scheming daemons
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-23-10 01:00 AM
Original message |
| Thom Hartmann said it best: The Anti-Dred Scott Decision |
|
In the Dred Scott decision, the court ruled that some people are properties.
In the Citizens United decision, the court ruled that some properties are people.
|
| hlthe2b
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-23-10 06:54 AM
Response to Original message |
| 1. Well, Dred Scott was an infamous, horrendous decision... |
|
so, instead of defining the Citizens United decision as similarly horrendous, by calling it the "ANTI-Dred Scott," it gives it the appearance of being a GOOD and NOBLE thing. Backfire for an illiterate public and media.
|
| panzerfaust
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-23-10 07:09 AM
Response to Original message |
| 2. Yes, the right of companies to buy politicians |
|
... is now openly unlimited. I wonder if the majority of the Supremes who voted for this result are ignorant, evil, or simply bribed? Well, I guess they could be all three. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_BZFYe98kpkk/SMHnjRbFzwI/AAAAAAAAAkE/6OzqbFPNbPk/s400/Fugitive+Slave.gif |
| Brewman_Jax
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Jan-23-10 08:03 AM
Response to Original message |
| 3. This decision, along with Dred Scott |
|
will be considered among the High Court's worst decisions. :(
Did I say "High" Court? They were high on something when they made this decision. :smoke:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts)     |
Fri Apr 19th 2024, 11:53 AM
Response to Original message |
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
