District of Corruption
There are times like this when I wonder if mainstream conservatives are capable of learning anything from experience.
Every four years, mainstream conservatives are told that they have to vote for Republican candidates in order to change the composition of the Supreme Court so that, for example, the Roe v. Wade decision which legalized abortion will be overturned.
In just the last few years, the Republican-controlled Supreme Court has chosen to use its majority to gut Arizona’s immigration law in Arizona v. United States, decline to review the decisions of lower courts which gutted Alabama’s immigration law in Alabama v. United States, punt again on affirmative action in Fisher v. University of Texas, preserve the Voting Rights Act in Shelby County v. Holder, gut the Defense of Marriage Act in United States v. Windsor, and finally to dismiss California’s appeal on Proposition 8, which opened the floodgates to all these challenges to state gay marriage bans in Hollingsworth v. Perry.
Guess what? There’s one area where the Roberts Court has brought home the bacon for the Republican Party: the Citizens United decision in 2010, which removed limits on corporate spending in elections, and now the McCutcheon decision, which has removed the limits on the amount of money that oligarchs like Sheldon Adelson can spend to influence elections and corrupt political candidates:
“WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court took another step Wednesday toward giving wealthy donors more freedom to influence federal elections.
The justices ruled 5-4, in a decision written by Chief Justice John Roberts, that limits on the total amount of money donors can give to all candidates, committees and political parties are unconstitutional. The decision frees the nation’s wealthiest donors to have greater influence in federal elections. …”
Don’t be fooled again.
The Republican Party exists for the sole purpose of catering to its wealthy donors. The Roberts Supreme Court can’t even be trusted to protect our borders or “conserve” the traditional definition of Christian marriage. Now that US federal elections are openly an arena for multibillionaires like Sheldon Adelson, the idea that we can “reform” the system by voting is more far fetched than ever before.
If I was on SCOTUS, I would have voted with the five, too. They made the right decision from a legal-constitutional standpoint.
Citizens United wasn’t about billionaires, it was about a group trying to make and distribute an anti-HRC documentary.
@Countenance
So rather than get broad based funding, now all you need are a few big money donors. Democracy is about participation. Instead you have John Robert’s twerking his fat Polish Catholic ass for big money donors like Sheldon Adelson or some other member of his tribe. (Robert’s mother was either Polish or a Jew.)
Here’s an article on Sheldon Adelson, this is what numb-nuts Republicans and conservatives are whoring themselves to:
Sheldon Adelson: ‘I’m Basically a Social Liberal’
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2012/12/05/sheldon-adelson-im-basically-a-social-liberal/
Of course he’s for open borders (i.e. genocide against white people) that will destroy America and conservatism forever, but there’s nothing stupider than the average Republican and nothing crookeder than a Republican or conservative leader.
Earl Butz
Of course the net effect of the ruling is not good. But that’s not the job of a Supreme Court justice. His or her job is to make decisions based on Federal constitutionality of the question at hand.
A lot of our people flamed SCOTUS in a recent affirmative action case (I can’t remember which) for either not taking up the case or ruling in favor of the affirmative action side (again, I can’t remember which). The problem is, if I was on SCOTUS, while I think the particular policy that has the net effect of affirmative action is stupid, and I certainly wouldn’t approve of it or vote for it if I was a politician, I couldn’t find any Federal constitutional grounds to declare it unconstitutional, so I couldn’t rule in favor of the plaintiff seeking to overturn it.
Now back to the politics of the matter apart from the judicial proceedings, I’m sure there’s a way we can have both the First Amendment and restrict the outsized influence of multibillionaires that will be both effective and constitutional, if we put our heads to it.
If you have more than $48,000 to spend as an individual or more than $123,200 to spend as a PAC per election cycle, this decision allows you to spend more than that limit.
All this decision does is give the super wealthy – the only constituency the GOP cares about – even more influence and leverage over elections. If it was a waste of time to vote for “Tea Party reform” candidates before this decision, it is madness to try do so after it.
