Mr. Romney has called for overturning Roe v. Wade, the 1973 Supreme Court ruling that recognized a woman’s constitutional right to make her own childbearing decisions and to legalized abortion nationwide. He has said that the issue should be thrown back to state legislatures. The actual impact of that radical rights rollback is worth considering.
It would not take much to overturn the Roe decision. With four of the nine members of the Supreme Court over 70 years old, the next occupant of the White House could have the opportunity to appoint one or more new justices. If say, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the oldest member, retired and Mr. Romney named a replacement hostile to abortion rights, the basic right to abortion might well not survive.
The result would turn back the clock to the days before Roe v. Wade when abortion was legal only in some states, but not in others. There is every indication that about half the states would make abortion illegal within a year of Roe being struck down, according to the Guttmacher Institute. The Center for Reproductive Rights, which challenges abortion restrictions around the country, puts the number at 30 states. For one thing, abortion bans already on the books in some states would suddenly kick in. And some Republican-controlled state legislatures would outlaw abortion immediately.
Even with Roe and subsequent decisions upholding abortion rights, more than half the states have enacted barriers like mandatory waiting periods, “counseling” sessions lacking a real medical justification; parental consent or notification laws; and onerous clinic “safety” rules intended to drive clinics out of business.
We do not need to guess about the brutal consequences of overturning Roe. We know from our own country’s pre-Roe history and from the experience around the world. Women desperate to end a pregnancy would find a way to do so. Well-to-do women living in places where abortion is illegal would travel to other states where it is legal to obtain the procedure. Women lacking the resources would either be forced by the government and politicians to go through with an unwanted or risky pregnancy, attempt to self-abort or turn to an illegal — and potentially unsafe — provider for help. Women’s health, privacy and equality would suffer. Some women would die.
…and women still have the ability to get Obama re-elected and protect their right to choose. I’m always amazed at middle-class Republican women who support Romney. Essentially they are making themselves potential victims.
- NYT Editorial on Romney and a Future Without Roe v. Wade (lawprofessors.typepad.com)
- Romney: I Want the Supreme Court to Overturn Roe v. Wade via Life News.com (loopyloo305.com)
- Romney: Abortion is not ‘part of my agenda.’ Romney campaign: Oh yes it is. (dailykos.com)
- Romney Needs a Groin Shot (boomantribune.com)
- Ryan’s Roe v. Wade Bombshell (thedailybeast.com)
- Debate Moderator Candy Crowley Calls Out Romney ‘Then and Now’ on Abortion (politicususa.com)
- Women: Don’t Be Fooled by Mitt (thedailybeast.com)
- Mitt Romney’s Constantly Evolving Stance On Abortion Rights (thinkprogress.org)
Given the fact that probably three Supreme Court justices will retire in the next presidential term, we should think about who the elected leader of the country will nominate to fill the jobs. Right now there is a small tip toward conservative thinking on the SCOTUS, but if Romney is elected the right wing could end up in complete control.
Here’s something to think about:
This, in itself, is one of the best reasons not to vote for Mittens. It would be important to preserve a court that upholds civil rights, women’s rights, diversity in college admissions and support of health care legislation. Should we lose these, the United States goes back to where it was in the first half of the last century and years of development and reform will get flushed down the drain.
It’s up to us to preserve years of important reform.
- Judge Napolitano: Next Supreme Court Challenge to ObamaCare Could Result in ‘Different Outcome’ (foxnewsinsider.com)
- Carter Slams U.S. Supreme Court for its Endorsement of Corruption (dissidentvoice.org)
- This Far-Right Supreme Court Is Reason Enough to Vote Obama (truthdig.com)
- Why are candidates silent on Supreme Court? (cnn.com)
- Big Supreme Court Term Starts Today (abcnews.go.com)
- As The Supreme Court Returns, More Historic Decisions? (ibtimes.com)
- What else is at stake in the election? The Supreme Court (leanforward.msnbc.com)
- Poll: Swing Voters Find Obama Would Pick Better Judges then Romney (legaltimes.typepad.com)
From the NY Times:
This year, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg continued to work after breaking two ribs during one of the Supreme Court’s busiest months, and just a few weeks before the court released its landmark decision on President Obama’s health care law.
