine their resources to promote political speech, or a club, or any kind of association. 

The Supreme Court pointed out the obvious contradictions because there is corporate media... are you now going to argue that there is no freedom of the press or freedom of speech that applies to any kind of incorporated media? Of course not. 

Come on back when you can do more than post links to other peoples opinions. 

[robosmith]

22 minutes ago, User said:

I don't have to google anything. Unlike you, I have an educated understanding of this subject. 

The claim I responded to was that corporations are people, and you posted what should essentially be considered an Op/Ed talking about the concept of corporate personhood, which isn't stated in the ruling at all. 

The ruling centered entirely on the concept of free speech, which doesn't somehow disappear just because people are in a corporation. 

That doesn't make a corporation a person or give them some kind of personhood. Its no different than if a bunch of people join a union and combine their resources to promote political speech, or a club, or any kind of association. 

The Supreme Court pointed out the obvious contradictions because there is corporate media... are you now going to argue that there is no freedom of the press or freedom of speech that applies to any kind of incorporated media? Of course not. 

Come on back when you can do more than post links to other peoples opinions. 

In reality, there are many differences between corporations and individuals. Among them are the length of life and subsequent accumulations of wealth which are very different between many corporations and the longest lived and wealthiest of individuals, resulting in huge inequalities between the influences of corporations and individuals.

In FACT that gives many corporations influence and rights SUPERIOR to individuals, which is a huge PROBLEM.

It would seem that your understanding is really NOT very educated. 

[gatomontes99]

10 hours ago, herbie said:

Another mad opinion quoted as if it was news. Nothing wrong with a Court that decides corporations are people and prioritizes the right to make machine guns above the rights of women, eh?

 

11 hours ago, robosmith said:

^Still hasn't learned that FOS LIES to you. 🤮

And yet, other outlets are reporting it to. Are you two claiming tmshe didn't say it? Or do you just attack Fox News because of your internal biases?

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rachel-maddow-calls-supreme-court-flagrantly-corrupt-says-they-ve-already-effectively-given-trump-immunity/ar-BB1oslMx

 

[gatomontes99]

5 hours ago, robosmith said:

In reality, there are many differences between corporations and individuals. Among them are the length of life and subsequent accumulations of wealth which are very different between many corporations and the longest lived and wealthiest of individuals, resulting in huge inequalities between the influences of corporations and individuals.

In FACT that gives many corporations influence and rights SUPERIOR to individuals, which is a huge PROBLEM.

It would seem that your understanding is really NOT very educated. 

No one said there is no difference between people and corporations. What was said is that corporations are made of people and those people still have their God given rights while representing a corporation.

Your post shows an inherent jealously for people of wealth and a bigoted hatred for any thing they might do.

[User]

6 hours ago, robosmith said:

In reality, there are many differences between corporations and individuals. Among them are the length of life and subsequent accumulations of wealth which are very different between many corporations and the longest lived and wealthiest of individuals, resulting in huge inequalities between the influences of corporations and individuals.

In FACT that gives many corporations influence and rights SUPERIOR to individuals, which is a huge PROBLEM.

It would seem that your understanding is really NOT very educated. 

There are many differences between me and a Grandma. So what?

That wasn't the point of discussion. 

If you and your family get together to accumulate wealth, and combine your speech to support a cause, you have more power and influence than some single homeless guy. So what?

Freedom of speech != Speech equity. 

Just like folks get together to join a union for more power and influence, that is more than any individual has. So, now you oppose free speech for people in a Union?

What you think is a huge problem or not, was not any point here. What is Constitutional and that people in a corporation having freedom of speech doesn't somehow make that corporation a person was the point. 

 

[Nationalist]

Question: was the SCOTUS conservative or liberal leaning in 2008?

I ask because I can't find a straight forward answer.

[Fluffypants]

The same people who are claiming the Supreme Court is corrupt are the same people that say you are horrible people who hate Democracy if you even question the motivations of the judges and prosecutors in New York against Trump.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

 

And yet, other outlets are reporting it to.

Then it would be far wiser to cite one which has NOT destroyed their credibility. Duh

 

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Are you two claiming tmshe didn't say it?

Who is tmshe and what did they say?

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

Or do you just attack Fox News because of your internal biases?

Are you completely ignorant of the FACT that FOS LIES is PROVEN IN COURT LIARS?

