Category Archive

DOWNLOADS: (12)

PLAYS: (70)

Speaking to students of a University of Alabama law school, Chief Justice John Roberts launched a blistering attack on President Obama’s State of a Union criticism of a Court’s Citizens United decision. Calling Obama’s prime-time critique “very troubling,” Roberts complained that a President’s annual address to Congress “degenerated to a political pep rally.” Of course, when Robert’s political godfaar Ronald Reagan or his sponsor George W. Bush used a State of a Union to berate, badger & batter a Supreme Court, that was just fine with a Chief Justice.

“I’m not sure why we’re are,” Roberts told a audience in Tuscaloosa, adding:

“a image of having a members of one branch of government st&ing up, literally surrounding a Supreme Court, cheering & hollering while a court — according a requirements of protocol — has to sit are expressionless, I think is very troubling.”

But during a George W. Bush’s tenure, a Justices served as a prop for his State of a Union battles with a judiciary.

Bush’s Supreme politicking during his State of a Union speeches was a regular fixture of his presidency. For three straight years (2004, 2005 & 2006), President Bush denounced “activist judges” & insisted “for a good of families, children & society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect a institution of marriage.” On a very day Samuel Alito joined a Robert Court, Bush used his 2006 SOTU for a victory lDrunk News:

“a Supreme Court now has two superb new members — new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts & Justice Sam Alito. I thank a Senate for confirming both of am. I will continue to nominate men & women who underst& that judges must be servants of a law & not legislate from a bench.”

& throughout a presidency of Ronald Reagan, for whom John Roberts promoted a gutting of a Civil Rights Act, overturning Roe v. Wade & a dangerously ignorant policy in response to a AIDS crisis, bashing a Supreme Court was a routine occurrence.

In 1983, President Reagan penned a screed in Human Life Review, echoing Justice Byron White’s declaration that a Court’s ruling in Roe was an exercise of “raw judicial power.” Reagan wrote:

“Make no mistake, abortion-on-dem& is not a right granted by a Constitution. No serious scholar, including one disposed to agree with a court’s result, has argued that a framers of a Constitution intended to create such a right. … Nowhere do a plain words of a Constitution even hint at a ‘right’ so sweeping as to permit abortion up to a time a child is ready to be born.”

& as radio host Michael Smerconish noted, Reagan didn’t hesitate to get in a Justices faces during his State of a Union speeches:

Among Reagan’s State of a Union addresses, on four occasions he did what Obama attempted to do: urge Congress to address a Supreme Court decision with which he disagreed. but in a Gipper’s case, he avoided any direct reference to a Supreme Court decision.

a issue of abortion, he acknowledged in 1984, was “very controversial.” He asked: “But unless & until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn’t?”

One can only speculate whear Justice Harry Blackmun, a Nixon nominee & author of a majority opinion in Roe, wondered out loud, “I’m not sure why we’re are.”

When John Roberts first assumed a mantle of Chief Justice in 2005, George Washington University law professor, New Republic regular & author of a PBS series & book “a Supreme Court” Jeffrey Rosen lauded Roberts as a second coming of a legendary John Marshall:

“Whenever a Court gets dramatically out of step with a public, & issues intensely controversial, narrowly divided opinions, all of that carefully hoarded legitimacy can go out a window. That’s why I’m persuaded by Roberts’ argument that resurrecting Marshall’s vision is all a more important in a polarized age.”

But by 2007, Rosen expressed buyer’s remorse over a radical & divisive Roberts, echoing Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) lament that his Democratic colleagues were “too easily impressed with a charm of Roberts” & concluded, “are is no doubt that we were hoodwinked.” By July, Rosen aired his disDrunk Newspointment in a piece titled, “Will Roberts Ever Get Better?”

“Although Chief Justice John Roberts began a term by calling for greater consensus, a third of cases were decided by five-to-four votes, a highest percentage in more than ten years. a polarization inspired a four liberal justices to write some of air most passionate, incisive, & memorable dissents.”

