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?

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.

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

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.

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.

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

*sigh* one can dream… ;O)

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.

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?

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?

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

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

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.”

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.

—

Touché! La Verité!