Justice Ginsburg spoke about the injury for the first time in an interview with Reuters, published on Wednesday.
When Justice Ginsburg fell at her home on the evening of June 4, she initially “thought it was nothing,” she told Reuters.
Good for you, Justice G… I’m sitting here with 5 cracked ribs, a clavical and a scapula from my fall and I’m impressed that you went right back to work without spending 4 dreary days in a hospital.
I hope your next couple of months is relatively painless.
- Justice Ginsburg Made June’s Historic Decisions With Two Cracked Ribs (nymag.com)
- Justice Ginsburg cracked her ribs days before health care ruling (theblaze.com)
- Ruth Bader Ginsburg: The Toughest Supreme Court Justice, Ever (theatlanticwire.com)
- Exclusive: Justice Ginsburg shrugs off rib injury (news.terra.com)
For instance, with all that has been said in relationship to the Supreme Court’s decision on Obamacare, wouldn’t it be really disappointing to know that almost half of all Americans were in the dark about the decision?
Or maybe it would be frightening. These are people that vote.
A new Pew Research poll finds that 45% of Americans either didn’t know what the Supreme Court had decided with regards to President Obama’s health care law (30%) or thought that the Supreme Court had overturned the law (15%).
My guess is that the same number of Americans know exactly who Kim Kardashian is dating.
- The amazing number of people who know nothing about the health-care ruling – Washington Post (blog) (washingtonpost.com)
- Polls: Public Division Remains Over Health Care Law (thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com)
- Supreme Court Upholds ObamaCare (thefrisky.com)
New Bloomberg poll results show a plurality of Americans, 43 percent, say they want to retain the 2010 law with only small modifications, while 15 percent say the measure should be left alone, a Bloomberg National Poll shows. That’s 58 % for keepers! Only 33% say it should be repealed.
Next week the Supreme Court is expected to rule “on the constitutionality of the law, the centerpiece of which is the mandate that most Americans buy insurance or pay a fine.”
Do you suppose the Court pays attention to people, or to Republican campaign rhetoric?
- Most Don’t Want Health Care Law Repealed (politicalwire.com)
- Robert Scheer: Health Care: Give the People What They Want (huffingtonpost.com)
- No Supreme Court ruling on national health care law – Boston.com (boston.com)
- Supreme Court pushes health care ruling to next week (bostonglobe.com)
Judy Woodruff interviews Sen. McCain on the money the Citizens Union decision has brought into the fray…
Here’s part of the interview:
Is this — is it just inevitable that we’re now in a period where money is going to be playing this dominant role in American politics?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: I’m afraid, at least for the time being, that’s going to be the case, because of the most misguided, naive, uninformed, egregious decision of the United States Supreme Court I think in the 21st century.
To somehow view money as not having an effect on election, a corrupting effect on election, flies in the face of reality. I just wish one of them had run for county sheriff. So what we are. . .
JUDY WOODRUFF: You mean one of the justices?
SEN. JOHN MCCAIN: One of the five Supreme Court justices that voted to invalidate what we know of as McCain-Feingold.
Bom-pa-da-bom! So not all Conservative Republicans are married to the five reactionaries on the Supreme Court. Maybe there is a future after all.
Go over to Crooks and Liars and see the whole, revealing interview.
