The United States Died Yesterday

[Freeper]

Prophet 451  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Jan-22-10 02:51 AM
Original message
The United States Died Yesterday
   
Edited on Fri Jan-22-10 02:52 AM by Prophet 451
The ramifications of yesterday's Citizen's United decision are difficult to comprehend. In one fell swoop, in a decision which relied on no precedent or legal rule, the Supreme Court of Justice Roberts destroyed any and all limits on corporate financing of campaigns. No, it's too big. Let's walk back a little and take a brief look at how we got here.

In a decision in the nineteenth century, a no less misguided Supreme Court decided that corporations were, in certain important respects, persons and thus entitled to some of the protections laid out in the United States Constitution. Too much ancient history for you? OK, perhaps you'd feel better if we only went back about thirty years. It was about thirty years ago that the public began to be fed an endless diet of anti-union propoganda. Not coincidently, that coincided with the rise in Washington of a class of politicians who believed Ayn Rand was right; that corporations should be entirely unregulated. My opinions on Rand are fairly irrelevent here (although I believe she may be the most evil woman in history) but what that led to was a systematic dismantling of the limits on corporate activities that had been put in place after the Great Depression (also caused by corporations). Those politicians, in union with a media almost completely controlled by the right-wing, preached that the corporation was your friend and the public, so forgetful, so endlessly trusting, believed them.

Perhaps you would say that, since today's decision was made by judges, not politicians, that political movement is irrelevent. Sadly, that's untrue. Judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Congress. Because of that, the only judges considered for selection are those whose worldview matches that of their selector. President Reagan would not have even considered a judge who was pro-choice, for example. Confirmation is a little more complex but, given the Republican minority's effective current veto power (via their unprecedented lockstep filibuster on absolutely everything and no, wingers, the Democrats were nowhere near this bad to Bush) can be worked around. Bush just went with recess appointments (and it's unclear whether that was even meant to apply to judicial nominations). The lifetime appointments given the Supreme Court justices were originally meant to insulate judges from political pressures. In reality, they've done exactly the opposite and simply given a lifetime term to any justice's political biases.

Ah, now we can get to the ramifications of the decision. Keith Olbermann did a good job of scratching the surface in his special comment yesterday but, given the time limits of his medium, he could go only so far. Let's start with these: A lowering and eventual abolition of corporate taxes and, shortly thereafter, of taxes on the rich who run those corporations. How about the abolition of minimum wage laws? From now on, your salary will be whatever the corporation decides to pay you. Think you can go to another corporation and get paid better? Good luck. With corporations in control of Congress, expect ever more incentives to move jobs overseas. You're going to be competing for jobs with ever more people and if you won't take that job for fifty cents an hour, there's someone who will. Oh yeah, your taxes are going to go up as well. With the lowering and elimination of corporat tax and taxes on the wealthy, the money has to come from somewhere and it's going to come from you.

Oh, you think the politicians wouldn't go that far? Sorry, you will now choose your politicians from a pool of candidates funded (and therefore, vetted and approved) by the corporations. The corporations now control whether your politicians get elected and that means that politicians will do whatever the corporation demands. From now on, you don't have a senator from California, you have a senator from Aetna or Wellpoint or... Well, pick a corporation.

The dream of the corporations is and always has been to have a class of people rich enough to buy their crap and a much larger class poor enough and desperate enough to work for pennies to make their crap. So you can kiss any form of healthcare reform goodbye. If you get sick, tough luck, you're fired and out to starve in the gutter. Any and all forms of employee protection will go. You will now be employed for as long as the corporation wants you, at whatever wages they want to pay. Forget workplace safety laws, forget employer funded healthcare. Forget the enviroment too. The corporate sector has always resisted enviromental protections and now, they're in a position to do something about it. Forget same-sex marriage, some red meat thrown to the evangelicals while the corporations take over. Reproductive choice will go the same way and, since the corporation always wants to lower wages, ever more people competing for ever fewer jobs is always in their interests. Forget banking reform too, there are few corporations more powerful. Credit card reform is the same story. Oh, and forget consumer protections as well. So your drugs may or may not work anymore. Expect more wars, expect a draft or "national service" because the corporations that manufacture bullets and bombs and all that fancy equipment are still corporations, after all.

Think I'm being too alarmist? Perhaps. But look up the position of the average person during the Great Depression, or the Dark Ages or any age where those with the gold ruled openly. Your wages have already stagnated for years. Now, with nothing to stop them, they're going to start falling. Expect the few remaining rules on media ownership to be swept aside as well. The corporations need to control those to control you, to keep you distracted.

