American Fascism: Tea Party Speaker Wants Executions For Homosexuals + bonus Daily Show Video!

By GottaLaff

I'll give you an excerpt that should press enough buttons to get you to read the whole thing:

Of course [former Chief Justice of the Alabama Supreme Court and current Alabama gubernatorial candidate – Roy] Moore ranted about homosexuals today in his speech. If you’re interested in what he said, you read a summary here. But, two takeaways from this.

1. That this man served at such a high level in our judicial system is shameful.
2. Why the fuck is Sarah Palin paling around with people that want to execute homosexuals and/or pull their children away from them? And, more importantly, why is her embrace of such hate being tolerated by the mainstream media – and by us.

There now, provoked? Good. Go read the rest.

The Daily Show With Jon Stewart	Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Alabama Getaway
www.thedailyshow.com
Daily Show Full Episodes Political Humor Health Care Crisis

H/t: StopBeck

Supreme Court goes for ‘One dollar, one vote’

By GottaLaff

This is a scary truth:

Another way of looking at it: A very rough estimate puts total union income at about $10 billion per year. Most of that goes to pay staff and officer salaries, rent, utilities, arbitrators' fees and other necessary expenses. That might leave $1 billion left over for "discretionary" spending -- organizing, member education, political action. (*See note below.)

Corporate profits are in the neighborhood of $1,300 billion per year. This corporate discretionary money pool is 1,300 times as large as labor's. This is the pool each side can dip into for political campaigns. When you hear about the political influence of "big corporations" and "big labor", the real story is that of the corporate shark and the union sardine.

Please go read the whole thing. He qualifies his estimates.

There is much more to the piece, but he makes a great point that, forgetting all other arguments for the moment, there is such an imbalance here. If corporations and unions are now people, then Mr. Corporation is Mr. Moneybags, and Mr. Union is Mr. Peanut.

Well, not exactly people.

Do not pass go, do not collect, well, much of anything.

The Brainwashing of America, SCOTUS edition: Special Comment by my 72-year-old friend

By GottaLaff


My very caring, impassioned 72-year-old Twitter pal, who goes by the name 42bkdodgr, would like to share his feelings about the Supreme Court's latest jaw-dropping decision. I am more than happy to oblige.

But first, a personal note from 42bkdodgr:

Many of you may wonder why I chose to use the “ 72 year old friend” as the introduction to my Special Comments. I selected the moniker so readers could see that from my age and life experiences I give a different perspective to the issues of today.

Now for his Special Comment:

Brainwashing of America Part II

In my previous comment, I wrote about how the Conservative Republicans were trying to brainwash Americans by saying the 9/11 terrorist attacks didn’t happen on President George W. Bush’s watch.

Well, this fall you are possibly going to see the Brainwashing of Americans Part II, unless action is taken by Congress. I say this because yesterday the United States Supreme Court ruled that the government may not place any financial restrictions on corporations for spending on candidates in elections. In effect the Court is treating corporate speech the same as that of a human being.

Shareholders of a corporation are made up of individuals who maybe Democrats, Republicans, Independents and in some cases of people who may not be eligible to vote in an election. Yet the Supreme Court ruling will allow a corporation to use corporate general funds on a campaign even if their views may be contrary to the views of its shareholders.

Therefore I think its important for Congress to enact a law that would prohibit the use of corporate general funds on a campaign without first receiving shareholder approval.

In addition, Federal election laws limits the contributions an individual may make to a candidate; but the Court ruling places no limits on what a corporation may spend (not directly to a candidate) in campaigning for a candidate.

Now, who do you think will have greater influence on the election of candidate via its media ads in determining an election? Without a doubt, a corporation. This ruling makes corporate money more powerful than an individual’s vote. The old slogan ‘ the power of the people’ will have little or no meaning in future elections.

In addition, there has to be some accountability, with severe penalties, on corporations for what they say in campaign ads. Any information stated, such as in a 30 second corporate sound bites, must be truthful and verifiable or it will only lead to the brainwashing of Americans as the misinformation ad is repeated over and over.

As the Court set no such accountability standards, it's important that Congress provide penalties for untruthful ads, otherwise instead of these ads educating the electorate, they will be brainwashing the electorate.

Many thanks again for another important, relevant piece, 42bkdodgr. You often say what many of us are thinking and feeling, and we thank you for your unique perspective.

Will Foreign Companies Now Influence U.S. Elections?

By GottaLaff

Dear Supreme Court Gang of 5,

You pretty much suck.

Sincerely,

Laffy

I could have been more eloquent, but why bother? I am furious, TPC readers are furious, Twitterers are furious, Keith Olbermann is furious, Erwin Chemerinsky is furious, and we're all very, very concerned about our democracy slipping away:

Newsweek reports that foreign businesses might be the real winners in yesterday's Supreme Court decision on campaign finance that now "allows corporations and unions to spend limitless amounts of money on presidential and congressional political campaigns. A majority of large businesses are now owned by foreign entities, and this means international corporations could pour tons of money into the United States political scene, potentially swaying the political climate."

Who are the judicial activists now?

