Finance Trading and Politics ideally should be separated. I say ideally as I realize that finance is the corner stone to our government elections and therefore indirectly our justice system. Oh Money is the cause of much evil, when if it were used as the tool of trade and not such a powerful value source, we would be a much healthier world.

By Inherit The Wind, January 28 at 11:30 pm

A lot of suppositions and I wish they were true, but WR is dead
and gone and o’conner is playing the ‘wise and benevolent’ role.

And, I too, will never forgive her 2000 election decision to stop
the re-count, as you say, just because of her hatred of Al Gore.

She is basically a corporate whore with not a jot of intentions for
the people or JUSTICE.

It is way too bad that she did not die from choking on her drink
when she heard, at a ‘cock’ tail party that gore had won florida.

As all the usual unthinking rush-to-judgment types forget, O’Connor’s absence will be even MORE heavily felt when these five @$$#oles decide that a woman’s body belongs to everybody but her, and outlaw ALL abortions.

Every justice leaves at some time, either by death or by circumstances.  Naturally, they prefer to leave when they think the odds are best that their replacement will not be too different.

I don’t forgive her for the 2000 decision—I think it was the weakest and worst moment of her career, when she gave in to her personal detestation of Al Gore.  I do actually believe both she and William Rehnquist lived to regret it.  She was too ill to remain on the SC and Rehnquist who SHOULD have resigned due to illness clearly hoped to outlast Bush and failed.

Yes, I believe WR lived to HATE Dubya.  WR believed that the courts are truly and totally independent and Bush tried to openly interfere in the decision process, earning WR’s life-long enmity.  I think O’Conner came to the same conclusion.

Of course, it was too late and we were stuck with Bush while Ralph Nader’s smugness was proven desperately wrong—there was far more than a dime’s worth of difference.

According to our Constitution at least, Supreme Court justices are not necessarily “there for life.”
Article III says:

“The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behavior…”

If there is anything that constitutes other than “good behavior” by a U.S. Supreme Court justice, surely pissing on the Constitution qualifies. 

Unfortunately, most of their Republican buddies in Congress hate the Constitution as much as they do, so it won’t be easy.  Notwithstanding that,  Roberts, Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Kennedy are traitors to our Constitution and the democratic republic it describes, and so must be removed from office (though only after being tarred and feathered on the White House lawn - preferably on live TV).

But on a different note, who knows, this ruling may be a blessing in disguise.  Maybe enough Americans will finally wake up to the fact that corporations have already effectively killed our democracy and that this bit of judicial activism is an attempt to put the last nail in its coffin.  Maybe Americans will become determined enough to do something about it. (Yes, that’s supremely unrealistic, but hope springs eternal!)

purplewolf wrote:
“Several years ago under G.W., Saudi Arabia was telling this country that we could not plant certain crops as they felt we already had to much of that type of produce already planted”
_____________________________________________________

From where did you hear or read that weird unlogical story which doesn’t make any sense at all.
May be your sources are zionist sources who want to incite feelings against anything Arab??!!
What business Saudi Arabia has with corn acrage in the U.S.
Why the U.S. which is the only super-power in the world with its immense military, economic power has to listen to Saudi Arabia especially about corn arcage.??!!

truthdigger 3: Several years ago under G.W., Saudi Arabia was telling this country that we could not plant certain crops as they felt we already had to much of that type of produce already planted. I believe it was corn. So yes, other countries have already dictated what can and cannot be done in this country, just like the Bush administration made rules in Iraq that the people and farmers there could not save their vegetable seeds to grow next years crops(reported on several news sources)and that the Iraqi people would from now on have to buy their produce seeds from big agricorps. I am not certain if this country, through Bush/Cheney followed through with this, since Bush’s family has been in bed with the Saudis for decades, they no doubt did and never told the American people, after all it’s business as usual.

So it will not take generations to happen, it already has.

Re Truedigger3: “That is extremely misinformed statement.”

Actually, what Faith says is true. The decision didn’t distinguish between U.S. and foreign owned corporations.  There have been numerous posts on this issue. I just read an interesting one on Huffington Post a few days ago:

“A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. In 2006, USA Today reported: “Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies also have a sizable presence
in running power plants, chemical factories and water treatment facilities in the United States.

“It was also reported that, “Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying.” In 2008, it was reported that foreign ownership of U.S. companies “more than doubled” between 1996 and 2005. To get a fix on the spending power, consider this: “The total receipts of foreign-owned companies were $1.7 trillion in 1996 and just $39 billion in 1971. . .

. . .The decision completes what Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick calls “The Pinocchio Project,” in which the Court transforms “a corporation into a real live boy,” complete with personhood, free-speech rights and the unfettered opportunity to drown the body politic in a tidal wave of perverse incentives.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/21/the-supreme-courts-
citize_n_432127.html

By truedigger3, January 26 at 9:08 pm

I realize that especially after the 2006 midterms and felt it
before that, but I was a bit more attentive for 2008 and
when I saw o pledge fealty to corporate america early in the
2008 campaign and in June of 2008 do the same for the
american izraeli public affairs committee, I decided then to
vote anything but dem or repub which puts me in a situation
of not voting for kucinich(sp) because he is still a democrat,
meaning I could not trust him to vote for him now, else he do
the o thing and fuck everybody that is not an elite.

