Poor misunderstood teabagging activist judges– they are just looking out for the free speech of legal entities run by benevolent executives wanting less regulation of their business practices.

So speech rights should only extend to those wanting MORE regulation of their (someone else’s…) business practices.

If there ever was an excellent example as to what is at stake when you have activist activists… you have only to see how impervious people like same2u are to their own irony.

same2u says:
January 27, 2010 at 11:02 pm

It sure is a good thing you know more than Supreme Court Judges… but instead of doing something with that vast understanding, you sit behind a computer and babble here.

On second thought… I’ll give a little more credence to them. But what do I know? I’m just a guy who believes that EVERYONE should have the same rights… and if that means that Democrats, Liberal groups, members of the media, and (of course) unions DON’T get special treatment and allowances… well, I’ll just have to live with that. Somehow.

Judge Alito should have sat next to Harry Reid. One wide awake, the other falling asleep. Both sending a message.

The St. Petersburg Times Politifact (won 2009 Pulitzer prize and leans left) put it this way:

Why Alito shook his head: Obama exaggerates impact of Supreme Court ruling on foreign companies:

foreign corporations no legal authority

There is no irony. I support the free speech of individual shareholders, executives, employees, .and any other human being with a direct or indirect interest in a particular legal entity. I do not believe that free speech applies to entities that are legal creations of the state.

Samuel Alito is an activist judge who likes to legislate from the bench and doesn’t care at all about the proper role and tradition of the Supreme Court.

Oh my goodness, same2u, “entities that are legal creations of the state” HAVE been extended the same rights as individuals

And guess who confers rights to corporations Cecelia? People do through their laws. Corporations are not implicitly entitled to free speech in accordance with the constitution.

P.S.
Spare us the “oh my goodness” and all snooty BS that you like to pull. This isn’t the echo chamber over at Johnny Dollar and you are not servicing Mark Koldy’s ego when you post here..

Our Manchurian Court will continue to legislate from the bench for decades, giving lie to their claims of fealty to Stare Decisis during confirmation.

Constitutional experts from both sides concur the ruling wasn’t even the issue before the court, that they used the case as a pretext to implement their desires.

Where’s an originalist when you need them? Not on the conservative side, that’s for sure.

same2u,

Actually, the “people’s laws” (and INHERENT rights) don’t just originate out of the people’s whim. They must be supported by the Constitution.

Who knew “oh, my goodness” was a “snooty expression”. I’d go with the more folksy “golly shucks”, but then egalitarian liberals would inundate me with insults about my ancestry, IQ, and level of education. But what the hey…

Obviously, your trauma is not about my using a “snooty” expression, it’s about your being challenged PERIOD.

If there’s anyone who wishes for an echo chamber, you just made it clear that it’s YOU.

It is just a little hard to take a lecture on campaign spending excesses when he is the same one who went back on his word of taking matching campaign funds when he realized how much more he would rake in at the time.

Cecelia says:
January 28, 2010 at 6:03 am

Oh my goodness, same2u, “entities that are legal creations of the state” HAVE been extended the same rights as individuals.

— This is certainly a woeful ignorance of the law. I suppose you know that and said it merely because it was easy and self-serving. —

Your point has merit, Martini. I agree with the lecture, but not he actions.

Companies are collections of people, same as unions. Libs want to differentiate simply because now the playing field is more level, and they simply can’t stand it. ‘Wee-Wee’d Up’ is how I think Obama got last night on the subject. If Libs are enraged by this ruling, then I know we’re on the right track.

Spare us the “oh my goodness” and all snooty BS that you like to pull. This isn’t the echo chamber over at Johnny Dollar and you are not servicing Mark Koldy’s ego when you post here..

—

Touché! La Verité!

Rightists really don’t know how to act, do they? In the House, in New Orleans or on blogs.

Why do republicans think they are exempt from all rules?

The Real Royal King says:
January 28, 2010 at 7:37 am

Rightists really don’t know how to act, do they? In the House, in New Orleans or on blogs.

———————————————————————————————————————————————

THIS from a guy who has currently namejacked an opponent’s name.

Here’s what Justice Scalia, says about the issue. Save your personal insults and accusations of ignorance for him:

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of “speech,” not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals–and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is “speech” covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.”