That is EXTERNAL EVIDENCE to the tune of $800M LIBEL penalty.

On top of that, FOS LIES LAWYERS have testified in court that no one should believe them because they are clearly NOT NEWS in defense of other LIBEL charges.

Maybe you don't know about that because you ONLY watch/read FOS LIES. LMAO

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/rachel-maddow-calls-supreme-court-flagrantly-corrupt-says-they-ve-already-effectively-given-trump-immunity/ar-BB1oslMx

They HAVE effectively given Trump immunity by delaying his trial for MONTHS until after the election on a decision that most predicted was a slam dunk as decided by the appeals court. But SCOTUS decided to CHANGE the QUESTION to one which is much broader than necessary to the FACTS of the CURRENT CASE/CHARGES.

[robosmith]

3 hours ago, gatomontes99 said:

No one said there is no difference between people and corporations. What was said is that corporations are made of people and those people still have their God given rights while representing a corporation.

Your post shows an inherent jealously for people of wealth and a bigoted hatred for any thing they might do.

As STATED, corporations are independent entities from the people who own them. The decision effectively gives the owners double rights and the corporate ones are FAR MORE POWERFUL. Duh

[West]

51 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

The same people who are claiming the Supreme Court is corrupt are the same people that say you are horrible people who hate Democracy if you even question the motivations of the judges and prosecutors in New York against Trump.

They know they've stacked the deck with judges willing to do lawfare against conservatives so it's basically just projection

[robosmith]

2 hours ago, User said:

There are many differences between me and a Grandma. So what?

That wasn't the point of discussion. 

If you and your family get together to accumulate wealth, and combine your speech to support a cause, you have more power and influence than some single homeless guy. So what?

Freedom of speech != Speech equity. 

Just like folks get together to join a union for more power and influence, that is more than any individual has. So, now you oppose free speech for people in a Union?

What you think is a huge problem or not, was not any point here. What is Constitutional and that people in a corporation having freedom of speech doesn't somehow make that corporation a person was the point. 

 

Corporations NEVER HAD citizens' rights before they were EXPANDED very recently.

People form corporations because they are very effective at expanding wealth and that flies in the face of a founding American principle of "one man, one vote." Speech is not the issue, the issue is the size of the MEGAPHONE corporate money gives the speech.🤮

In addition corporations ARE NOT citizens, they are a legally contrived entity with LIMITED RIGHTS (until recently by a flawed decision).

2 hours ago, Nationalist said:

Question: was the SCOTUS conservative or liberal leaning in 2008?

I ask because I can't find a straight forward answer.

Kennedy was the swing vote and he was liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

[robosmith]

59 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

The same people who are claiming the Supreme Court is corrupt are the same people that say you are horrible people who hate Democracy if you even question the motivations of the judges and prosecutors in New York against Trump.

The people who are claiming the SCOTUS is corrupt are the ones who KNOW ABOUT the huge bribes being given, esp to Thomas and Alito.

[User]

25 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Corporations NEVER HAD citizens' rights before they were EXPANDED very recently.

Wrong. In regards to speech, media corporations had no restrictions before Citizens United. 

And again... the protections here were in regards to Speech, that just because people get together in a corporation, doesn't mean the lose their rights to freedom of speech. 
 

26 minutes ago, robosmith said:

People form corporations because they are very effective at expanding wealth and that flies in the face of a founding American principle of "one man, one vote." Speech is not the issue, the issue is the size of the MEGAPHONE corporate money gives the speech.🤮

So what if they are good at expanding wealth? A savvy individual can be good at expanding their wealth too, that doesn't mean they lose their freedom of speech. 

Corporations are not getting votes... the people in them can vote. 

So... if your argument is about the size of the megaphone, that has nothing to do with corporations, as again, people can form Unions or clubs, or any other kind of organization to combine their resources to push influence for the things they support. 

It appears you have a problem with the basic concepts of freedom of speech now.

 

28 minutes ago, robosmith said:

In addition corporations ARE NOT citizens, they are a legally contrived entity with LIMITED RIGHTS (until recently by a flawed decision).

Sure, limited rights around the concepts of how corporations function as a corporation... doesn't change the concept of freedom of speech though. 

