Citizens United: A Case Which Will Live in Infamy

[NorthCarolina]

by Ernest A. Canning



January 21, 2010 is, "a date which will live in infamy." Yet, unlike Pearl Harbor and 9/11, most Americans do not recognize it as such. This attack came not by way of planes or bombs delivered by some foreign menace. It came from within courtesy of what Professor Cass Sunstein aptly described as "radicals in robes" --- four directly connected to the Robert-Bork founded, billionaire-funded Federalist Society; all five as appointees of the Reagan and two Bush administrations. Men bent on unraveling the very constitution they had all solemnly sworn to uphold.

Their assault, though subtle, wrought far greater devastation than either Pearl Harbor or 9/11. They did not merely attack planes, ships and buildings. They assaulted the very foundations of our constitutional democracy...

---snip---

It is quite telling that, in his majority opinion in Citizens United, Justice Kennedy not only failed to mention the fact that the framers included "freedom of the press" in addition to "free speech", but that Chief Justice Roberts added the height of irony in a separate concurring opinion: "First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy." Justice Scalia then piled on: "We should celebrate rather than condemn the addition of this speech to the public debate."

Link: http://www.bradblog.com/?p=7709#more-7709

[Demeter]

1. Absolutely!

The day is doubly-cursed, as it is the anniversary of my psychopatic ex's birth...

[indepat]

2. So this feloniousness of the felonious five is even more feloniouser the the foulest

feloniousness to date. It's a shame no constitutional procedure is available to impeach, then convict, the most egregious of these feloniousest of rascals. :P

[JohnWxy]

3. RECOMMENDED. (great picture. saved it!)

[skepticscott]

4. So what are the grave consequences that will result from this decision?

What significant, loophole-free restrictions existed on corporate speech before this decision, and what will happen to people's right to vote for the candidate of their choice in any election where they're running, now that it's in place?

[unblock]

7. good point. as with many milestones, this is merely a notable marker in a long trend.

corporations have long found ways of having their say and their way when it comes to political elections and actions. in some ways this decision merely means they can do it out in the open.

still, the new found limitlessness permits a brazen ability to purchase elections wholesale that will surely be intimidating to other speech, and indeed, other candidates entirely. who would risk running without serious corporate backing against someone with? even before the corporations spent a dime, they would have won the race.

[Uncle Joe]

5. Kicked and recommended.

Thanks for the thread, NorthCarolina.

[NorthCarolina]

8. No problem. To be honest, I am a bit surprised that this

article didn't attract more attention and discussion here on DU than it has. It isn't about the Tea Party folks, so I guess few on this site are interested.

[bemildred]

6. History will make toast of the felonious five, and the recently added USSC tools Roberts and Alito.

They have embarassed our nation and they have no honor.