- Video: In Role Reversal, McCain Critical of Obama’s ‘in Your Face’ on Pakistan (jewishpress.com)
- Sen. McCain says Obama never ‘reached out’ to him (theblaze.com)
- Sen. John McCain Trashes Supreme Court’s Citizens United Ruling [READ BRIEF] (ibtimes.com)
- A Democrat and a Republican want the Supreme Court to revisit “Citizens United” (underthelobsterscope.wordpress.com)
- Judy Woodruff Interviews Boehner on PBS NEWSHOUR Tonight (yonkerstribune.typepad.com)
United Healthcare, representing about 26 million people that could be affected by a change in the law, said it would allow young adults to stay on their parents’ policies up to age 26, wouldn’t reinstate lifetime limits on coverage and would continue to offer cancer screenings and other preventive services without co-payments. It also would maintain a third-party appeals process for treatment denials and wouldn’t cancel policies retroactively.
Later in the day, Humana said it would continue the same provisions. Aetna, said it would retain the young adult provision, the preventive care benefits and a third-party appeals program, but didn’t include a reference to lifetime limits on coverage or retroactive cancellation.
Public opinion polls have shown these provisions to be very popular, even among people who say they don’t like the overall law.No other comments on significant provisions in the law, such as the requirement that applicants with preexisting conditions must be accepted for insurance after 2014.
- Two More Health Insurers Pledge To Preserve Parts Of Obamacare (thinkprogress.org)
- Major Insurers Plan To Keep Portions Of Obamacare, Regardless Of Supreme Court Decision (huffingtonpost.com)
- 3 insurers will stick with some of health law regardless of Supreme Court ruling (miamiherald.com)
- UnitedHealth to Continue Obamacare Provisions (247wallst.com)
- Aetna will retain certain health benefits even if Obamacare struck down (kansascity.com)
- No matter court decision, two insurers will stick with some of health care law (mcclatchydc.com)
This Press Release went out from Senator Whitehouse’s office on Friday:
U.S. Senators Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI) and John McCain (R-AZ) today filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court that details the explosion of anonymous political spending since the Citizens United decision. The brief was filed in a case regarding a Montana law that bars corporations from funding election ads. The case presents the opportunity for the Court to clarify the authority of Congress and state legislatures to address the threat of corruption posed by this spending.
“We are deeply concerned about the rise of unlimited, anonymous money now flooding our elections,” Whitehouse and McCain said in a joint statement. “This unregulated and unaccountable spending invites corruption into our political process, and undermines our democracy. We urge the Supreme Court to make clear that legislatures can take appropriate actions against corrupting influences in campaigns.”
The Senators’ brief, filed in American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, asks the Court to deny a petition to review a Montana Supreme Court decision which held that the Montana legislature’s ban on corporate election spending was still constitutional following Citizens United. Failing that, the brief asks the Court to give the Montana case a full review in light of the flood of anonymous money that has entered political campaigns since Citizens United.
The brief urges the court to “revisit Citizens United’s finding that vast independent expenditures do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,” arguing that rules requiring donor disclosure and prohibiting outside groups from coordinating with campaigns have been evaded and manipulated by politically-active groups and individuals. The brief chronicles the extensive coordination that takes place between campaigns and super PACs, and the means of “identity-laundering” that allow secret donors to hide their activity. The legislators conclude that “the campaign finance system assumed by Citizens United is no longer a reality, if it ever was.”
The Senators have both been leading advocates on campaign finance issues. McCain was a co-author of the landmark Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act, or “McCain-Feingold,” which limited corporate expenditures on political ads, and which was partially struck down by Citizens United. Whitehouse has introduced legislation this year that would require enhanced disclosure of spending on political ads.
This is something all Americans from all political backgrounds should get behind… unless you want 8 or 9 rich guys putting out whatever crap they want to sway elections. The Supreme Court stuck us with this in “Citizens United” and it is their responsibility to bring back the basics of democracy (and let’s stop pretending Corporations are citizens.)
- States Wage War Against Citizens United (huffingtonpost.com)
- APNewsBreak: 22 states join campaign finance fight (kansascity.com)
- States Rally In Campaign Finance Legal Battle (npr.org)
- APNewsBreak: 22 states join campaign finance fight (sfgate.com)
- 22 states join campaign finance fight (timesleader.com)
How would you like a Supreme Court and other Federal Courts to have their appointees selected by Robert Bork? Remember Robert Bork… the Supreme Court Nominee who was rejected by Congress and has been grousing about it ever since.
