Supremes vote for religious bigotry

[bhunter]

Originally Posted by merrylander

Please, the Preamble says "We the people" but the Roberts court has granted more rights to corporations than we the people enjoy. The owners of a limited corporation cannot be held responsible for the acts of a corporation, so the shareholders take the hit. You and I are held responsible for our action, not some third party. There are other examples of some on the court not following Article III "and shall hold their offices upon good behavior" what the Roberts court has been doing does not constitute 'good behavior' by any stretch of the imagination. Raising corporations to be above individuals is criminal.

No they didn't. Once again the democrats and their minions expanded the scope of the Citizen United decision to bolster their divisive politics via their so-called "war on corporations." The concept of corporate personhood goes back to the early 1800s. Moreover, that wasn't even the issue wrt Citizen United. The only thing BCRA did: "The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited." A corporation ought have an input into elections as ought unions or other associative groups. Note that all the other parts of McCain-Feingold remained including campaign contributions, limits on foreign contributions, etc.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/res...ed-v-fec-2010/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission

[merrylander]

Originally Posted by bhunter

No they didn't. Once again the democrats and their minions expanded the scope of the Citizen United decision to bolster their divisive politics via their so-called "war on corporations." The concept of corporate personhood goes back to the early 1800s. Moreover, that wasn't even the issue wrt Citizen United. The only thing BCRA did: "The Citizens United ruling did however remove the previous ban on corporations and organizations using their treasury funds for direct advocacy. These groups were freed to expressly endorse or call to vote for or against specific candidates, actions that were previously prohibited." A corporation ought have an input into elections as ought unions or other associative groups. Note that all the other parts of McCain-Feingold remained including campaign contributions, limits on foreign contributions, etc.

http://billofrightsinstitute.org/res...ed-v-fec-2010/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizen...ion_Commission

Then for giggles try this link

http://famguardian.org/Publications/...ts/corpor.html

You migfht brush up on your history.