MLK said: "Injustice Anywhere is a Threat to Justice Everywhere"

End Corruption in the Courts!

Court employee, judge or citizen - Report Corruption in any Court Today !! As of June 15, 2016, we've received over 142,500 tips...KEEP THEM COMING !! Email: CorruptCourts@gmail.com

Thursday, May 31, 2012

Top Judge Speaks Out Again Over America For Sale

Citizens United Attacks From Justice Stevens Continue
The Huffington Post by Mike Sacks - May 31, 2012

WASHINGTON, DC -- A day after receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, retired Justice John Paul Stevens on Wednesday night backed President Barack Obama's suggestion during his 2010 State of the Union address that the Citizens United decision could lead to "foreign entities" bankrolling American elections.  He urged the U.S. Supreme Court to explicitly explain why the president's words were "not true," as Justice Samuel Alito famously mouthed on camera, breaking the justices' usual stoic appearance during the president's annual speech.  Stevens has been a trenchant critic of Citizens United since the court decided the case in January 2010. On the day the opinion was announced, he spent 20 minutes reading from the bench a summary of his 90-page dissent. Stumbling over some words that day convinced Stevens, now 92, to retire, but he continued to condemn the ruling in speeches, writings and even on the Colbert Report.

In a speech at the University of Arkansas' Clinton School of Public Service, Stevens challenged his former colleagues to defend Alito's "not true" moment by reconciling the court's sweeping language in Citizens United that the First Amendment "generally prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker's identity," with its subsequent decision -- made without briefing, argument, or written opinion -- to uphold a ban on campaign spending by non-citizens.  Alito's reaction, Stevens said, "persuade[s] me that that in due course it will be necessary for the court to issue an opinion explicitly crafting an exception that will create a crack in the foundation of the Citizens United majority opinion." In doing so, he continued, "it will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection to the campaign speech of some non-voters" -- that is, domestic corporations -- "than to that of other non-voters" such as the Canadian Harvard Law School graduate who remains barred from making campaign contributions.  The lawsuit brought by the Canadian citizen "unquestionably provided the court with an appropriate opportunity to explain why the president had misinterpreted the Court's opinion in Citizens United. "[T]he court instead took the surprising action of simply affirming the district court without comment and without dissent."  The decision in that case, Bluman v. FEC, meant that "notwithstanding the broad language used by the majority in Citizens United, it is now settled, albeit unexplained, that the identity of some speakers may provide a legally acceptable basis for restricting speech," Stevens said.  But the court cannot forever evade a written reckoning with the logical conclusion of its Citizens United decision, Stevens said.  "I think it is likely that when the court begins to spell out which categories of non-voters should receive the same protections as the not-for-profit Citizens United advocacy group, it will not only exclude terrorist organizations and foreign agents, but also all corporations owned or controlled by non-citizens, and possibly even those in which non-citizens have a substantial interest," Stevens said, referencing a case in which he joined the Citizens United majority to hold that speech made or funded by terrorist groups have no First Amendment protection. "Where that line will actually be drawn will depend on an exercise of judgment by the majority of members of the court, rather than on any proposition of law identified in the Citizens United majority opinion."  The justices will soon have another opportunity to clarify the scope of Citizens United in a challenge to Montana's corporate spending limits brought by an out-of-state organization. Although Stevens did not explicitly reference this case, which the justices will discuss in private at their June 14 conference, he lambasted the Citizens United majority for overruling a precedent that allowed states to bar corporate spending from beyond their borders. For the states with such laws, "those corporate non-voters were comparable to the non-voting foreign corporations that concerned President Obama when he criticized the Citizens United majority opinion," Stevens said.  "If the First Amendment does not protect the right of a graduate of Harvard Law School to spend his own money to support the candidate of his choice simply because his Canadian citizenship deprives him of the right to participate in our elections, the fact that corporations may be owned or controlled by Canadians -- indeed, in my judgment, the fact that corporations have no right to vote -- should give Congress the power to exclude them from direct participation in the electoral process," Stevens concluded.

7 comments:

realist said...

Even this judge, who sat on our nation's highest court, now realizes that our great county has been sold out. Done. Over. Remember the America Revolution?!

Anonymous said...

Speaking at the Arkansas "Clinton School of Public Service" explains it all. Public self service is more like it. Appoint them for life and don't let there be any opposition and they'll make everything perfect. Like in N. Korea or Laos or Cuba? A pothead is their most intelligent all-knowing leader, who they trust completely.

Anonymous said...

In the old days America was For Sale - now its rented out and the bums make more money that way.

Anonymous said...

I think the company's and the 1 percent that got what they wanted may end up regretting it. Yes, some people can pour money and buy a candidate but if people stay informed they might vote for those with the biggest expense accunts.
Bloomberg in his last run was able to pour so much money into his campaign tha during prime time tv he could run back to back adds. You could change station and their was another Bloomberg commercial .
That was a few years ago.
I think people are more aware of the inflluence of money.
Citicens united case made everyone understand that money can have such an intact on elections. Elizabeth Warren had a lot less money when she started running, now let's see if she can raise enough money to stay in the game and if she can win.

Anonymous said...

For Sale or For Rent what's the difference, its corruption and its high time it all stopped.

Anonymous said...

Is this dude from Mars? He knows whats going on, who is he kidding

Anonymous said...

With the Rajat Gupta Insider Trading case conviction I hope all of you realize and accept that we Jews are in complete and total control of this country and this planet. We are the Landowners and you are the Peasants. Nothing has changed since the days of open slavery. When we want to throw you in jail we get our House Niggers at Child Protective Services or the Police Department to arrest you, detain you, or accuse you of something. If we want you dead we use our Upper House Niggers who are Court Administrators or Judges at Courts or our more Educated House Niggers at the Taxing Authorities to bankrupt you. We do all this when our Chief Rabbi says we can do this after we appeal to him for his help. Give it up - all your women, sisters, mothers and daughters are our cockslut slaves and all of you men are our slaves working to make us even more money. Ron Paul, the only man that could have saved you from bondage, is never going to get elected - face it - slavery is already here and you are living in an illusion if you really think you are free. But that illusion will also be coming down soon, believe me.

Rabbi Dore Weiss, Brooklyn

Blog Archive

See Video of Senator John L. Sampson's 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption

The first hearing, held in Albany on June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:


               Video of 1st Hearing on Court 'Ethics' Corruption
               The June 8, 2009 hearing is on two videos:
         
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 1
               CLICK HERE TO SEE Part 2