What Real Judicial Activism Buys Us

I was watching CNN today, and I saw someone make the following point in regard to yesterday's Supreme Court decision to allow corporations to spend money in our political campaigns: Many of our largest and richest corporations are foreign-owned, and this ruling would seem to give non-Americans the legal right to influence our political campaigns.

Fair enough, but I don't think this reasoning goes far enough. I would like to know what prevents the Saudi rulers, or the Chinese government, or for that matter, Al Qaida from going online to Legal Zoom and spending a couple hundred dollars to form a corporation, through which they could spend billions to support candidates of their choice? These countries could easily spend sums of money that dwarf even the atrocious sums currently spent in American elections, and could end up owning Congressmen, Senators or even the President.

Well, there you go. It only remains for me to point out that these five Supreme Court Justices are not conservative, they are corrupt. Since Nixon got Rehnquist onto the Supreme Court, every Republican judicial nominee has been nothing but a willing tool of corporate interests. Their 5-4 majority gave us the Bush presidency, in the greatest act of judicial corruption in the history of this country, and now they have struck again. So, when you turn on the TV and see commercials telling you who to elect, kindly provided in your own best interest by the Iranian Mullahs, you will know who to thank.

Comments

M. Bouffant said…
Kim Jong-IlCorp Endorses [Your Name Here]!
mastercynic said…
Of all the possibilities, N Korea would seem to have the least ready cash. On the other hane, let's not overlook the drug cartels that have been funneling contributions for decades to keep the ridiculous "war on drugs" alive and well. Talk about an easy way to launder trillions in cash they have warehoused around the world.
Poll P. said…
Wow, I'd thought of poppy lords and talibans, but hadn't considered trillions available to buy our government.
Derek said…
I wonder who those Iranian mullahs will campaign for? I mean, between someone who is more prone to attack them and someone who bows to leaders and writes angry letters, they clearly would go for the people who are more likely to unseat them via use of force, right?
Derek said…
Ge, Any thoughts on those on the left calling for revolt in leu of this recent Supreme Court decision?

Here's an op ed for reference: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/24/AR2010012402298.html
Green Eagle said…
Derek,

I assume you read the article you are referring to. First of all, it was by a Washington Post columnist, not "the left." Secondly, if you read farther than the headline, you would see that what Mr. Dionne was calling for was "a new populist-progressive alliance." Hardly a call to get out there with our AK's and start shooting.

By the way, Derek, can you point me to the place where you spoke out a few months ago against the numerous conservatives who were campaigning for actual revolt and secession, as an appropriate response to having a black man in the White House?
Derek said…
"it was by a Washington Post columnist, not "the left." "

I said "those on the left", meaning some, not all of the left. The guy is a leftist, and he isn't the only one saying revolt.

""a new populist-progressive alliance." Hardly a call to get out there with our AK's and start shooting."

Still calls it a revolt.

"can you point me to the place where you spoke out a few months ago against the numerous conservatives who were campaigning for actual revolt and secession, as an appropriate response to having a black man in the White House?"

Did I ever write about such a topic? I was asking for your perspective because it is a common topic on here. Apparently you have a double standard, shocker.

Popular posts from this blog

It's Okay, Never Mind

Wingnuts Slightly Annoyed about that $83 Million

If a Tree Falls In the Woods