The following article will make your skin crawl:
YES, AMERICA, ROBERT BORK IS BACK
Many presidents leave their most enduring legacy to the nation in the Justices that they name to the Supreme Court and the federal judges that they put on the bench. So what inspired former Massachusetts governor Mitt Romney to name former judge Robert Bork to co-chair his presidential campaign advisory committee on law, the Constitution and the judiciary?
Read the rest HERE.
Jamie Raskin is a professor of constitutional law at American University’s Washington College of Law, a Maryland State Senator, and a Senior Fellow at People for the American Way. He wrote this report while teaching at Yale Law School in the fall of 2011 and wishes to thank both the Yale Law School Library and the Washington College of Law Library for their assistance.
- Mitt Romney has a Robert Bork problem (thegrio.com)
- Why (verydemotivational.memebase.com)
- Conservative Law Prof Henry Monaghan argues Obamacare is Constitutional (jdjournal.com)
This section of the letter gives the historic background that SCOTUS eliminated:
The case overturned elements of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the “McCain-Feingold Act” or “BCRA”) pertaining to the corporate financing of electioneering communications in the run-up to primary and general elections. The Supreme Court ruled that these restrictions on corporate political spending violated the First Amendment’s free speech protections, thereby allowing corporations to spend unlimited amounts of money on elections.
In effect, the Citizens United decision overturned a century of jurisprudence, dating back to the Tillman Act of 1907, which supported Congressional authority to restrict corporate political spending on federal elections. With respect to the BCRA, the decision directly overrules key provisions of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, 540 U.S. 93 (2003), which upheld the BCRA provisions that prevented direct expenditures by corporate entities on electioneering communications. Importantly, Citizens United kept intact other critical rulings in McConnell regarding disclosure requirements. However, by its decision the Court gave corporations the same rights under the First Amendment as individuals, and thereby severely limited Congress’s power to regulate corporate political spending and invalidated bipartisan, democratically-enacted restrictions on corporate behavior.
Hopefully this brings a start to an action which will eventually eliminate the Super Pacs and bring our elections back to the majority voters.
Hopefully, this won’t become a political volley between Republicans and Democrats.
A quote from the Mashed Potato Bulletin… and one I can’t help but agree with:
I tell the students in my class at the City College of New York that “five” is the most powerful number in the nation. For as we have seen, five votes on the Supreme Court can pick a president—voters notwithstanding—and five votes could redefine our understanding of Congress’ power under the Commerce Clause of the Constitution—precedents notwithstanding.
What can we do when the Court defies the Constitution they are supposed to preserve by interpretation?
Some excerpts on his commentary on the Supreme Court vs. the Health Care legislation:
Three days of Supreme Court arguments over the health-care law demonstrated for all to see that conservative justices are prepared to act as an alternative legislature, diving deeply into policy details as if they were members of the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.
Senator, excuse me, Justice Samuel Alito quoted Congressional Budget Office figures on Tuesday to talk about the insurance costs of the young. On Wednesday, Chief Justice John Roberts sounded like the House whip in discussing whether parts of the law could stand if other parts fell. He noted that without various provisions, Congress “wouldn’t have been able to put together, cobble together, the votes to get it through.” Tell me again, was this a courtroom or a lobbyist’s office?
It fell to the court’s liberals — the so-called “judicial activists,” remember? — to remind their conservative brethren that legislative power is supposed to rest in our government’s elected branches.
The irony is that if the court’s conservatives overthrow the mandate, they will hasten the arrival of a more government-heavy system. Justice Anthony Kennedy even hinted that it might be more “honest” if government simply used “the tax power to raise revenue and to just have a national health service, single-payer.” Remember those words.
…a court that gave us Bush vs. Gore and Citizens United will prove conclusively that it sees no limits on its power, no need to defer to those elected to make our laws. A Supreme Court that is supposed to give us justice will instead deliver ideology.