So who can you turn to to save you? Sorry, there's not much better news here. A Supreme Court decision, through the doctrine of stare decisis, establishes enforceable law for all courts within US jurisdiction. Through the principle of judicial review, any law passed by Congress will have to be compatible with this decision or it will simply be overturned, either by the Supreme Court or by a lower court with no choice but to follow this precedent. You could try for a Constitutional amendment, the Supreme Court can't overrule that but the chances of getting a Constitutional amendment through Congress with the current Republican veto are nil and if you think a lter Republican Congress will do so, you're dreaming. The Republican party has become the political arm of the business lobby and, through the right's control of the media, has managed to convince much of the populace that that's a good thing.

Enjoy your remaining time to complain about this on the internet as well. Because Net Neutrality will shortly become a thing of the past. And if you think "the people" are going to rise up and institute a revolution, forget it. History shows us that revolutions only happen when people's basic needs are threatened or removed and even then, it's only fifty-fifty. Bread and circuses. If the bellies of "the people" are full and they have, say, American Idol to distract them, they may grumble but, chances are, they won't do anything about it. They'll go to the polls every few years and cast their vote for the corporate-approved shill who sounds slightly better than the other corporate-approved shill. The people of Germany didn't rebel against Hitler, nor did the people of Rome rebel against Nero. Until the food stops coming, there will be no revolution and even if there was, who do you think makes your guns and bullets? I can make ammo, as can a lot of firearms hobbyists but the gun you need to fire them comes from those same corporations and, incidently, the chances are fairly good that you'd be too busy fending off the poor bastards now starving in the streets to take up arms against the corporations.

Amid all the accusations of socialism and communism the right has been throwing around lately, it seems that fascism has snuck in by the back door (shh, don't tell the wingers, they think fascism was a left-wing ideaology). Mussolini, the original fascist leader, once said that fascism should more properly be called corporatism as it represented the union of state and corporate power. "The people" or, as I like to call them, "the mob" may not know this because their education has been woefully limited and they have been lied to their whole lives but corporate control of the political sphere is the very definition of fascism. There might not be tanks in the streets (as people seem to believe fascism requires) but it's fascism all the same. You now live in a fascist country.

Let me put this in simple terms so that it cannot be misunderstood: The American experiment is over, it failed. Government of, by and for the people is done. Legislators are now for sale to the highest bidder. Government is now (as Olbermann brilliantly said) of the people, by the corporation, for the corporation. If you want to know what the future looks like, read some William Gibson or the rulebook for the roleplaying game Shadowrun (although, sadly, you won't get the magic). You have, generously, five years to destroy this monstrous decision, to save your country and the dream of America. If this decision is not overturned, cut down or otherwise circumvented, your entire way of life is over.

Get to work.

"Saint Peter, don't you call me 'cause I can't go / I owe my soul to the company store" ~ Johnny Cash

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7541592

What a bunch of whiny children.
You goons own the govt and the media. One SC ruling you don't like and you go into full drama mode.
That is the difference between you and us. You haven't seen us crying like babies even though you own all 3 houses for the moment. Instead we have channeled our anger and disappointment into making changes bit by bit. One year ago you all said conservatism is dead now we took the people's seat in mass that was held by Teddy for longer than most of us have been alive. Even Obama has backed down on health care now.

[franksolich]

This "America died yesterday" stuff can get boring.

There's many of us who think America "died" back in January 1973, with the U.S. Supreme Court ruling on Roe vs Wade.

Others of us, primitives, think America "died" on January 20, 1981.

And so it goes.

[Freeper]

America hasn't died yet but, she is suffering from terminal liberalism. I hope and pray that in 2012 we will go into remission.

[franksolich]

America hasn't died yet but, she is suffering from terminal liberalism. I hope and pray that in 2012 we will go into remission.

Undoubtedly we will, sir.

And the first signs of revival will happen this year, probably.

[Freeper]

Undoubtedly we will, sir.

And the first signs of revival will happen this year, probably.

I am optimistic and pessimistic if that makes sense.
I believe the GOP can win in 2010 the problem I worry about is how many RINOS will get elected.
I also do believe that a GOP majority could be the best thing for Obama to get re elected. If the GOP does stop all his crazy ideas people may still be fooled by his moderate tone. I do believe though that this scenario may be best for our country if the power is split down the middle then the GOP can't screw us over and the dems can't screw us over. The GOP is disappointing when they have all branches of govt but, seem to work well as an opposition party.

[Lord Undies]

The only people crying over this Supreme Court decision are the natural enemies of the American people and the American way of life.  I took this decision to be maybe a bump in the road for our enemies, but the overdone hissy fit it has caused me to believe this decision must be the greatest thing for America since the election of Ronald Reagan.

If the Left is in pain, America is on the mend.  

[Casey]

I believe the GOP can win in 2010 the problem I worry about is how many RINOS will get elected.