Why should I be angry at Scalia, Cecelia? We had a rightist president who selected a rightist justice. I don’t think Scalia fails to understand the Constitution. I think he is simply an activist rightist justice doing the groveling bidding of his masters. If you listened to O’Connor’s remarks, she seems to think so as well. I, like O’Connor, don’t like Roberts, Scalia and Alito making mincemeat of the Constitution, but they are doing exactly what I thought they would do when their appointments were, unfortunately, made and their confirmations, unfortunately, given. As 2000 taught us, we live with consequences of elections or the lack thereof in that instance.I suppose we live with the consequences of appointees making appointments to what was suppose to be an elected office. We will live with the consequences for our lifetimes. I do have a serious problem with the rudeness and boorishness of Alito and with your own self-serving analysis, however. My criticism was well-delivered and well-targeted.

“I do have a serious problem with the rudeness and boorishness of Alito and with your own self-serving analysis, however. My criticism was well-delivered and well-targeted.”

That you consider contradiction rude and boorish is not a surprise.

Thus proving my echo chamber remark to be even more “well-targeted”.

By the way The Real Royal King,

Why don’t you tell us why you have taken the name of your biggest critic at Olbermann Watch?

He started as Royal King and had to got to “The Real Royal King” because leftist at that board took his name.

In fact you acted so hideously there, that the site had to go to registration software.

Now you have hijacked this new moniker of Royal King’s.

Why do you behave that way?

“a century of campaign reform law”

the Citizens United decision changed less than a decade of law. The century of law prohibited corporations from contributing to candidates — and the Supreme Court decision didn’t change that at all. Spending limits on political speech, including a pre-emptive bar on advertising by corporations and special interests within a certain time range prior to the election, only came into being through McCain-Feingold. And that was in 2002, not 1910.

Perhaps that is why Alito was shaking his head, and saying “not true”. Because it wasn’t.

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities.”

How do explain things like GE owning NBC/MSNBC having the freedom to bankroll their own agenda, and promote certain candidates, and initiative, i.e. Going Green, and Obama? Does it seem fair that certain corporations, like GE & Viacom have the freedom to exert their influence through their many media owned enterprises, but other corportations are prohibited?

Cecelia, Dear, you might want to be less obsessed with me. If you were, you might better focus on issues and better formulate your arguments. Any changes at the FOX Fan Club sites were due to the paranoia of people who cannot tolerate dissenting views and not the action of the dissenters. Blaming the victim eases the burden on those casting the blame, for a time, but in the end is always a flawed and failed strategy. I am mindful of the admonition and advice in the Gospel of St. Matthew, beginning in Chapter 7, Verse 3: “Why do you notice the splinter in your brother’s eye, but do not perceive the wooden beam in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, ‘Let me remove that splinter from your eye,’ while the wooden beam is in your eye? You hypocrite, remove the wooden beam from your eye first; then you will see clearly to remove the splinter from your brother’s eye.” I’ll save you the usual retort. “Back at me.” Bless you, Dear.

Considering that you have opened the discussion on the way that “rightists” (and me in particular) behave on the blogs, the splinter parable is especially ironic.

Are you capable of honestly answering a question?

YOU brought up internet behavior here.

Why have you taken the name of your critic on Olbermann Watch. The name that he resorted to after his name– Royal King– was hijacked by “some” leftist on that site.

Sarainitaly, nice try, but here’s the thing. When you bring logic and facts into the argument – you lose the left. They don’t like to hear that, they all were given their talking points last night after the speech and as you can tell – they are all here repeating them.

Zakk says:
January 28, 2010 at 9:44 am

*sigh* one can dream… ;O)

I think, Sarah N. Italy, President Obama was saying that a century of campaign reform law was leading us all in a certain direction. As you correctly pointed out, that direction met its zenith about a decade ago. That may have been too nuanced by half. However, Justice Alito knew what President Obama was saying. He was being not only rude and boorish, but also disingenuous. I think the misbehavior we witnessed last night had far more to do with some prickliness by Justice Alito (and other members of the Court). You’ll remember after the Court appointed Bush president in 2000/2001, several of the justices, Justice O’Connor, in particular, stated how taken back they were with the widespread expression of disfavor and even contempt. Apparently, the reaction to the instant matter has been much the same.

