We be hunting for Boojums, VJ, old Lewis and I.

(Liking the cut of your funny-bone jib, verra much-ly)

DW

The quote above shows that analysis has proven his an a activist judge intent on overturning things for the next 40 years (and implementing new fxcked up shxt).

-
Ammend the constitution and put “human person” for any refernce to “person”.

There are also blurbs up on NPR type shows today, though I am sure that is quite thin.

NPR has been in heavy corp whore mode lately with how they are framing their stories so I am not listening much.

summary:
What would stop a corp from giving 4 million to their guy/gal – then if they did not act the way they wanted they just dump 4 million into the next stooge.

We need to be going in the other direction a few miles, but all this train wreck to the right (facism) really does is make the pols higher prices whores.

I do not think one moderate (who leans right on a scale devised by a sane person) is going to balance 3 hardcode right justices (one of whom is the cheif justice).

SCOUTS does the dirty work while everyone looks at the shiny object (be it abortion or flag burning…potentially important things, but not with the massive impact of so of the real bizness getting done).

One point since I did not see it:

person = corporation
human person = a “real” person

Kind of stupid, but the only way to avoid most of this is to explictly put in “human” person.

Some teasers…

The full impact of what the court could do in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission has only begun to receive the attention it deserves. Even the word “radical” does not capture the extent to which the justices could turn our political system upside down. Will it use a case originally brought on a narrow issue to bring our politics back to the corruption of the Gilded Age?
[…]
Instead of deciding the case before it, the court engaged in a remarkable act of overreach. On June 29, it postponed a decision and called for new briefs and a highly unusual new hearing, which is Wednesday’s big event. The court chose to consider an issue only tangentially raised by the case. It threatens to overrule a 1990 decision that upheld the long-standing ban on corporate money in campaigns.

I don’t have the space to cite all the precedents the court would have to set aside, going back to the Buckley campaign finance ruling in 1976, if it threw out the prohibition on corporate money. Suffice it to say that there is one member of the court who has spoken eloquently about the dangers of ignoring precedents. [take a guess who he’s referring to…]
[…]
He learnedly cited Alexander Hamilton who wrote in Federalist 78: “To avoid an arbitrary discretion in the judges, they need to be bound down by rules and precedents.”

Chief Justice John Roberts, the likely swing vote in this case, was exactly right when he said these things during his 2005 confirmation hearings. If he uses his own standards, it is impossible to see how he can justify the use of “arbitrary discretion” to discard a well-established system whose construction began with the Tillman Act of 1907.

Were the courts that set the earlier precedents “legitimate”?This ban was upheld over many years by justices of a variety of philosophical leanings.
[…]
Are the precedents “workable”? The answer is clearly yes, which is why there is absolutely no popular demand to let corporate cash loose into our politics. […]
Has the precedent been “eroded”? Absolutely not. In case after case, no matter where particular court majorities stood on particular campaign finance provisions, the ban on corporate contributions was taken for granted.

continued~~

The next step is to limit the amounts.