See what I mean. Clear and concise with an ability to combine seriousness with humor. After all, we have to live with this stuff.
Read the whole column HERE.
- Supreme Court says jail strip searches after minor offenses are allowed (pennlive.com)
- Dionne v. The Supreme Court on Obamacare (nationalinterest.org)
- Will a Tea Party Supreme Court guarantee Obama a second term? (kaystreet.wordpress.com)
- If the Health Law Is Struck Down… (themoderatevoice.com)
- “An Alternative Legislature”: Judicial Activists In The Supreme Court (mykeystrokes.com)
- Activist Judges On Trial (themoderatevoice.com)
I’ve been sitting watching C-Span 3 which is replaying the arguments today (the beginning of six hours of arguments over three days) – Today they debated whether the Healthcare Law includes a tax and, if so, does the Supreme Court have the jurisdiction to decide the case.
Reuters did a summary of the morning’s session:
LEGAL QUESTION: Whether a challenge to the new requirement that most people in the U.S. buy health insurance by 2014 or pay a penalty must wait until the penalty is due and a refund is sought. This provision of the law is known as the “individual mandate.” A central issue is whether the court should regard this as a general “penalty” or as a “tax” that would be covered by a U.S. tax law known as the Anti-Injunction Act, premised on the notion of “pay first, litigate later.”
* WHO ARGUED: Robert Long, of Covington and Burling, appointed by the court to argue that tax policy should apply and delay the case; Donald Verrilli, who as U.S. solicitor general is the government’s chief courtroom lawyer, and Gregory Katsas of Jones Day, who joined the government’s argument.
* THE HIGHLIGHTS INSIDE: A majority of justices across the ideological spectrum suggested by their questions that federal tax law would be no barrier to reaching the core question of whether Congress had the power to require people to buy health insurance or pay a penalty.
* INSIDE THE COURTROOM: Justice Clarence Thomas did not ask any questions during the session, his usual style during oral arguments. He last asked a question on Feb. 22, 2006, during arguments in a death penalty case. Among the spectators who got one of the coveted seats inside courtroom with the white marble columns and red velvet drapes were: Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius; Attorney General Eric Holder; outspoken critic of the law Alabama Republican U.S. Senator Jeff Sessions; and Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi, who has led the challenge by the 26 states.
* THE LOWDOWN OUTSIDE: Hundreds of supporters and protesters dueled on the sidewalk chanting and marching with signs declaring their feelings about the law.
* THE DAY’S QUOTE “FOR”: Kathie McClure, an Atlanta attorney, said the law has allowed her children, who suffer from epilepsy and diabetes and are now in their 20s, to get health insurance that they otherwise would not have had. McClure was first in line for a public seat ahead of Tuesday’s second day of arguments and has been camped out since Friday. “This is personal for me. This is about my children’s’ future. But it’s really also about all the other millions of people in America who are in their same situation. In America we spend a boatload of money, trillions of dollars, and still we have a very poor outcome for our people,” McClure said.
* THE DAY’S QUOTE “AGAINST”: Sally Oljar, from Seattle, said it defies the U.S. Constitution ,o force Americans to buy anything. “I’d like to think that the Supreme Court supports the Constitution. … If they don’t, then there are a lot of us who are ready to go to jail. The day hasn’t come when the government can force me to buy a damn thing,” she said.
* UP NEXT: Tuesday is the main event of the three days when the justices will hear arguments on whether Congress, in requiring that most people in the U.S. buy insurance by 2014, exceeded its power to regulate interstate commerce.
Just a few days after Los Angeles California voted in a resolution that did not let Corporations be considered individuals, Bernie Sanders has proposed a Constitutional Amendment which will wipe out the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court.
Here it is:
SECTION 1. The rights protected by the Constitution of the United States are the rights of natural persons and do not extend to for-profit corporations, limited liability companies, or other private entities established for business purposes or to promote business interests under the laws of any state, the United States, or any foreign state.
