Comments on: Audio: Clarence Thomas Defends Supreme Courts Campaign Finance Decision

By: aSingleDallasGuy

aSingleDallasGuy — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:49:43 +0000

The only tragedy about the supreme court’s decision is that 4 justices ignored the US Constitution. The idea that terrorists have US rights and American companies do not? Yeah that’s fair! Liberals are jackass’s. They think the constitution says what it wants to.

By: RaginCelt

RaginCelt — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 02:14:30 +0000

I don’t see any mention of Corporations being granted same rights as a person in the Constitution or Bil of Rights. It’s a very dangerous precedent that will set the stage for corporations to be able to buy elections and eventually control our government.

By: turtleblues66

turtleblues66 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:24:02 +0000

this guy has NO credibility…..

By: waydownNMway

waydownNMway — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:20:37 +0000

@MueX … No, no you didn’t. Corporations, as non-human entities, do not (or should not) have the same rights as individuals. You obviously fail to grasp the possible repercussions of corporations being able to spend unlimited amounts of money on campaigns … do you realize that the Venezuelan corporation CITGO will now have more of a voice in our elections than you? I know, I know, FOX “News” told you this was all about “free speech,” so you’ll accept no arguments to the contrary.

By: waydownNMway

waydownNMway — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 01:03:20 +0000

@xp19375 … “Every person gets one vote, so when it comes time for the election, the people decide.”

Do you even have a clue how the American electoral system works? Are you new to my country? And do you really think masses of gullible FOX “News”-watching dupes are capable of distinguishing fact from fiction. FOX is “the most trusted ‘news’ network,” so that pretty much takes care of that question, huh?

By: xp19375

xp19375 — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:48:52 +0000

@waydownNMway

It is still one man, one vote. Corporations cannot vote, however, the people that make them up can. All this decision says is that corporations can say whatever they want about a candidate.
Seriously, how is this different than before? And how is this different than a commentator voicing his opinion?

By: MueX

MueX — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:43:01 +0000

Try reading the constitution instead of your loony liberal blogs.

“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

You can’t get around ‘shall make no law.’ We are free to assemble, yes even into corporations, and are free to say what we wish.

By: MueX

MueX — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:37:32 +0000

Silly goose. Corporations don’t have the same rights as a person. They have the same rights de-facto. That meaning, the people who choose to assemble into a corporation, or a partnership, or a union, or a social club…do not lose their constitutional right to free speech simply because they have exercised their constitutional right to assembly.

By: waydownNMway

waydownNMway — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:29:22 +0000

@xp19375 … You nailed it. “Corporations cannot vote, however, the people that make them up can.” Just as the founders would never have dreamed of giving corporations the right to vote, they never would have dreamed of giving any other fundamental rights to corporations. Of course the people that make up corporations have the right to free speech, but why should corporations, as entities, have the same rights as individuals?

By: waydownNMway

waydownNMway — Wed, 10 Feb 2010 00:06:08 +0000

@MueX … Um, I have extensively studied constitutional law… You’re in way over your head here. “You can’t get around ‘shall make no law.” Ah … but the SCOTUS has disagreed with you throughout the course of history. Ever heard that bit about how the free speech clause doesn’t protect your right to yell “fire!” in a crowded theater? Guess not.
Legally, corporations are given the same status as people. I understand this concept; however, it is deeply wrong, IMO.