Hugh @ 304

In the confirmation vote for Mukasey 53-40, the Democrats who voted for:

Bayh (D-IN)
Carper (D-DE)
Feinstein (D-CA)
Landrieu (D-LA)
Lieberman (ID-CT)
Nelson (D-NE)
Schumer (D-NY)

No Republicans voted against.

The 7 Not Voting :

Alexander (R-TN)
Biden (D-DE)
Clinton (D-NY)
Cornyn (R-TX)
Dodd (D-CT)
McCain (R-AZ)
Obama (D-IL)

http://www.senate.gov/legislat…..vote=00407

Interesting. I wonder why “Caveman” Cornyn didn’t bother to show up. And the DLC is alive and well in the Senate. Bunch of traitors!!

Cornyn was the recipient of a fund raiser in San Antonio, with GWB in attendance (he covered his trip by also visiting the burn ward and amputee section of Brooke General Hospital)…i.e. we paid for it.

Don’t know if you’ll see this comment; it comes a day late.

Blair ‘Knew Iraq Had No WMD’
from Information Clearing House
http://www.informationclearing…..e18676.htm

TONY BLAIR privately conceded two weeks before the Iraq war that Saddam Hussein did not have any usable weapons of mass destruction, Robin Cook, the former foreign secretary, reveals today.

Whoaaaaa!

How convenient that this knowledge was not made public at the time…kicking out the whole rationale for invading as it did. So all those Bio-Weapons suits (which were never used) were just for show to the public. All the statements about our troops being susceptable to attacks…for the public sheep. And those rumors of the WMD’s being secretly taken out that have been part-and-parcel of the Kool-Aid drinkers. Utter fraud.

And maybe it also means that Blair knew very well that the Niger smuggling reports were full of cr*p..because any need for yellowcake smuggling would mean a developed processing capacity…which Iraq did not have.

McCain is the only individual I’d consider handing a pass to… Yet, I’d have thought he would’ve crossed over to the light…

Not even torture can trump ideology. At least the R’s got discipline, all the D;s got is no spine.

Weren’t the two Republicans from Missouri (or wsa it Montana) going to oppose him…what happened with THAT?

Up until that point, corporations were included in ‘artificial creations of the state’ such as unions, churches, unincorporated businesses, civic clubs, and even governments. Human beings have rights. Artificial legal constructs have privileges. With this decision, corporations became legally human – with all the rights but none of the vulnerabilities of humans.

Corporations had been looking for a case to use the 14th Amendment argument on, and this was the one.

Alicia~ interesting summation. The only place where a corporate entity is specifically given rights in the Constitution is the !st Amendment…where “the Press” is accorded Freedom of Speech. But clearly, by being mentioned alone amongst all forms of “corporate entities”, the Framers were NOT construing that other groups had these rights. There is also the Freedom of Association…but that doesn’t necessitate the extension of that by those collective groups to involvement in the political process (to vote, to run for office, etc.)

I was involved in my University (UC Berkeley) back in the early 1970’s where some creative political parties had run “corporate slates” for political office. Thus they had three people run as “Co-Presidents”, “Co-Vice Presidents” etc. The Student Court ruled that there was no way to read the Electoral codes and Constitution as meaning that eligibility extended to artificial associations. A person was a person.
We also noted the issues that would be raised with decision-making and powers if corporate leadership was allowed…with no explicit or implicit way to solve these issues Constitutionally. So we had to boot these tickets off the ballot…although there was two days left so they could agree on a single representative.

Alicia @ 237

I think the most helpful thing we could do would be to find a way to get rid of corporate personhood, which was a fraud anyway – the court case that supposedly established it never mentioned corporate personhood. It was in a headnote written by the court reporter, which was not legally binding, but once it was used as precedent for other cases, it stuck.

How can we get rid of it?

Wow. So many urban legends in one paragraph.
What exactly do you mean by “corporate personhood?”
What court case are you referring to? Got a citation?
Fraud on whom, perpetrated by whom, for what purpose?

First off the idea or “corporate personhood” or “juristic personhood” is hardly an urban legend. The application of this concept to a corporations right to “free speech” in relation to donations to candidates has “defrauded” the public.

Here’s a simple description of “corporate” or “juristic” personhood.

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

The Supreme Court case in which corporatists argue gives them the right to interfere with the political process by making PAC and Corporation donations was Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad . The court reporter’s comments in this case included a statement the Chief Justice made even before oral arguments began. He told the attorneys in pre-trial that “the court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.”

Later Supreme Court opinions misinterpreted this simple statement as part of the actual legal decision, and gave it the power of stare decisis . As a result, because of the First Amendment which prevents restriction of a persons speech rights, Congress can’t make a law restricting the free speech of a corporation, a political action group or dictating the coverage of a local newspaper. Indeed, such avenues are likely protected…as newspapers are not “natural persons” or citizens yet are accorded right of criticism.

However, the Court has extended this to mean that financial contributions to candidates is “speech” as well. This is more ambivalent, since COMMERCIAL SPEECH, has been reasonably restricted by the Courts in many cases. Commercial adverising can be limited on TV/radio…or be required to be “truthful”…or carry warnings or content statements.

So could political speech, at least in regards to the support of candidates (rather than “issues” before the voters), where there is certainly the danger of bribery and influence peddling be restraned…much as it is to foreign powers or interests? It’s ironic that individuals who are long time residents of the United States cannot make a campaign contribution…but a corporation, perhaps with members of their board of directors who are foreign residents, could make substantial contributions. And could a foreign citizen contribute to a PAC, who then filters that contribution on to a candidate?

And how can an individual evade the limitations on campaign limits simply by contributing to a PAC or directly to the political party, who then can obscure the origins of that contribution by simpling giving to one or more “corporate personages”. The whole critical aspect of personhood…that of individuality constrained by ones body, is lost. Theoretically one could, by creating or contributing to scores of PACs or companies to the same candidate maxxed out on the individual limits…make hundreds of thousands in assistance.

Why couldn’t contributions be confined to only those who are eligible to vote as citizens. The roots go back to a judicial fiction that there exists stare decisis from a case were the issue wasn’t even debated and has no legal support.

TheOtherWA @ 378

NOT FUNNY! (ok it kinda is, but creepy as hell, too)

i thought it was funny – but then, i’m sick and twisted and have a wide evil streak

Heh, it’s funny, sick, twisted, evil, not funny, creepy and well . .

Could come to be true, too . . *G*

. . . . Anne Murray! …

Yer pure evil, hoss, yer pure evil . . . Anne Muray couldn’t CARRY a decent Scotian’s instrument case . . . pop at its worse . . *G*

Damn yer evil . . *G*

larue @ 331

Yer that afraid of Suzanne? (smilessweetly)

Doctor . . . Dick?

afraid? of little ole me?

*G*