SECTION 2. Such corporate and other private entities established under law are subject to regulation by the people through the legislative process so long as such regulations are consistent with the powers of Congress and the States and do not limit the freedom of the press.
SECTION 3. Such corporate and other private entities shall be prohibited from making contributions or expenditures in any election of any candidate for public office or the vote upon any ballot measure submitted to the people.
SECTION 4. Congress and the States shall have the power to regulate and set limits on all election contributions and expenditures, including a candidate’s own spending, and to authorize the establishment of political committees to receive, spend, and publicly disclose the sources of those contributions and expenditures.
- Bernie Sanders Introduces OCCUPIED Constitutional Amendment To Ban Corporate Money In Politics (thinkprogress.org)
- Sanders Files ‘Saving American Democracy Amendment’ – thanks to VK (jhaines6.wordpress.com)
- Reversing ‘Citizens United’ (wcward57.wordpress.com)
- LA City Council to Vote on Citizens United Declaration (blogs.wsj.com)
Keith Olbermann’s show brought up the relationship between the Debt Ceiling battle and the 14th Amendment.
Keith brought up and interviewed a couple of people on the 14th Amendment’s specific requirements of meeting all National debts on his program tonight… something that hasn’t been mentioned in any other budget discussions of late.
Section 4 of the 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution (You know – that document that the Tea Party says everything has to be based on?) confirmed the legitimacy of all United States public debt legislated by the Congress.
In Perry v. United States (1935), the Supreme Court ruled that voiding a United States government bond (ie: a debt… like the National Debt…or like the cause of our current deficit) “went beyond the congressional power” on account of Section 4.
Republican economist Bruce Bartlett argues that Section 4 renders the debt ceiling unconstitutional, and obligates the President to consider the debt ceiling null and void. Gee… I guess that means that there are no required budget cuts to abide by Constitutional law.
Let’s see if Obama will use this instead of giving in to Republicans again.
– and –
Kevin Siers in the Charlotte Observer:
… and their lawyers were reduced to second raters…
– and –
– and –
… and women are persecuted by society in general…
– and –
… of course, we are following precedents from other countries.
– and –
What if some day the Supreme Court didn’t support Corporations over Citizens?
What if some day the Senate and the House put our country first and the lobbyists a distant tenth?
What if all Billionaires begged the government to tax them at the same rates that Ronald Reagan did?
What if ALL workers, teachers, firemen, police officers, public employees and salespeople were encouraged to join Unions by receiving significant tax perqs?
What if everyone in government believed they were working “in service” to America and not to themselves?
- Thomas’s ongoing ethics problem, and Chris Murphy’s potential solution (dailykos.com)
- Stepping Toward Single Payer in the Green Mountain State (hcfama.org)
- Why Daydreamers May Become Visionaries (eideneurolearningblog.blogspot.com)
- Another Useless Friday Daydream (goodcomics.comicbookresources.com)
Take a look at these figures (I picked this up at Talk and Politics):
These are the big oil companies we are paying billions to subsidize while the cost of the gasoline they are putting out has made it more expensive to go to work, or to the grocery store (where prices have gone up do to the transport of food products suffering from increased gas and diesel prices), or to the mall for clothes shopping for kids. Don’t even mention driving on summer vacations around the country.
It makes me wonder what kind of protests can we do that would effect the big oil companies and the government that subsidizes them. We could cut out driving for a week and show that we can reduce their income, but this probably hurts us more than them. We can get on the phone with our Representatives (Federal AND State, both of whom set gas taxes) and smother them with complaints and demands that they eliminate subsidies, make federal reserves available, and, finally, regulate prices so that oil companies can’t raise them (these have all been done before and have worked.) E-mail flooding can be used here, too.
We are now at a time when government of the people, by the people and for the people is standing a desperate test. The prominence of and political control by corporations ( who have been backed by the Supreme Court and whose high contribution rates put our representatives in their pockets), that are concerned ONLY with profits, are the major competitors with the seemingly weak middle and lower class voters… that’s US. If we don’t act now, we deserve what we get.
