There is a Place in the 9th Circle of Hell for Scalia , the U.S. Chambers of Commerce and the GOP

[McCamy Taylor]

The Ninth Circle of the Inferno is for traitors. According to Dante, those who betray their communities and their countries are encased in ice, trapped forever in their moment of treachery.



There is a place waiting in the lowest circle of Hell for those who are selling out their country to the highest foreign bidders.

Supreme Court (In)justice Scalia has a place here, along with Kennedy, Alito, Roberts and Thomas---the Gang of Five. They cast the deciding votes in Citizens United vs. the FEC in which they ruled that any corporation has the right to spend unlimited amounts of money in federal elections campaigning for and against candidates. Justice Stevens foresaw the dangers of their ruling when he wrote

If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by “Tokyo Rose” during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZX.html

Scalia and the others will try to argue that they had no idea that their ruling would unleash a flood of foreign money in the next federal election. But Stevens spelled it all out in his dissent. The Gang of Five knowingly put our country at risk. They made it possible for foreigners to buy the midterm elections. They are traitors to their country.

There is a place in the Ninth Circle of Hell for the U.S. Chambers of Commerce, which has gathered the foreign money. Seems like every nation on earth has something that it wants from the United States. India wants us to ship all our jobs overseas. So, they give generously to Republican candidates---via the U.S. C of C. Never mind that domestic businesses such as retail, travel and housing will go to the dogs without a solvent American middle class. Foreign drug companies based in the UK, Switzerland, Germany and France want to keep Medicare Part D costs sky high in order to subsidize reduced drug prices in their own countries. The want to keep us sick, too. The last thing they want is for the U.S. to enact sound public health policies that would make us as healthy as folks in Europe. Middle Eastern oil producers like Saudi Arabia want to halt clean energy research and efforts to clean up our environment. The benefit for them? We will be dependent upon their overpriced oil until they have squeezed every last drop of it from the earth. They could care less that we will end up broke, our domestic industries at a standstill when their energy runs out, our children sick and dying from asthma and pneumonia. The Chambers launder money from China, which is quietly buying up the properties which Banks are illegally foreclosing. Foreign bankers are desperate to roll back banking regulations which interfere with their ability to rip off American investors. The so called U.S. Chambers of Commerce even accept funds from those in Asia who want to build a TransAfghanistan pipeline---no matter how many U.S. servicemen and women have to die.

http://www.truth-out.org/foreign-funded-us-chamber-of-commerce-running-partisan-attack-ads63966

http://www.thinkprogress.org/2010/10/13/chamber-foreign-funded-media/

The Republicans who accept this tainted foreign money are no better than Benedict Arnold. Hell, Arnold thought of himself as a British patriot. The GOPers who eagerly sell their sells to China and Saudi Arabia are more like Judas. They have received all the blessings that come from living in the richest country on earth---and now they are prepared to sell us to the Romans---and India and Switzerland---for twenty pieces of silver.

What do you call a group of foreign businessmen who want to kill our troops, steal our homes, take away our health, drain our retirement accounts and put us out on the street to die so that people in other countries can make money?

Greedy, unscrupulous businessmen who know a good deal when Karl Rove offers it to them.

What would you call a group of Americans who want to kill our troops, steal our homes, take away our health, drain our retirement accounts and put us out on the street to die so that people in other countries can make money from our misery?

I call them traitors. Being encased in ice for all eternity is too good for them.

[Angry Dragon]

1. Perhaps it is time to have the people, the true government,

start filing torts of Treason.

[ladjf]

6. I agree. Rove, Rumsfeld, Cheney and others should be included. nt

[LawnKorn]

8. Cheney is next in line to get first hand experience with #9

[datan]

2. why

"country" is a mortal concept.

why does the devil care which country you're from and sold out your country?

[McCamy Taylor]

3. Ask Dante. He put traitors at the bottom. Probably because communities are meant to stick

together. A single traitor, who betrays the trust of his brothers and sisters can do more harm than all the enemies outside the gate.

[The Wizard]

4. The felonious five

need removal from the Court. Scalia and Thomas would be a good start. They did violate their sacred oaths when the ruled in Bush v Gore where they both had conflicts of interest.
Had they not intervened on Bush's behalf the American fascist movement would still be a blip on the radar instead of a major force dedicated to the destruction of American principles.

[aquart]

5. Don't forget Rehnquist is waiting for them.

And for Sandra.

[annabanana]

7. Human beings need communities, or they will die.

Those who have sold out our community are stabbing right at the heart of our shared dependence.

[skepticscott]

9. And would you also call them traitors

if they ruled that the Patriot Act was unconstitutional, and a terrorist attack killing thousands resulted from the inability of law enforcement to skirt Constitutional protections?