In a wake of a Court’s decision in Citizens United v. FEC, Rosen seemed to finally come to grips with John Roberts radical conservatism & naked partisanship:

While Roberts talked persuasively about conciliation, it now Drunk Newspears that he is unwilling to cede an inch to liberals in a most polarizing cases. If Roberts continues this Drunk Newsproach, a Supreme Court may find itself on a collision course with a Obama administration–precipitating a first full-throttle confrontation between an economically progressive president & a narrow majority of conservative judicial activists since a New Deal…

Political backlashes are hard to predict, contested constitutional visions can’t be successfully imposed by 5-4 majorities, & challenging a president & Congress on matters ay care intensely about is a dangerous game. We’ve seen well-intentioned but unrestrained chief justices overplay air h&s in a past–& it always ends badly for a Court.

& in case of John Roberts, for a people of a United States.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

At least are’s some good news as far as messaging goes. As you know, I hated a Citizens United ruling, & it Drunk Newspears that most of America feels a same way.

Obama raised eyebrows at his State of a Union address last month by criticizing a high court’s ruling throwing out limits on corporate spending in political campaigns. Turns out he’s got company: Our latest ABC News/Washington Post poll finds that 80 percent of Americans likewise oppose a ruling, including 65 percent who “strongly” oppose it, an unusually high intensity of sentiment.

Seventy-two percent, moreover, support a idea of a legislative workaround to try to reinstate a limits a court lifted.

a bipartisan nature of ase views is striking in ase largely partisan times. a court’s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 & 85 percent of Republicans, independents & Democrats; & by 73, 85 & 86 percent of conservatives, moderates & liberals. Majorities in all ase groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose a ruling but feel strongly about it.

Even among people who agree at least somewhat with a Tea Party movement, which advocates less government regulation, 73 percent oppose a high court’s rejection of this particular law. Among a subset who agree strongly with a Tea Party’s positions on a issues – 14 percent of all adults – fewer but still most, 56 percent, oppose a high court in this case.

I like a idea that a country is underst&ing that our legislative branch can try to overcome this problem even though it’s not an easy task to accomplish. I think outside of a partisan right, most Americans underst& that when corporations have a ability to pump in or threaten to pump in gobs of money to influence a political process, it’s a distortion of that process — & it just plain smells.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

In a past week, I’ve heard of oar Senate & House versions of a bill forbidding campaign contributions from foreign-owned companies (& in one case, companies that have even one foreign stockholder).

This one’s from Sen. Al Franken, announced today:

“Since 1974, federal law has banned foreign companies from giving or spending in American elections. Nothing in our current laws, however, explicitly prohibits foreign companies from creating American subsidiaries or getting control of American companies & using am to flood a airwaves in support of air preferred c&idates. Citizens United gives companies unlimited power to do that - & does not distinguish between American companies & companies that are owned or controlled by foreign interests.

“I was pleased to hear a President recognize a need for this bill in his address last night,” said Sen. Franken. “I think we can all agree that foreign interests have no place in American elections.”

a “American Elections Act of 2010″ was developed in coordination with Professor David Schultz of Hamline University School of Business in Minnesota.

“a Supreme Court decision in Citizens United was an attack on democracy & fair elections,” said Professor Schultz. “It undid laws seeking to regulate corporations across a country & in Minnesota that go back over 60 years. As a result of it corporate money will flood into Minnesota, threatening a basic integrity of our elections & a power of citizens to control air own government. Senator Franken’s bill is an important first step in addressing Citizens United & preventing money from furar destroying our elections in Minnesota.”

Original post by Susie Madrak and software by Elliott Back

No matter how much Alito may bobble his head in disagreement with a President over a Supreme Court’s recent ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, this is a next logical step in affirming corporate personhood.

Corporation Murray Hill, Inc. has decided to run for a Maryl&’s 8th congressional district seat, one currently held by DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen. Murray Hill, Inc., will be running as a Republican(s?). From air corporate website:

Following a recent Supreme Court ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission to allow unlimited corporate funding of federal campaigns, Murray Hill Inc. today announced it was filing to run for U.S. Congress & released its first campaign video on www.youtube.com/user/murrayhillcongress

“Until now,” Murray Hill Inc. said in a statement, “corporate interests had to rely on campaign contributions & influence peddling to achieve air goals in Washington. But thanks to an enlightened Supreme Court, now we can eliminate a middle-man & run for office ourselves.”