And as much as I know that gore would have made a better
choice of president, I voted for him, I now know he has little
grasp on the climate except that, for me, global warming is
more to do with pollution, CLIMATE CHANGE, which is
affecting the climate now, is more of an affecting factor as it
is a natural consequence of earth orbital dynamics which is
not a fixer because of the dynamics the earth is headed into is
beginning the next ice age with unpredictable, extremely violent
weather ahead.

faith wrote:
“and I suspect that many of them will have Saudis, Chinese, and others making american policies in the future.
____ ________________________________________________

That is extremely misinformed statement. Neither the Saudis, Chinese, and any other will be making American policies ever, or at least for many many generations to come very far into the future.
With all due respect, you have no idea about what are you talking about.

Re:By samosamo, January 26 at 5:13 pm #

If Al Gore had got the presidency, it would have made zero difference, even to the environment and Global Warming. Any elected president, whether he is a Democrat or a Republican, has to follow the same script authored by the finance/corporate complex, otherwise he wouldn’t have made it, even past the primaries.
Obama was elected by the people to “do CHANGE”, and he changed nothing at all.  He is exactly rolling on the same tracks that W Bush was rolling on.

She who voted with the 4 other Republicans to stop counting the votes in FL in 2000.  Some credibility.
And she was the “moderate” of the crew.

Re Faith: ” Justice is lost in America.”

Actually, I believe there is a way to regain a more just system, but we the people will have to aggressively fight for it.  Dean Baker points the way:

“. . . corporations are creations of the government. The economic privileges granted to corporations are set by governments, not by the Constitution and certainly not by nature. Specifically, the limited liability of the shareholders in a
corporation is a special privilege that governments grant to corporations.

Because of limited liability, the individuals that own a corporation can poison our water, sell dangerous products to our kids or cripple their workers and not pay for the damage they have caused because the government limits their liability to the value of the stock they own. While there may be good economic arguments for giving corporations the privilege of limited liability, there certainly is no moral or legal argument that corporations, or more properly their shareholders, must be granted this privilege.

This allows for a simple route around the Supreme Court’s ruling. Consistent with the Supreme Court’s ruling, corporations can be given the right to engage in whatever political activity they wish. However, to get the benefit of limited liability, a corporation would have to sign away its right to take part in election campaigns. It could not contribute to political campaigns, engage in any lobbying efforts on legislation or appointees or take out issue ads. . .

. . . There is no reason that the government can’t apply the same rules to the political conduct of corporations as it does to tax-exempt organizations. They can do whatever they like, but not when they benefit from the privilege of limited liability.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/leveling-the-political-an_b_436344.html

Well said, Wildflower.  However, our USSCT justices do not campaign.  It is the
behind the scenes support and old boy societies that will bring about the ruin
of order and law.  We can fully anticipate foreign nations pouring millions and
billions into corporate coffers to finance and support elections in this country. 
Although Marbury v Madison was about packing the court, today’s acts by or
highest court in the nation demonstrates the biases and prejudices, in fact,
manipulation (if you consider that Justice Roberts required that the original
question be expanded and broadened) of our U.S. Constitution.  Roberts is no
strict constructionist, no matter what he proclaims.  And he is there for life -
for many, many years.

It is a dark day in history for our nation.  Corporations will rule the land, and I
suspect that many of them will have Saudis, Chinese, and others making
american policies in the future.  It is the money that rules.

Retired Justice O’Connor will spend the rest of her “history” in infamy.  Infamy
because she notoriously supported Bush in the questionable election that
placed George W Bush in office (Gore v Bush). Knowing full well that the
election committees in several areas were suspect, particularly Florida and
other parts of the south where blacks were outrageously turned away from
exercising their constitutional rights to vote.
O’Connor will always be remembered also as the Judge who said she would
retire from the bench when a republican president was in office so that she
could be replaced by a republican judge and not a democrat.  The bias, 
prejudice in that last statement will follow her for future generations.  She
should feel very comfortable with the way Justice Roberts is “directing” the
bench.  Justice is lost in America.

I hope Obama uses this opportunity to expand the bench.  Diluting the votes by
adding to the number of justices is most likely the only way to rein in the
future USSCT rulings.

Re: O’Connor SCOTUS Critique

The “conflict of interest” issue that Justice O’Conner brings up about that state supreme court justice in West Virginia who was elected with the help of millions of dollars in campaign spending from a coal executive zeros in on a vital issue that “we the people” need to aggressively address – except we need to broaden our “conflict of interest” campaign to include politicians as well.

“Justice O’Connor has become increasingly vocal in recent years about the need to do away with state judicial elections.

“Judicial elections are just difficult to justify in a constitutional democracy in which even the majority is bound by the law’s restraints,” she said Tuesday.

And Thursday’s decision, she said, only made making the case for elected judges harder.“Judicial campaigning,” she said, “makes last week’s decision in Citizens United an increasing problem for maintaining an independent judiciary.”

Last year, the Supreme Court ruled that a state supreme court justice in West Virginia elected with the help of millions of dollars in campaign spending from a coal executive should have disqualified himself from a case involving the executive’s company.

“These two cases,” Justice O’Connor said, referring to Citizens United and the one from West Virginia, Caperton v. A.T. Massey Coal Co., “should be a warning to states that still choose their judges by popular election.”

The gall of this verified participant in appointing w & dick to the
p & vpotus.  I don’t need no ‘splainin’ from her unless she would
care to confess to her and the other 4 treasonous traitor’s crime
to our country in our hour of need in 2000 for the crime they
committed and to being accessory to all the criminal acts
committed during that presidential term.