Isn’t it strange how the Roberts Court always seems to find a way to favor the super wealthy and the business community?
The Supreme Court has upheld affirmative action several times now.
Actually, like the other SCOTUS decisions this harms the GOP much more than it helps him. If you get past their rhetoric, it’s actually the Democrats, not the Republicans, that are the party of the rich. A lot more super-rich people are Democrat than Republican, and Democrats in Congress are notably wealthier than their Republican counterparts.
I’m sure the US Chamber of Commerce will be thrilled.
http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/04/02/mccutcheon-another-blow-to-democracy/?hp&rref=opinion
“After today’s ruling in McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, a single donor will be able to give $3.6 million dollars in one election cycle — money that political parties can funnel into specific campaigns with the full knowledge of who gave it. …”
I’m obviously from Alabama, and I’ve read various comments on Sessions being a good ally to us in different places. He is my Senator but I’m not up to date on his views that align with ours beyond immigration. I’ve written to him a few times on different issues and always get a response, which is nice, but I’m out of the loop on his great potential. Can someone here fill me in? Is he a potential supporter of secession? I’d be interested to send him a letter about this to hear his response. Maybe all the SN can sign a group letter to him – politicians react to groups of voters.
When it comes to immigration, Jeff Sessions is our strongest supporter in the US Senate, but his value to us is limited for two reasons:
1.) In the US Senate, his own party leadership is against him and voted for cloture on the Marco Rubio amnesty bill in order to pass “comprehensive immigration reform” for the US Chamber of Commerce.
2.) Sessions is outvoted by all Democrats and other Republicans.
It’s great that he has the floor of the US Senate to make a rhetorical case against amnesty, but we can’t expect anything more than that.
@Countenance
I don’t really buy the speech equals money argument, but, when you deprive the many small donors of their speech in order to favor the speech of a few big money donors, that surely isn’t the republican system our Founders had in mind.
Earl,
The founders were pretty rapacious and predatory. The documents they drew up have soaring rhetoric, but the reality was a grasping selfishness and ruthless treatment of social and financial inferiors.
Congress is a playground for the wealthy like Wall Street.
Earl,
Perhaps you had the ordinary “grunt” or idealist like Thomas Paine in mind.
It’s hard to rate anyone in the leadership class as upstanding. Generally liberals are using liberalism as a camouflage for acquisition and conservatives are using conservatism as a cover for exploitation.
It’s best to suffer no illusions.
The Tenth Amendment says that all rights not delegated to the federal government are reserved to the states. Is that a punchline?
Re: ‘Congress is a playground for the wealthy’:
Is this observation made from the point of view of a Southron ‘Cavalier’ Elitist, or of a ‘working class’ so-called ‘Leveller’ who recognises and fights for the rights of ALL Englishmen?
Congress is a playground for the wealthy … who are devoid of any redeeming qualities.
@CrimsonTide
I’m not from Alabama, but I’m in Alabama now and very proud of Jeff Sessions.
But there is only so much that can be done in the current system of government. Perhaps the best that can be hoped for is to buy some time, because those who wish for independence very badly need to prepare, by which I mean they need to substantiate their cause with more than internet bravado, for a start. If you recall, the last time this came up there was a major war, and this time there WILL be another. That is because the martial power card is trump, and the opposition is holding (your tax dollars at work). You will not just walk away, no way. You must understand that and act accordingly.
I would suggest that your best interest lies in keeping Jeff Sessions right where he is, without demanding that he expose himself to the fire that explicit endorsement of southern nationalism will draw. Raising the legitimacy of that objective is your task, not his. No movement towards that end will ever come from within the federal government. It is enough for him just to give voice to our fundamental principles to prevent them from being totally submerged in the wave of perversity that is now upon us. To raise the levee is the task of the people.
Yes, but, at least in Citizens United I think the court decided rightly.