Come on now, even the worst RINO of them all isn't as bad as the average liberal Democrat. At least RINOs have a better national security/foreign policy.

[Freeper]

Come on now, even the worst RINO of them all isn't as bad as the average liberal Democrat. At least RINOs have a better national security/foreign policy.

I disagree, some of them RINOs will give us the same socialism that Obama wants.

[Specbid]

Judges are appointed by the president and confirmed by the Congress. Because of that, the only judges considered for selection are those whose worldview matches that of their selector. President Reagan would not have even considered a judge who was pro-choice, for example.

Uhmmm...Pres. Reagan gave us Sandra Day. Though maybe she wasn't officially pro-choice, she wouldn't overturn Roe. IIRC.

[franksolich]

I believe the GOP can win in 2010 the problem I worry about is how many RINOS will get elected.

You know me, sir, as I've gotten flak for this.

I don't worry about RINOs; just so they have that (R) after their last name, because every (R) no matter ideology brings the Republicans closer to majority status, and the conservative cause is best helped by (R)s whether conservative, moderate, or liberal, than by "conservative" (D)s.
 

I also do believe that a GOP majority could be the best thing for Obama to get re elected. If the GOP does stop all his crazy ideas people may still be fooled by his moderate tone.

You're thinking perhaps of the mid-term elections of 1994 and the presidential election of 1996, which very well may be the case.  Generally--not all of the time, but generally--Americans prefer a balanced government, "balanced" by opposing spheres (the White House, Congress).

The GOP is disappointing when they have all branches of govt but, seem to work well as an opposition party.

That's because the Republicans have usually been the "out" party in Congress; we're used to being the minority.

And therein lies the Republicans' recent woes.  When a Republican Congress was elected in 1994, that Congress acted as if they would be in power for only two years, and hastened to do all of these good things.

The shock of being the majority party stunned them, and they acted as if it were only a temporary phenomenon, and so they'd better hurry up and get things done.

When we're the majority again, it's imperative that we don't lose the Spirit of '94.

[BadCat]

I wonder how many DUmmies actually work for corporations.

[Freeper]

You know me, sir, as I've gotten flak for this.

I don't worry about RINOs; just so they have that (R) after their last name, because every (R) no matter ideology brings the Republicans closer to majority status, and the conservative cause is best helped by (R)s whether conservative, moderate, or liberal, than by "conservative" (D)s.
 

I respectfully disagree sir. If I am going to support someone no matter what party they are part of I want them working in our best interests. If they are going to be socialists they should just become dems.

You're thinking perhaps of the mid-term elections of 1994 and the presidential election of 1996, which very well may be the case.  Generally--not all of the time, but generally--Americans prefer a balanced government, "balanced" by opposing spheres (the White House, Congress).

Exactly

That's because the Republicans have usually been the "out" party in Congress; we're used to being the minority.

And therein lies the Republicans' recent woes.  When a Republican Congress was elected in 1994, that Congress acted as if they would be in power for only two years, and hastened to do all of these good things.

The shock of being the majority party stunned them, and they acted as if it were only a temporary phenomenon, and so they'd better hurry up and get things done.

When we're the majority again, it's imperative that we don't lose the Spirit of '94.

I agree with that as well.

[TheSarge]

Prophet 451  Donating Member  (1000+ posts)  Journal  Click to send private message to this author  Click to view this author's profile  Click to add this author to your buddy list  Click to add this author to your Ignore list      Fri Jan-22-10 02:51 AM
Original message
The United States Died Yesterday

Make up your minds DUmmies.

First the U.S. was proclaimed dead in 2000...then 2002....then 2004...and now two days ago?

Which is it?

[USA4ME]

And yet no similar laments over unions being able to spend money on campaigns.  The only comments I've seen are that unions don't have the money to spend that corps do.  But as far as them being upset that unions can spend money, none at all.  I have little doubt they want corps to not be able to spend and unions to spend all they want.  Hypocrites.

.

[debk]

I wonder how many DUmmies actually work for corporations.

Lots.

Think unions....

[Freeper]

And yet no similar laments over unions being able to spend money on campaigns.  The only comments I've seen are that unions don't have the money to spend that corps do.  But as far as them being upset that unions can spend money, none at all.  I have little doubt they want corps to not be able to spend and unions to spend all they want.  Hypocrites.

.

They will change their tune when a few corporations stump for lord 0. I doubt many will but I can almost guarantee some will.

[franksolich]

I respectfully disagree sir. If I am going to support someone no matter what party they are part of I want them working in our best interests. If they are going to be socialists they should just become dems.

But it seems to me that this is ignoring the reality of our political system, and the reality of real life.

The reality of real life is that no one is going to get all, 100%, of what he wants.