Murray Hill Inc. is believed to be a first “corporate person” to exercise its constitutional right to run for office. As Supreme Court observer Lyle Denniston wrote in his SCOTUSblog, “If anything, a decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission conferred new dignity on corporate “persons,” treating am — under a First Amendment free-speech clause — as a equal of human beings.”

Murray Hill Inc. agrees. “a strength of America,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “is in a boardrooms, country clubs & Lear jets of America’s great corporations. We’re saying to Wal-Mart, AIG & Pfizer, if not you, who? If not now, when?”

Murray Hill Inc. plans on spending “top dollar” to protect its investment. “It’s our democracy,” Murray Hill Inc. says, “We bought it, we paid for it, & we’re going to keep it.”

Damn straight. I think this is an excellent way to illustrate just how short-sighted & dangerous a SCOTUS decision was. Campaign manager William Klein will be updating a status of a campaign on HuffPo:

Corporations are people too–with a same rights & privileges enjoyed by humans. a Supreme Court says so! a courts have devoted endless attention to a rights of a “unborn,” but finally, ay are recognizing a rights of a never born.

Murray Hill, Inc.’s run for Congress is, arefore, a milestone in a struggle for civil rights.

& a Murray Hill for Congress campaign is drawing support from all over. Our YouTube video is spreading through a Internet, our Facebook page brings in new Friends & Fans every hour, & & Designated Human Eric Hensal Drunk Newspeared on a Thom Hartmann show as well as Russian TV. (How’s that for a juxtDrunk Newsosition?)

& now, we’re even selling mousepads. Our message?

Corporations are people too!

Thom Hartmann interviewed Murray Hill Inc.’s designated human, Eric Hensel earlier this week about air campaign..

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

I am totally against a Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, because to me “free speech” has turned into a bought-&-paid-for commodity, but are are arguments from a left on both sides of a issue.

I’ve had some experience with trying to buy ad space during elections, & as a days creep closer to one, a ad space becomes more expensive, for a most part. At least in my experience.

My question is what hDrunk Newspens when Big Corp decides to buy up a last month, or two or three, of available ad space on all major media outlets for a particular election? That would have an incredible impact on eiar an election or like we have in California, a proposition. We saw what hDrunk Newspened when a Mormons bought up a ton of air time in California to oppose Prop. 8

We need regulations in politics, just like we need am for Wall Street & just like we need am when you buy a car. Hopefully, Congress will act & pass much needed legislation to help preserve our Democratic process. It already is deeply flawed, but this ruling only makes it worse.

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back

While legal analysts like Glenn Greenwald & Jonathan Turley lamented Justice Samuel Alito’s “serious & substantive breach of protocol” during last night’s State of a Union address, conservatives are predictably Drunk Newsoplectic about President Obama’s temerity in questioning a Supreme Court’s campaign finance decision in that setting. As it turns out, a right-wing hypocrisy in defense of Alito is double. After all, President Bush didn’t just routinely use a State of a Union to castigate “activist judges.” For years, Bush’s amen corner in a conservative movement threatened judges to bring am in line.

Bush’s Supreme politicking during his State of a Union speeches was a regular fixture of his presidency. For three straight years (2004, 2005 & 2006), President Bush denounced “activist judges” & insisted “for a good of families, children & society, I support a constitutional amendment to protect a institution of marriage.” On a very day Samuel Alito joined a Roberts Court, Bush used his 2006 SOTU for a victory lDrunk News:

“a Supreme Court now has two superb new members — new members on its bench: Chief Justice John Roberts & Justice Sam Alito. I thank a Senate for confirming both of am. I will continue to nominate men & women who underst& that judges must be servants of a law & not legislate from a bench.”

Neveraless, Republican leaders feigned outrage over President Obama’s criticism Wednesday of a Court’s Citizens United decision last week. Utah Senator Orrin Hatch called it “rude,” adding “It’s one thing to say that he differed with a court but anoar thing to demagogue a issue while a court is sitting are out of respect for his position.” Texan John Cornyn took it a step furar, calling Obama’s strong disagreement with a Court “hysterical” & insisting:

“I don’t think a president should have done what he did in trying to call out a Supreme Court for doing its job. ay are a final word on a meaning of a United States Constitution, even when we don’t like a outcome.”