By GottaLaff

I'm trying my best to push through my Nyquil hangover and debilitating coughing fits to get back to posting again.

I'll start with a shorty but pithy one, via the L.A. Times, by Erwin Chemerinsky. It's about that little, insignificant, minor ruling by SCROTUS (<--- courtesy of Elvis Dingeldein), er, SCOTUS:

The conservative majority, which in recent years has dramatically limited free speech in other areas -- such as for government employees and for students -- was willing to expand the free speech of corporations. There is no way to see this other than as the conservative justices using judicial review to advance the traditional conservative ideological agenda.

Almost 10 years ago, in Bush vs. Gore, the five conservative justices for the first time decided a presidential election. One would have thought that decision would have laid to rest the notion that judicial activism is a tool of liberal judges and revealed that the real judicial activism today is from the right. Perhaps Thursday's decision will finally reveal the truth.

Please read the whole thing. That was just a snippet.

Senator Al Franken questions Sotomayor: Liveblog

By GottaLaff

Senator Al Franken is questioning Judge Sotomayor as we speak. Liveblogging:

He is referring back to her reference to Perry Mason. He mentions that Hamilton Berger lost every week. Gets a laugh on that.

You watched in the Bronx, I watched in Minneaopolis, and here we are today. I'm asking you questions because you're nominated to be a justice of the U.S. Supreme Court... pretty cool. [...]

Net neutrality:

The Internet reaches millions... this is free speech, essential to our democracy... We saw this in Iran...

Brings up Brand X decision: Deregulated Internet access services... Talking about blocking access to the Web... undermines free speech... This is frightening, to me, to millions.

Internets use public resources, airwaves, rights of way. Doesn't U.S. have public interest in making sure Internet stays the Internet (accessible)?

Sotomayor: TV, phones regulated. Reviewed by course, policy choices of Congress. The Internet has revolutionized communications. Access to that is a question that our citizens are concerned about. But role of court is not to make policy, but wait till Congress acts... Brand X... was question of which gov't. agency would regulate those providers.. the Court... determined it thought it fit in one agency, not another... We're talking about statutory interpretation and Congress's understanding to amend if it chooses. I don't minimize your concerns..

Access... its importance implicates freedom of speech, property rights, regulation.. so many issues implicated... that what the court can do is interpret each statute.

Franken: First Amendment? No matter what Congress does? Overriding right of Americans to have access?

Sotomayor: Rights don't override... The court looks at how Congress balances those rights, and judges if balance is Constitutional...

Franken: Judicial activism... As I see it, there's impoverishment of our political discourse re: judiciary. Candidates/officeholders reduce judicial picks to activist v. not. 30 second soundbites... Code word for judges you don't agree with. What's your definition?

Sotomayor: Not a term I use, because I don't describe judges' work in that way. Each attempts to interpret law according to legal principles... You're right, people think activism is wrong conclusion in light of policy. I don't approach judging this way at all... not policy choices, or world views or shoulds... that would be activism. Improper. That's different than what I consider the process of judging, come to each situation and apply the law.

Franken: BUT, in political discourse, that's the ONLY phrase that's ever used.

[I'll stop here... good for Al, great subject matter]

No I won't. He's into age discrimination. Another good topic. Franken's talking about the erosion of workers' rights. "This is a big deal."

Now, abortion rights:

Franken: The word "abortion" is not in the Constitution. What about "birth control"? No. "Privacy"? No.

Is there a fundamental right to privacy?

Sotomayor: Certain rights under due process clause, extends to rights of privacy under certain situations. Parents have right to direct education to their kids... There have also been other decisions.

Franken: So if a word doesn't appear, it's not relevant is it?

Sotomayor: Some words are, but the Constit. is written in broad terms. Courts look at how those words apply to a factual setting.

Franken: Roe v. Wade, court talked about right to have an abortion. Does right to privacy include right to have abortion?

Sotomayor: Court has said that there is a right to privacy that women have w/ respect to termination of pregancies in certain situations.

Franken: What was the one case in Perry Mason that Burger won?

Sotomayor: Can't remember!

Franken: You don't remember? Didn't the White House prepare you for that? [laughter]

He's here all week... bada bing!

VIDEO: Andrew Cohen Says "Judicial Activism" Is A Falsehood

By GottaLaff



Oh reeeeallly?

CBS News Legal Analyst Andrew Cohen argues that the idea of "judicial activism" and judges making policy from the bench "is a falsehood.”

"Any time a judge rules, it's an act," says Cohen. "The other myth is that judges don’t make policy choices…they do."

President Obama has been criticized for using the word "empathy" to describe what qualities he looks for in a nominee. Skeptics argued the word choice was a signal that his pick would be an “activist."

Cohen goes on to suggest that "the idea that no judge anywhere ever makes policy is just a myth, and hopefully is a myth that will be busted up as we go forward with this process."

Asked whether he envisions any "surprises" in Sotomayor's confirmation process, Cohen said, "I don't think there are many surprises left when you have someone who has been on the federal bench since 1992."

"All of the skeletons that were there to be had, have been had," he said.

Another Rushpublic talking point ground into dust.