In fact, it's always been my impression that if one gets 20% of what he wants out of life (in all its aspects, not just politics), he's doing pretty damned good.

The reality of our political system is that it is dependent upon a stable two-party system, the Republicans vaguely leaning rightward, and the Democrats undeniably leaning far left.

RINOs don't bother me because what's important is that the vaguely leaning rightward party be the majority party, and every (R), even if not conservative, helps bring us closer to that.

I used this example with the Pennsylvania cousins during the senatorial primaries there in 2004, these cousins being 100%ers.  They were going to vote for Specter's opponent in the primary, and if Specter ended up being the Republican nominee, out of spite they were going to vote for the Democrat candidate.

Utterly stupid, because at the time, while it looked as if Specter would be handily re-elected (which he was), the chances of his opponent, had his opponent won the Republican primary, of getting elected were nil to nothing--meaning a diminished (R) majority, if a majority at all.

Even though Specter at the time was a wild-eyed liberal, his (R) helped Republicans maintain control, and hence advanced the conservative "agenda."

I don't have any problem throwing crumbs to RINOs, and remember what we got out of this less-than-100% conservative--two Supreme Court justices more reflective of popular values.

[jukin]

Look who hates an even playing field.  Can one imagine the howling if a voter ID law is passed?

[Freeper]

But it seems to me that this is ignoring the reality of our political system, and the reality of real life.

The reality of real life is that no one is going to get all, 100%, of what he wants.

In fact, it's always been my impression that if one gets 20% of what he wants out of life (in all its aspects, not just politics), he's doing pretty damned good.

The reality of our political system is that it is dependent upon a stable two-party system, the Republicans vaguely leaning rightward, and the Democrats undeniably leaning far left.

RINOs don't bother me because what's important is that the vaguely leaning rightward party be the majority party, and every (R), even if not conservative, helps bring us closer to that.

I used this example with the Pennsylvania cousins during the senatorial primaries there in 2004, these cousins being 100%ers.  They were going to vote for Specter's opponent in the primary, and if Specter ended up being the Republican nominee, out of spite they were going to vote for the Democrat candidate.

Utterly stupid, because at the time, while it looked as if Specter would be handily re-elected (which he was), the chances of his opponent, had his opponent won the Republican primary, of getting elected were nil to nothing--meaning a diminished (R) majority, if a majority at all.

Even though Specter at the time was a wild-eyed liberal, his (R) helped Republicans maintain control, and hence advanced the conservative "agenda."

I don't have any problem throwing crumbs to RINOs, and remember what we got out of this less-than-100% conservative--two Supreme Court justices more reflective of popular values.

Don't get me wrong sir, I am not a purist. But I will not support a candidate who I disagree with on 90% of the issues.
I do take into account too that a Massachusetts and a California republican will look like a democrat in Texas. As long as they believe in the concept of liberty in most areas I can tolerate differences.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Citizens United was banned from broadcasting their film but Michael Moore was allowed to give away $20 million worth of his worthless crap film Fahrenheit 911 THROUGH the DNC as part of the 2004 election.

THAT is what the liber-fascists want to preserve.

[Freeper]

Citizens United was banned from broadcasting their film but Michael Moore was allowed to give away $20 million worth of his worthless crap film Fahrenheit 911 THROUGH the DNC as part of the 2004 election.

THAT is what the liber-fascists want to preserve.

He was invited to the convention iirc. 

[BlueStateSaint]

I am optimistic and pessimistic if that makes sense.
I believe the GOP can win in 2010 the problem I worry about is how many RINOS will get elected.
I also do believe that a GOP majority could be the best thing for Obama to get re elected. If the GOP does stop all his crazy ideas people may still be fooled by his moderate tone. I do believe though that this scenario may be best for our country if the power is split down the middle then the GOP can't screw us over and the dems can't screw us over. The GOP is disappointing when they have all branches of govt but, seem to work well as an opposition party.

As much as I fear Obama being re-elected, let's remember one thing about the Clenis--he was in it for him and him alone.  Nothing else mattered if it stood in the way of him being at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue for at least eight years.  The Obamessiah is too much of an idealogue to not try to ram his agenda through, and damn the consequences.  Actually, I get the sensing that he doesn't think that there will be any consequences to him.  (Boy, is he in for a surprise!)  What I can see is that he will be stubborn as anything in 2011 and 2012, to the point of trying to get his SEIU and ACORN minions to use the "persuasion of power," as Andy Stern put it.  That might work, if it weren't for the fact that there's 300 million+ firearms in private hands in the US.  (That pesky 2nd Amendment again!)  And what will happen is that the Dems will suffer as bad--or worse--a loss at the polls in 2012, as the Republicans got in 2008.  If the Republicans are guided by true conservatives, then they will thrive in the future.  If not, well . . .