Let The Corporate Tea Bagging Begin! Supreme Court Pisses All Over Our Constitution, Allows Billionaire Class To Legally Buy Elections … Tea Bag Patriot-slaves Love The Golden Shower, Jizz All Over Themselves In Ecstasy

What You Should Know / January 21, 2010

tea bag elections

latimesblogs.latimes.com -- The U.S. Supreme Court just this morning cleared the way for corporations to spend as much money as they want -- in the name of the 1st Amendment -- on political campaigns. Preserving restrictions on corporate contributions to individual candidates -- that's still taboo -- the Supreme Court ruled 5 to 4 that corporations could run ads on behalf of various causes. Expected to fall soon: similar limits on labor union spending.

Click here to read full article...

1 Comment

Add your own

1. Josephus P. Franks | January 21st, 2010 at 11:20 am
Reason #5,784 why Antonin Scalia’s highest and best purpose would be beautifying a flower garden by serving as its fertilizer: He’s a fucking moron, in a powerful position.
Evidence: his concurring opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
Supreme Court Jester Antonin Scalia: “it is far from clear that by the end of the 18th century corporations were despised. If so, how came there to be so many of them?”
Anyone capable of accessing a minimum of functioning brain cells: “There are four million pedophiles in the United States according to the Justice Department. I would not presume to speak for Scalia, but in general child molesters are quite despised. ‘How came there to be so many of them’? Really? That’s the best rhetoric you can come up with? Scalia, I’d call you ‘shit-for-brains’ if I weren’t so certain that an earthworm’s excrement has more functioning neuronal connections than you.
Supreme dumbfuck Scalia, his very next sentence: “The dissent’s statement that there were few business corporations during the eighteenth century—’only a few hundred during all of the 18th century’—is misleading.”
Any entity with greater intelligence than a rock: “I’ll quote your subsequent sentence, Scalia: ‘There were approximately 335 charters issued to business corporations in the United States by the end of the 18th century.’ So what exactly is misleading about saying that ‘only a few hundred [corporations existed] during all of the 18th century’ when, as you say, ‘[t]here were approximately 335 charters issued to business corporations in the United States by the end of the 18th century’? See, on earth, “a few hundred” is an accurate, not a misleading, way to convey “335”. What *is* misleading is dropping the dissent’s use of the word “hundred”, leaving only the word “few” to modify “corporations” when you paraphrase their proposition at the beginning of your first sentence – making it seem like they meant to imply that there were “few business corporations”, rather than “a few hundred”, in the U.S. by the end of the 18th century. You loathsome weasel.
Cheney’s buddy Antonin Scalia: “To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored. […] Instead of taking this straightforward approach to determining the Amendment’s meaning, the dissent [demonstrates that the Framers didn’t like corporations].”
Any animate or inanimate object other than Scalia: “Providing evidence that the Framers intended that corporations’ ‘speech’ in the pursuit of political objectives – i.e., propaganda – could be censored is hardly a ‘straightforward’ approach. It would be an utterly nonsensical approach, given that the few hundred – that is 335 to you, Scalia – corporations that existed at any point in time during the 18th century in the United States did not engage in propaganda. You had might as well ask one to prove that the Framers intended the First Amendment to allow censorship of email spam. Why? Because propaganda is a 20th century creation, born out of new media like mass-circulation newspapers and radio (then television), exploited with the use of developments in psychology. Also, the extension of constitutional protections like those contained in the First Amendment to corporate “persons” was a 19th century bit of judicial activism on behalf of the railroads – nothing the Framers would have dreamt of, so much as contemplated. Therefore, the dissent’s approach is the only reasonable approach possible: discerning the Framers’ opinion of corporations so as to extrapolate as accurately as possible how they would have wanted the First Amendment to be interpreted in light of 20th century developments. Scalia, can you provide any evidence that your conception wasn’t the result of Satan (assuming the form of the man listed on your birth certificate) sodomizing a mentally retarded goat (transformed by Satan into the woman listed on your birth certificate)?