 

[CdnFox]

1 hour ago, Fluffypants said:

The same people who are claiming the Supreme Court is corrupt are the same people that say you are horrible people who hate Democracy if you even question the motivations of the judges and prosecutors in New York against Trump.

This is my biggest problem. You are an evil horrible trumpist and deserve death if you dare to question the integrity of the court in New York. You are also an evil horrible trumpist and deserve death if you DON'T question the supreme court.

Honestly these people could hypocrisy for the Olympics

[Fluffypants]

38 minutes ago, robosmith said:

The people who are claiming the SCOTUS is corrupt are the ones who KNOW ABOUT the huge bribes being given, esp to Thomas and Alito.

I thought Alito was just flying flags you didn't like. I don't know of any bribes.

[robosmith]

2 minutes ago, Fluffypants said:

I thought Alito was just flying flags you didn't like. I don't know of any bribes.

He was also given an extravagant vacation AND travel on a private jet which he FAILED TO REPORT.

[Nationalist]

48 minutes ago, robosmith said:

Corporations NEVER HAD citizens' rights before they were EXPANDED very recently.

People form corporations because they are very effective at expanding wealth and that flies in the face of a founding American principle of "one man, one vote." Speech is not the issue, the issue is the size of the MEGAPHONE corporate money gives the speech.🤮

In addition corporations ARE NOT citizens, they are a legally contrived entity with LIMITED RIGHTS (until recently by a flawed decision).

Kennedy was the swing vote and he was liberal on some issues and conservative on others.

So it was a liberal leaning court.

Case dismissed.

[robosmith]

29 minutes ago, User said:

Wrong. In regards to speech, media corporations had no restrictions before Citizens United. 

And again... the protections here were in regards to Speech, that just because people get together in a corporation, doesn't mean the lose their rights to freedom of speech. 
 

So what if they are good at expanding wealth? A savvy individual can be good at expanding their wealth too, that doesn't mean they lose their freedom of speech. 

Corporations are not getting votes... the people in them can vote. 

So... if your argument is about the size of the megaphone, that has nothing to do with corporations, as again, people can form Unions or clubs, or any other kind of organization to combine their resources to push influence for the things they support. 

It appears you have a problem with the basic concepts of freedom of speech now.

 

Sure, limited rights around the concepts of how corporations function as a corporation... doesn't change the concept of freedom of speech though. 

Quote

What was Citizens United about?

A conservative nonprofit group called Citizens United challenged campaign finance rules after the FEC stopped it from promoting and airing a film criticizing presidential candidate Hillary Clinton too close to the presidential primaries.

A 5–4 majority of the Supreme Court sided with Citizens United, ruling that corporations and other outside groups can spend unlimited money on elections.

What was the rationale for the ruling?

In the court’s opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote that limiting “independent political spending” from corporations and other groups violates the First Amendment right to free speech. The justices who voted with the majority assumed that independent spending cannot be corrupt and that the spending would be transparent, but both assumptions have proven to be incorrect.

With its decision, the Supreme Court overturned election spending restrictions that date back more than 100 years. Previously, the court had upheld certain spending restrictions, arguing that the government had a role in preventing corruption. But in Citizens United, a bare majority of the justices held that “independent political spending” did not present a substantive threat of corruption, provided it was not coordinated with a candidate’s campaign. 

As a result, corporations can now spend unlimited funds on campaign advertising if they are not formally “coordinating” with a candidate or political party. 

How has Citizens United changed elections in the United States?

The ruling has ushered in massive increases in political spending from outside groups, dramatically expanding the already outsized political influence of wealthy donors, corporations, and special interest groups.

In the immediate aftermath of the Citizens United decision, analysts focused much of their attention on how the Supreme Court designated corporate spending on elections as free speech. But perhaps the most significant outcomes of Citizens United have been the creation of super PACs, which empower the wealthiest donors, and the expansion of dark money through shadowy nonprofits that don’t disclose their donors.

A Brennan Center report by Daniel I. Weiner pointed out that a very small group of Americans now wield “more power than at any time since Watergate, while many of the rest seem to be disengaging from politics.“

One man, one vote NO LONGER.

14 minutes ago, Nationalist said:

So it was a liberal leaning court.

It was more BALANCED, like I said. 

[User]

14 minutes ago, robosmith said:

One man, one vote NO LONGER.

Nowhere did this ruling change anything regarding individuals voting.