Perhaps it is reasonable (if not constitutional) to limit how much a plutocrat can donate, but is it really fair to limit donations from only some corporations? What I mean is, how was it fair that the New York Times, a publicly-owned company, can editorialize all it wants for left-liberals, while corporations owned by free-marketers, neoconservatives, etc. were prohibited from doing so via advertisements simply because they were not media corporations?
It seemed hypocritical to me, whatever the effects on our politics. In the end, though, it bounces back to Hunter’s regular observation that the constitution and American conception of liberty have failed us. In a free White, Christian country there would have to be regulation of corporate etc. influence to safeguard the common good.
Hunter is right. One guy on the Senate floor is not going to change anything. He is a man alone in the wilderness. Okay so the people are on his side. So what? In America the people have no power. The courts have power. Business leaders have power. Sheldon Adelson has power.
It seemed hypocritical to me, whatever the effects on our politics.
The whole American society is hypocritical and fraudulent. They only fix the “hypocrisy” when it is against the super rich or some filthy Jew like Adelson.
The Supreme Court allegedly considers precedent and intent, I seriously doubt they considered either in making this ruling that equates speech with money, and then doesn’t consider the rights of the many contrasted to the privilege of a few.
But, it’s what I expect from 6 Catholics, and three Jews.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/04/02/breyers-dangerous-dissent-in-mccutcheon-the-campaign-finance-case/
As always, Butzhead astonishes us with his acute political analysis.. hey birdbrain..the 3 jews voted against the majority decision..so you must stand in solidarity with the Jews.
Earl’s comment makes good enough sense to me, taken as he intended it — and he would have the superiour brain of a RAVEN, in relation to your brain of a chicken, if we were all feathered bipeds.
Excerpt from today’s reading recommendation, http://www.dailystormer.com/the-stolen-future-of-the-coming-generations/ : ‘The single most egregious lie I’ve ever heard in my life was Barack Obama, the current U.S. president turned overt dictator, describing Russia’s recent reuniting with Crimea as worse than the tragic U.S. invasion of Iraq. What a sacrilegious joke to tell about the thousands of American lives — and millions of Iraqi lives — that have been wasted over the lies that American citizens failed to challenge, even though they knew they were lies, but were too impotent and cowardly to oppose. To start with, Russia’s reclamation of the Crimea, because Ukraine had been taken over by an illegal coup engineered by the U.S. New World Order, resulted in two deaths, one on each side. By comparison, the illegal U.S. invasion of Iraq cost 2 million lives, at least. Obama (…) criticized Russia for invading Crimea to steal its resources, while insisting that America did no such thing to Iraq. Everybody in the world knows the U.S. stole and is still stealing billions from Iraq by commandeering that shattered nation’s oil industry and imposing a permanent state of revolution fueled by well-paid American and Israeli mercenaries. Obama’s feigned outrage over the failure of a Ukrainian coup that he himself engineered is the very opposite of the truth of the situation (…) But as with all American presidents, blaming a figurehead actor like Obama fails to identify the people who really run the country’ — who are, in fact, NOT ‘Damnyankee’ WHITES north of the Line, whom ‘Southern Nationalists’ like to blame!
I think internecine white skirmishing is far worse than useless at this late stage. Though without having to blame anyone at all, it may still be observed that the union remains an enormously oppressive force that would probably benefit whites globally to see dissolved.
“Earl’s comment makes good enough sense to me, taken as he intended it”
The opinions were all over the place and prove nothing except that he didn’t read them and remains as usual an ignorant buttzhead.
Noodle & Frenchie:
As I’ve said before, I don’t know who is worse anymore the Catholics or the Jews. Lying, smarmy, oily, corrupt, they apply equally to both cults.
“Isn’t it strange how the Roberts Court always seems to find a way to favor the super wealthy and the business community?”
No, his usual working majority are all Republicans fer chrissakes!
Never again. Its that simple. I am through with them.