[CJCRANE]

10. Warrantless wiretapping

began six months before 9/11. Look it up.

How did that work out?

[skepticscott]

14. Exactly

Along with the rendition, torture and other deprivations of due process rights inflicted on "suspected" terrorists. Just a few examples of the constitutional violations that the Bush administration and an endless parade of cowardly right-wing pundits told us were necessary to keep America safe. Those who disagreed were branded as, among other things, traitors. This OP is just more of the same tune, coming from the other side of the aisle.

[sulphurdunn]

16. No. I think you are wrong.

Treason and dissent are not the same under our laws. Both have legal definitions. There is ample legal evidence to justify an investigation of the Bush administration and many of its judicial appointees for various crimes, including treason. No such evidence exists to accuse their detractors of the same offenses even though they were accused of it while exercising their constitutional right to do criticize the actions for which former members of the Bush administration could justifiably face legal prosecution.

[sulphurdunn]

17. What evidence exists

to suggest that 911 was the result of Constitutional restrictions placed upon law enforcement?

[skepticscott]

19. None that I'm aware of...I was speaking hypothetically

about something that might happen in the future, not about 9/11 particularly. The point is that we don't just disregard the Constitution because of possible or even actual negative consequences from adhering to it.

[McCamy Taylor]

20. Excuse me but where in the OP do I advocate violating the Constitution?

Bush/Cheney violated the Constitution so that their corporate buddies (many foreign, like the Banksters, Saudis, drug companies) could price gouge American consumers and wreck our economy with their short sighted greed.

No doubt, many foreign leftists think that the US "has it coming" for its own forays into colonialism. However, the ones who will end up paying are not the elite who have enriched themselves at the expense of third world nations. Those fat cats will do just fine. It is the American worker who will suffer. And the foreign countries exacting their revenge will end up just the way that we are----ruled by a handful of elites while the workers grovel for crumbs.

[skepticscott]

22. You accuse the members of the Supreme Court of treason

for adhering to the Constitutional principle that Congress is not allowed to restrict political speech (Stevens' little Tokyo Rose analogy is really quite silly, btw). How exactly should they have treated that principle to avoid a charge of treason from you? That they suspected or even knew the consequences of their decision is irrelevant. That a SC decision may have some undesirable or negative consequences does not make it incorrect, unconstitutional or treasonous. If it did, Brown, Mapp, Miranda, Roe and a lot more would all fall into that category.

And please, don't come back with the tired old rejoinder "Money ISN'T speech!" I'm getting tired of debunking that, and all it would show is that you haven't thought very deeply or carefully about the issue.

[blackspade]

26. You are missing the point.

Congress was not restricting political speech. It was regulating the expenditure of money in our election system that is currently for sale to the highest bidder.
The law was an attempt (admittedly a poor one) to level the playing field between individual Americans, both rich and poor, and massive corporations that have internal agendas that do not necessarily benefit the US or it's people. This ruling, in fact, flies in the face of 100 years of legislative and judicial precedence. It does not merely have 'undesirable or negative consequences' as you say, but undermines the very principles that helped found this country, the primary one being, that the people should elect leaders that represent them and their interests on the national stage.

Your citations of Brown, Mapp, Miranda, and Roe are not relevant as they do not redefine how our elected leaders are granted their power, but are instead clarify the the boundaries of government based on various amendments to the constitution.

This ruling undermines the most basic elements of how our government is constructed. They are traitors, for they have betrayed the trust of the American people in favor of corporations, some of whom are not even US based.

[skepticscott]

27. The point that you are missing

is that the right to raise and spend money is inexorably linked to the ability to disseminate political messages. Like it or not, that's a fact and always has been. A restriction on one is a restriction on the other, as everyone who criticizes this decision understands implicitly, but refuses to acknowledge.

And how exactly does this ruling prevent people from voting for the candidate of their choice on election day? Whose right to vote has been taken away as a sole result of Citizens United? This ruling will indeed tend to increase the amount of political speech that is disseminated, but why would anyone have a problem with that notion on its face? They don't...what the decision's critics have a problem with is that they see it increasing political speech that they don't like, in favor of candidates that they don't like. But the First Amendment is intended to give no favor to one political point of view or one ideology over another. And if candidates you don't like get elected, it's because more people voted for them (thinking that they DID represent them and their interests) than for the candidates you do like...sorta the way things should work. That they voted the way they did because of what you consider to be right-wing/corporate propaganda is pretty much irrelevant. They are as entitled to base their voting decisions on that as you are entitled to base your voting decisions on what they would consider to be left-wing, socialist propaganda. That's the "free" part in "It's a Free Country".

