Dear Chris:
Thank you very much for taking the time to write in about this. I often consider myself a conservative in the sense of wanting to preserve the Bill of Rights for people as with my work on the Fourth Amendment with my conservative and libertarian friends like Congressman Bob Barr. At the same time, having tracked these justices for many years I can only say that there is a strong ideology of the so-called Federalist Society (and actually whose view are mostly the opposite of the actual historical federalists) that has taken root among the Republican appointees to the federal courts. During President Bush's first term more than half of all of his appellate nominees were active in the Federalist Society, which purports to be a debating society and in fact is much more than that--laying down the architecture for a far-reaching "legal" revolution that is embraced as a policy matter by their political counter-parts. This legal revolution has found its "greatest" expression in this radical decision of the Supreme Court. As a devoted student of the writings of the Founders, I am certain most of them would shocked, appalled and fearful of what these guys have wrought. I am certainly hoping that conservatives like will joint progressives and libertarians and others in saying no to this judicial activism and restore the power of individuals in our democracy. This ideology of corporate rights has unfortunately found its home among Rs appointed to the bench. While there are most certainly Ds who have been elected who are too beholden to corporate donations, as with many Rs, within the federal judiciary those who are pushing this agenda are appointees of Reagan, Bush, and Bush almost exclusively. Certainly that is the case on the Supreme Court with all of the justices hand-picked by these presidents, all of whom have been active in the Federalist Society, issuing one of the most radical decision in U.S. history. And, while the idea of limiting ads in the months before an election may have some appeal, it will not fix the underlying problems with this edict or addressing the far-reaching implications of the court's analytical framework granting corporations inherent "rights." I agree--it's not conservative. Those who are truly conservative will be outraged by such activism by unelected judges displacing the people's will with their own narrow agenda.
Whenever a price is artificially held below the market price *shortages* occur.
Think about when you go to the supermarket. Imagine if rotisserie chickens, which are normally like $8, were all of a sudden "free." What would happen?
You'd get to the supermarket, and the shelves would be empty....gone...no chickens in sight! People would snap them up in a second...In fact, one person may decide to take every one...After all, they're free!
Healthcare would be no different...People would go to the doctor even if they didn't have to...they'd go for any little reason they could conjure up.
Naturally, a *shortage* of time to see the doctor would occur.
Take a good look at country's with socialized medicine. Long waiting lists....rationing....
These must be the consequences...because the laws of supply and demand are being ignored...Instead, it is replaced by government rationing who can get care....and when.
Lot's of people realize this....calling them "uneducated" seems a bit odd.
In 2000 David Axelrod represented Fidelity Holdings while the stock went from $28 to $2, and while the CEO and President were shorting the stock of their own company. Meanwhile, Axelrod was promoting the stock for purchase by outsiders, the CEO and President were trying to get other members of the company to reinvest, etc. Undoubtedly Axelrod received something extra for his efforts.
is that, like five Supreme Court justices, you don't seem able to grasp the difference between speech and the bullhorn it's blasted out over. Speech is speech but a bullhorn can drown out the speech of others -- yours too, if you happen to be on the wrong end of it.
<blockquote>"...as soon as you start restricting someone else's free speech, yours is just around the corner."</blockquote>
Another funny thing is that those word's "someone else's" show you've internalized the idea that a corporation is an actual <i>person</i> rather than, as Wendell Berry put it, "a pile of money to which a number of persons have sold their moral allegiance."
No one seriously suggests restricting the free speech of that "number of persons" as individuals. That's just a red herring.
Is this the same obama who along with bush gave these same crooks billions of taxpayer dollars?
That was the time to fight, not now.
This is just political posturing nothing more.
The government has no business in business.
In 2000 David Axelrod represented Fidelity Holdings while the stock went from $28 to $2, and while the CEO and President were shorting the stock of their own company. Meanwhile, Axelrod was promoting the stock for purchase by outsiders, the CEO and President were trying to get other members of the company to reinvest, etc. Undoubtedly Axelrod received something extra for his efforts.
Pages