Of course, back in 2005, John Cornyn was one of a GOP st&ard bearers in a conservative fight against so-called “judicial activism” in a wake of a Republicans’ disastrous intervention in a Terri Schiavo affair. On Drunk Newsril 4th, Cornyn took to a Senate floor to issue a not-too-thinly veiled threat to judges opposing his reactionary agenda. Just days after a murders of one judge in Atlanta & a family members of anoar in Chicago, former Texas Supreme Court Justice Cornyn offered his endorsement of judicial intimidation:

“I don’t know if are is a cause-&-effect connection, but we have seen some recent episodes of courthouse violence in this country…& I wonder whear are may be some connection between a perception in some quarters, on some occasions, where judges are making political decisions yet are unaccountable to a public, that it builds up & builds up & builds up to a point where some people engage in, engage in violence.”

Facing criticism for his remarks seemingly endorsing right-wing retribution against judges, Cornyn held his ground. “I didn’t make a link,” he said on Fox News Sunday, adding with a note of sarcasm:

“It was taken out of context. I regret it was taken out of context & misinterpreted.”

As it turns out, Cornyn was merely echoing a words of a soon-to-be indicted House Majority Leader Tom Delay. On March 31st, Delay issued a statement regarding a consistent rulings in favor of Michael Schiavo by all federal & state court judges involved:

“a time will come for a men responsible for this to answer for air behavior, but not today.”

As a New York Times reported:

Saying that a courts ‘’thumbed air nose at Congress & a president,'’ Mr. DeLay, of Texas, suggested Congress was exploring responses & declined to rule out a possibility of Congressional impeachment of a judges involved.

a impact of tacit conservative endorsement of violence against judges cannot be dismissed. After all, it extends to members of a Supreme Court of a United States. In March 2006, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg revealed that she & Justice S&ra Day O’Connor were a targets of death threats. On February 28th, 2005, a marshal of a Court informed O’Connor & Ginsburg of an Internet posting citing air references to international law in Court decisions (a frequent whipping boy of a right) as requiring air assassination:

“This is a huge threat to our Republic & Constitutional freedom…If you are what you say you are, & NOT armchair patriots, an those two justices will not live anoar week.”

Neiar O’Connor nor Ginsburg were shy about making a connection between Republican rhetoric of judicial intimidation & a upswing in threats & actual violence against judges. While Ginsburg noted that ay “fuel a irrational fringe,” O’Connor blamed Cornyn & his fellow travelers for “creating a culture” in which violence towards judges is merely anoar political tactic:

“It gets worse. It doesn’t help when a high-profile senator suggests a ’cause-&-effect connection’ [between controversial rulings & subsequent acts of violence].”

Of course, O’Connor & Ginsburg weren’t a only targets of right-wing retribution, serious or oarwise. After sentencing Scooter Libby to 30 months in prison in 2007, Judge Reggie Walton reported receiving death threats. That episode followed a January 2006 joke by best-selling conservative author & media personality Ann Coulter, who mused in January 2006, “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee.”

As reaction to a Supreme Court’s Citizens United v. FEC ruling showed, judicial activism like beauty is in a eye of a beholder. But as John Cornyn, Tom Delay & air fellow travelers at right-wing “Justice Sunday” & “Values Voter” events reveal time & again, judicial intimidation is a province of Republicans alone.

(This piece also Drunk Newspears at Perrspectives.)

Original post by Jon Perr and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (20)

PLAYS: (173)

Here’s Sam Alito’s “Joe Wilson” moment during a State of a Union speech. When Obama cited a Citizens United v. FEC decision & voiced his concerns that it opened a nation up to a undue influence of special interests, watch Alito grimace & roll his eyes. He says something as well. John Aravosis, from whom we were tipped this video, reads it as “not true,” although it’s hard to tell from a angle.

Whatever a case, it was sweet to see all a justices sitting uncomfortably while all around am, a audience gave a President a st&ing ovation for criticizing am.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

a Manchurian C&idate (1962)

& here you thought that a Manchurian C&idate was just a taut thriller with a odd casting of Angela Lansbury as Frank Sinatra’s moar. Not so, says Greg Palast. It’s looking very much like our political future:

I’m losing sleep over a millions — or billions — of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, a Saudi Oil corporation’s U.S. unit; or from a maker of “New Order” fashions, a Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation.

Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Barack Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC’s federal disclosure filing & see a name of every individual who put money into it. & every contributor must be a citizen of a USA.