In this year prior to major elections we can express dissatisfaction at town meetings where these representatives show up to appear people-oriented. Or we can picket capitol buildings. Or we can plan with each other the kinds of things that haven’t been tried before.
- Democrats Seek to Strip $21 Billion in Subsidies from Big Oil (treehugger.com)
- Gene Karpinski: End Taxpayer Handouts to Big Oil (huffingtonpost.com)
- Congress grills big oil on subsidies (rt.com)
- Sen. Claire McCaskill: Ending Taxpayer Subsidies for Big Oil (huffingtonpost.com)
- U..S. Senator Robert Menendez:No More Subsidies for Big Oil (gloucestercitynews.net)
- Gas Prices at $5/gallon : “Problem is we the consumers are at the mercy of both the elected thugs in congress and the corporate oil thugs.” (unaskedadvice.wordpress.com)
- ENERGY – Big Oil Subsidies (cozumelianblogger.wordpress.com)
- Getting Even With ExxonMobil (businessinsider.com)
- Big Oil gets its payday (thehill.com)
- Boehner refuses to consider Democratic proposal to end big oil subsidies (dailykos.com)
- Will Big Oil Get A Bigger Tax Bill? (curiouscapitalist.blogs.time.com)
- “Reid Questions $4 billion in subsidies for Big Oil” and related posts (desertbeacon.blogspot.com)
- Democrats keep up pressure on Big Oil welfare (dailykos.com)
While I’ve been waiting at home for the delivery of my SuperFocus glasses (according to UPS tracking they left the Hagerstown UPS facility at around 7:30 this morning… it is now around 1:30 in the afternoon and they are not here yet. Of course, the estimated delivery listing said they would come at “some time” today… so I’m just going to wait.
Anyway, while sitting here waiting, I was thinking about the things that make politicians the servants of corporations with endless supplies of money, while they ignore the needs of citizens who have little or no cash to spare. Notice I didn’t distinguish between Democrats and Republicans… I can cite instances where members of both parties have knuckled under to Corporate funds. Although I must say that, during this season, and especially after the Citizens United decision by the Supreme Court, the Republicans are a good ten times ahead of the Democrats in raising corporate donations for campaign ads (about $100.00 vs. $1,000,000.00 so far) and, unlike the small players, the Republican contributions have not been attributed to anyone… they are completely secret.
That’s going to make the campaign season a little off center as we watch TV ads and listen to radio shows. It’s going to be the responsibility of blogs like this one to keep all the players honest. So I hope as petitions come up and phone calls need to be made that my readers will be as active as necessary to help us preserve the America that is run by the People and not by the Corporate Elite.
- Ben & Jerry on the “Personhood” of Citizens United: (underthelobsterscope.wordpress.com)
- Can Administration Thwart “Citizens United” Ruling (lezgetreal.com)
- GOP’s Political Warfare: Long-Term and Virtually Unopposed (elections.firedoglake.com)
- Doug Kendall: Will the Supreme Court Prevent Citizens United From Being Fixed? (huffingtonpost.com)
- New Democratic “Super PACs” Start Spending (swampland.time.com)
- Koch brothers become political Big Brother (rt.com)
- Senate Democrats to Force Senate Republicans to Vote for Awful Republican Budget (slog.thestranger.com)
- Senator Dick Durbin We Hardley Knew Ye (jonathanturley.org)
- My Superfocus Glasses are supposed to be here tomorrow! I’m excited… (underthelobsterscope.wordpress.com)
They mentioned another video on the Story of Citizens United. Here it is:
And, finally, if you represent a corporation, there is a statement you can sign at Business For Democracy, part of the American Sustainable Business Council.