[blackspade]

31. Again, you miss the point.

I guess I'll have to go point by point with you....

**is that the right to raise and spend money is inexorably linked to the ability to disseminate political messages. Like it or not, that's a fact and always has been. A restriction on one is a restriction on the other, as everyone who criticizes this decision understands implicitly, but refuses to acknowledge.**

This is your opinion. However, limits on financial contributions have been part of the American political landscape for over a century. This is not a case of restricting 'the ability to disseminate political messages'. This case was about unrestricted spending as a way to buy votes by folks and corporations that have money to burn. There is no 'right' as you say, in the Constitution that allows for anyone to buy votes.

**And how exactly does this ruling prevent people from voting for the candidate of their choice on election day? Whose right to vote has been taken away as a sole result of Citizens United? **

This is not the point of the case and you know it. It is about allowing the richest people in the world to drown out the voices of the average American. An example of this is the recent revelation that a single hedge fund manager from Long Island has single handedly bankrolled $175,000 in adds against a candidate in Oregon. That one person has had a disproportionate impact on the voting patterns due to the amount of money that he has available. The average American does not have this ability.

**This ruling will indeed tend to increase the amount of political speech that is disseminated, but why would anyone have a problem with that notion on its face? They don't...what the decision's critics have a problem with is that they see it increasing political speech that they don't like, in favor of candidates that they don't like. **

It is increasing the amount of 'political speech that is disseminated' (that is if you equate money as speech) but for only a handful of rich bastards that can afford the add buys. I have a problem, as I stated above, with this because it means that one voice/position is disproportionately disseminated over that of the average citizen. This has nothing to do with what speech I like or don't like, I am against any rich individual or group from having more representation over the average American regardless of political stripe. The fact that most of the rich are supporting Republicons this election cycle is beside the point.

**And if candidates you don't like get elected, it's because more people voted for them (thinking that they DID represent them and their interests) than for the candidates you do like...sorta the way things should work. That they voted the way they did because of what you consider to be right-wing/corporate propaganda is pretty much irrelevant. They are as entitled to base their voting decisions on that as you are entitled to base your voting decisions on what they would consider to be left-wing, socialist propaganda. That's the "free" part in "It's a Free Country".**

This seems to be the core of your opinion, and the weakest. The notion that a stressed and uninformed electorate is somehow able to objectively cast a vote in their best interests while deluged with deception and outright lies in campaign adds funded buy 500 of the richest people and corporations in the world is laughable. It is entirely relevant that their voting is influenced by these rich bastards, that was the whole point of the case to begin with. Control. Control of the messages that are disseminated through the electorate by the very few for their own benefit rather that the benefit of the country as a whole. We do not live in a 'Free' society any more. This ruling merely reinforces this point.

[skepticscott]

32. Sorry, but you fail on every point

<This is your opinion. However, limits on financial contributions have been part of the American political landscape for over a century. This is not a case of restricting 'the ability to disseminate political messages'. This case was about unrestricted spending as a way to buy votes by folks and corporations that have money to burn. There is no 'right' as you say, in the Constitution that allows for anyone to buy votes.>

Not even remotely a matter of my opinion. The truth of it is attested to by your own reaction (and that of many other people here) to the decision. You reacted negatively to the decision because you yourself KNEW that lifting restrictions on campaign advertising would inevitably (not probably) increase the amount of political speech being disseminated, just as as you knew that keeping those restrictions in place (or reinstating them, as you'd like) would restrict and reduce it. The opinion here (yours, and not a very sound one) is that votes are being "bought". What's being bought is the opportunity to persuade people to vote a certain way, and nothing more. The decision on who to vote for remains, as it always has, with the individual voter, and if they are not persuaded, what exactly has been bought, under your theory of things?


<This is not the point of the case and you know it. It is about allowing the richest people in the world to drown out the voices of the average American. An example of this is the recent revelation that a single hedge fund manager from Long Island has single handedly bankrolled $175,000 in adds against a candidate in Oregon. That one person has had a disproportionate impact on the voting patterns due to the amount of money that he has available. The average American does not have this ability.

It is increasing the amount of 'political speech that is disseminated' (that is if you equate money as speech) but for only a handful of rich bastards that can afford the add buys. I have a problem, as I stated above, with this because it means that one voice/position is disproportionately disseminated over that of the average citizen. This has nothing to do with what speech I like or don't like, I am against any rich individual or group from having more representation over the average American regardless of political stripe. The fact that most of the rich are supporting Republicons this election cycle is beside the point.>

Maybe your version of the Constitution says "Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, except when one side is having a lot more success getting its message out than the other, in which case Congress shall step in and level the playing field", but I can't seem to find that part in mine. Strange. And do you and everyone else who is up in arms about this decision get steamed when George Soros gives millions to Democratic candidates, allowing them to outspend their Republican opponents? If Democrats were raising and spending 3 or 4 times the amount that Republicans were on Congressional campaigns, even if that money came from a limited number of wealthy sources, would you be calling for a change in the system to even things out, so that one point of view wasn't being disseminated disproportionately? Somehow, I think not.