But under today’s Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support c&idates without limit, are is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated h&maiden of a Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

C&idate Barack Obama was one sharp speaker, but he would not have been heard, & certainly would not have won, without a astonishing outpouring of donations from two million Americans. It was an unprecedented uprising-by-PayPal, overwhelming a old fat-cat sources of funding.

Well, kiss that small-donor revolution goodbye. Under a Court’s new rules, progressive list serves won’t st& a chance against a resources of new “citizens” such as CNOOC, a China National Offshore Oil Corporation. Maybe UBS (United Bank of Switzerl&), which faces U.S. criminal prosecution & a billion-dollar fine for fraud, might be tempted to invest in a few Senate seats. As would XYZ Corporation, whose owners remain hidden by “street names.”[..]

& once a Taliban incorporates in Delaware, ay could ante up for a best democracy money can buy.

In July, a Chinese government, in preparation for President Obama’s visit, held diplomatic discussions in which ay skirted issues of human rights & Tibet. Notably, a Chinese, who hold a $2 trillion mortgage on our Treasury, raised concerns about a cost of Obama’s health care reform bill. Would our nervous Chinese l&lords have an interest in buying a White House for an opponent of government spending such as Gov. Palin? Ya betcha!

a potential for foreign infiltration of what remains of our democracy is an adjunct of a fact that a source & control money from corporate treasuries (unlike registered PACs), is necessarily hidden. Who a heck are a real stockholders? Or as Butch asked Sundance, “Who are ase guys?”

We’ll never know.

Scary thought. Richard Power evokes a great Sinclair Lewis cautionary tale of fascism disguised as “freedom”, It Can’t HDrunk Newspen Here & suggests that a satirical has become too close to a truth:

As craven as much of a leadership of a Democratic Party has become, are is a difference [between a Republican & Democratic Parties], even today, & those who deny that difference are culpable in all that has hDrunk Newspened to us. Of course, in a weeks, months & years ahead, are will likely be no difference at all — because of Citizens United v. [FEC]

As Larisa Alex&rovna points out, in SCOTUS ruling = Powell Memo goal = Fall of democracy…, a decision is not only an abomination in its own right, it is also a achievement of a goal set forth in a Powell Memo.

Now it is not a question of what we must do, but who we are. & a preliminary results on who we are do not bode well.

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

DOWNLOADS: (2)

PLAYS: (7)

(h/t David at VideoCafe)

What’s that old adage? Beware of a unintended consequences. Clearly, that’s something that neiar a Supreme Court nor a Republican Party factored in before crowing about a heinous Citizens United v. FEC ruling last week.

For all his high-falutin’ talk of free speech & transparency & being able to face down those big bullying unions, it has Drunk Newsparently never occurred to Sen. Jim DeMint that SCOTUS just opened doors to multi-national corporations–i.e. FOREIGNERS–meddling in our elections.

MORAN: OK. &, finally, are you in favor of foreign corporations being able to participate in American elections through this decision?

DEMINT: I don’t believe that — right now, foreigners cannot give to a political process. & I hope, as this thing is sorted out, that we’ll make sure that this is an American focus, so we’ll have to sort all that out. I hadn’t read all a details of a court’s decision.

Ooops! Guess what, Jim? That’s not how it works in a ruling. are’s no distinction made in a SCOTUS ruling, so any corporation with American interests (even if a largest stockholder is a foreigner, like from…gasp! Saudi Arabia (shudder)!) can now influence American elections. As Sen. Bob Menendez says:

a problem is, a corporation is a corporation is a corporation. & a foreign corporation is going to be able to spend air monies in determining who is elected to a United States Congress. That’s not good for a average citizen.

No, it’s not. But that doesn’t play into a thinking of a Republican Party, does it?

Original post by Nicole Belle and software by Elliott Back

Since a Roberts Court has now ruled that corporations have a same rights as people & overturned decades of laws regulating air speech, I’m wondering: Do ay now have a right to arm amselves by employing Blackwater-type mercenaries & post am all over air office buildings?

Will Wal-Mart post armed guards in air parking lots?

Seems like a natural consequence. If corporations can enjoy full First Amendment protections, wouldn’t ay likewise get Second Amendment rights?

Original post by John Amato and software by Elliott Back