- Vermont Measure Calls for Revoking Corporate Personhood | CommonDreams.org (f33dyourhead.wordpress.com)
- “Vermont Is Gearing Up to Strike a Major Blow to Corporate Personhood” and related posts (freedemocracy.blogspot.com)
- Citizens United and the Constitutional Rights of Corporations (professorbainbridge.com)
- The Story of Stuff – Season 2 (underthelobsterscope.wordpress.com)
- Robert Weissman: One Year Later, Movement Is Growing to Overturn Citizens United (yubanet.com)
- Doug Kendall: Will the Supreme Court Prevent Citizens United From Being Fixed? (huffingtonpost.com)
- The Wheels of Justice (Scalia): Will Nino Fight His Traffic Ticket? (abovethelaw.com)
- Justice Scalia Gets Caught in a Fender-Bender (abovethelaw.com)
- Scalia in fender-bender on way to court (seattletimes.nwsource.com)
Now we’re pleased to direct you to:
Click on the picture and then settle back and enjoy. Then get ready to support the organizations behind it. There’s at least one petition and lots of contribution areas.
- The Story of Stuff Does Democracy (strongerdemocracy.org)
- Watch the “Story of Citizens United” video: Help rescue democracy (texasvox.org)
- The Story of Stuff Project – or why did I need this do-dad again? (gourken.wordpress.com)
- 5 Ways You Can Fight ‘Citizens United’ and Reclaim Our Democracy (alternet.org)
- The Story of Bottled Water (freetech4teachers.com)
- The Story of Stuff: An Inspiring Example of A Network in Action (bethkanter.org)
- Review: The Story of Stuff (thegrinningdogs.wordpress.com)
“Good morning, Anita Hill, it’s Ginni Thomas. I just wanted to reach across the airwaves and the years and ask you to consider something. I would love you to consider an apology sometime and some full explanation of why you did what you did with my husband. So give it some thought and certainly pray about this and come to understand why you did what you did. Okay have a good day.”
This was, needless to say, out of the blue and a couple of decades after Hill’s testimony at Thomas’ confirmation hearing ( remember?… Hill said Thomas “repeatedly made inappropriate sexual comments in the workplace and described several in lurid detail.”) Thomas had then called Hill’s accusations a “high-tech lynching, but they were never disproved.
So why did Ginny Thomas (who makes a living as a far-right lobbyist for Liberty Central, attacking Obama and his administration as a leftist tyranny) drop this message? Well… the FBI wants to know.
More coming, you can be sure.
- Ginni Thomas vs. Anita Hill- The Height of Chutzpah! (lezgetreal.com)
- Clarence Thomas’ Wife Calls Anita Hill for an Apology [Uh] (gawker.com)
- Anita Hill: No apology coming for Thomas testimony (cnn.com)
- FBI Contacted After Clarence Thomas’ Wife Ginny Calls Anita Hill Asking For An Apology (mediaite.com)
- Justice Thomas’s Wife Asks Anita Hill for an Apology (volokh.com)
- Quote For The Day II (andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com)
Four days ago, Congressman Kucinich came out with this statement as a response to the Supreme Court’s 7-1 decision to allow the experimental planting of genetically modified alfalfa seed before an environmental review is completed:
“Why do we continue to throw precaution to the wind?”
“Today the Supreme Court ruled that when it comes to genetically modified organisms, we as consumers have to wait until the damage is done and obvious before we can act to protect health and the environment, even if that damage could be irreversible.”
“Haven’t we learned from the catastrophe in the Gulf of the dangers of technological arrogance, of proceeding ahead with technologies without worrying about the consequences? Why do we continue to throw precaution to the wind?
“Tomorrow I will introduce three bills that will provide a comprehensive regulatory framework for all Genetically Engineered (GE) plants, animals, bacteria, and other organisms. To ensure we can maximize benefits and minimize hazards, Congress must provide a comprehensive regulatory framework for all GE products. Structured as a common-sense precaution to ensure GE foods do no harm, these bills will ensure that consumers are protected, food safety measures are strengthened, farmers’ rights are better protected and biotech companies are responsible for their products.”
There’s more information at the Organic Consumer’s Association.