<This seems to be the core of your opinion, and the weakest. The notion that a stressed and uninformed electorate is somehow able to objectively cast a vote in their best interests while deluged with deception and outright lies in campaign adds funded buy 500 of the richest people and corporations in the world is laughable. It is entirely relevant that their voting is influenced by these rich bastards, that was the whole point of the case to begin with. Control. Control of the messages that are disseminated through the electorate by the very few for their own benefit rather that the benefit of the country as a whole. We do not live in a 'Free' society any more. This ruling merely reinforces this point. >

What's laughable is your presumption that your own judgement and ability to resist being swayed by political propaganda (it comes from the left too, btw) is far superior to those you look down on as being influenced by "rich bastards" and having no ability to judge their own best interests. And even if your presumption were correct, where did you acquire the right (or where did Congress or the Supreme Court get the authority) to decide on what basis people should be allowed to make their voting decisions? On what basis will you or they decide which messages are TOO deceptive, or who is TOO gullible to be allowed to exercise their right to vote? None that can be justified. Hence the whole freedom of speech thing.

[sulphurdunn]

21. Of course. I should have noticed.

However, only government has the power to disregard the Constitution or to render expedient interpretations of it. When is it permissible to repudiate such negative consequences of its rulings, legislation or execution?

[skepticscott]

23. In theory, never, if we're talking about the Constitution

That's the "Supreme Law of the Land" part. Not that it hasn't happened in practice or probably won't happen again, but think about how many important Supreme Court decisions would have been different if practical consequences were always given favor over constitutional principles. It was inevitable after Mapp that a certain number of clearly guilty people would escape punishment because of violations (even inadvertent ones) of the Fourth Amendment, and they have and do to this day. Should we just forget about that part of the Constitution as a result?

[TheMadMonk]

24. When you have a constitution you have a holistic entity, not just a collection...

...of uber statutes to be interpreted individually as needed.

Thus if unlimited free speech threatens public safety, (ie. shouting "fire" in a theatre) then limits are placed on that speech. How is shouting "nigger" at a crowd of African Americans not equally incitement to riot?

Far too many behave as if their right to free speech is greater than an unwilling listener's right not to hear it. And WTF the law supports this with a ruling that can easily be interpreted to say that the government may place no limits whatsoever on ANY speech or its disemination?

With very little massaging, the ruling on the financing of political advertising can be used to reduce the FCC to a traffic cop, policing bandwidth violations. Even take censorship out of govt. hands and turn it into a "Voluntary code of conduct".

Can you see where an absolutist interpretation of the First Amendment is going?

"Money talks!"? You ain't seen nuttin' yet.

Your speech from now on goes only as far as your money takes it, and theirs goes as far as their money can push it.

[sulphurdunn]

25. Yes,

The Constitution was not written on tablets of stone by the finger of God, neither do Supreme Court justices constitute a judicial priesthood, nor is the document itself considered infallible by most Americans even if thought to be so by a majority of the current Court.

[skepticscott]

28. Your examples deal only with limitations on speech

intended to directly or immediately incite violence or riot, and as such are irrelevant to the question at hand. People are perfectly free under the First Amendment to espouse all sorts of hateful and despicable viewpoints outside of those narrow restrictions. Political speech and political messages in general should be afforded the highest possible level of First Amendment protection, but as far as ALL speech is concerned, nowhere does this decision mandate an absolutist interpretation.

[TheMadMonk]

30. I didn't say it mandated. I said it allowed. /nt

[blindpig]

11. True, true, but....

it ain't just 'foreign' investors, it is investors, period. That is where the ball starts rolling.

[The Uncola]

12. Though I agree with the sentiment..

.. I don't believe magic, magic superbeings, or retribution for "living wrong" in some sort of "afterlife" payback scene.

[dotymed]

13. Me either.

However, I do believe that they should be prosecuted for treason. However, that will take an action of the people and Americans have become so paralyzed by propaganda, that the Supreme 5 have nothing to worry about..............:wtf:

[Scurrilous]

15. K & R

:thumbsup:

[democracy1st]

18. K & R great post

[mikeSchmuckabee]

29. I can see him gnawing on reagan's skull.