Cecelia, dearest, you know less than you believe and you understand far less than you will acknowledge. Because I view you as a good person with some interesting and useful observations, I’ll need feed your obsessions by answering questions which might cause you to further binge. Make of that what you will, but that is how it and shall be, now and forever.

That’s fine, Mark, you’re an interesting person, but I can’t say that you’re a good one.

The questions and your history will reappear any time YOU take issue with anyone (right or left) else’s behavior on blog boards.

No,

President Obama stated:

“last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations ”

“I don’t think American elections should be bankrolled by America’s most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities”

Stting “foreign corporations”, “foreign entities” is not nuance. The worry here, is that Pres. Obama was a serving constitutional law professor. He must know that what he stated incorrect or exaggerated.

Or, he did it on purpose, which is also worrisome.

God be with you, Cecelia, dearest.

Even the NYTimes claims Obama was not telling the truth about the SCOTUS ruling….the NYTimes.

I was watching CNN last night and Campbell Brown, in all her infinite wisdom, only asked about Alito’s reaction and was not at all concerned with Obama’s lie. Typical liberal Campbell. James Carville went haywire, yelling even screaming about how dare Alito do this and that there was no problem with Obama’s attack on SCOTUS.

Obama’s speech last night overall was defensive, hyper partisan, and combative. He gets an F+ in my book, and the + is only due to his nuke and off-shore drilling statement.

Very unpresidential, overall.

TfT – What questions should she have asked? I’m interested in the typical right wing wacko point of view, if you don’t mind.

BTW – A++, exceptional speech and profoundly presidential. (Weird how that works out isn’t it?)

“You lie!” Okay, so Alito used different words with less volume. Somewhere, congressman Joe Wilson was smiling.

It is interesting that most of the attention is on Alito mouthing his disagreement and not on the President using the SOTU speech to condemn the Court decision. I’d say the Judge’s reaction was no better or worse than the President dressing them down at that moment. But he was incorrect about the foreign interests now having a forum financially in elections — it has been against the law and remains so — and that seems to be when Alito was showing his opposition.

Most are fixating on the corporate side of the decision but I think it was more important in the context of the “speech” aspect and the limiting of such. It was reported that the main factor that tipped the Court was, when asked, the lawyers stipulating that even a solitary line in a book would have to lead to that book becoming restricted. That seems to cross lines that we do not want to cross over.

Alito likes it when foreign countries meddle with our domestic politics. Quite unpatriotic.

Leave it the republicans to tear up the constitution. I suspected most of them weren’t educated folk… but all of them?

If corporations get First Amendment rights, I cannot wait for them to get Second Amendment rights as well…and not just Blackwater/Xe.

Funny how Alito is the talk of the town….a 70 minute speech and the most memorable and talked about moment didn’t even come from Obama’s mouth! LOL

As one of the earlier posters told us, Vidiot, it’s the speech, not the speaker which is protected. The fact that the speaker is a corporation is therefore irrelevant. So, it is the shooting, not the shooter who is protected. Therefore, it is irrelevant that the shooter is a corporation. It makes no sense to me, nor to anyone who has ever driven past a law school, but we have authority for the proposition. Right here at Mediaiate.

Some of you mistakenly believe that corporations ought not be considered as individual legal entities aka “legal persons” and so do not possess the rights that citizens have. Or you believe, again mistakenly, that the Supreme Court just granted them this new status last week.

In fact corporations and other groups or organizations were considered as legal parties under Roman law and English common law, and were affirmed in US civil law by the case of the Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward (1819). So what you are all upset about is something that was established more than 190 years ago.

Furthermore, the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad Compan (1886) held, in part, that corporations were entitled to the same protections as individuals under the 14th Amendment.

If constitutional protections and obligations apply to corporations — and they do — then why would media corporations have rights that non-media corporations do not? Why would newspapers, broadcasters, and publishers have a right to editorialize in favor or against a candidate or party or political issue, but not an oil company or a tobacco company, or a pro-life group, or a pro-Second Amendment organization, or a religious foundation?

Does it bother any of the critics that the ACLU filed a “friend of the court” brief in favor of the plaintiffs and in favor of overthrowing the restrictions on free-speech rights of corporate entities?

Oh, darn it Mr. -Obama, it’s just that Constitution that keeps getting in your way.

Better than “their” ‘votes’ – at NIGHT, Behind CLOSED DOORS!