Friday, June 11, 2010

Being the Supreme Court

Isn't it strange that it's never judicial activism when conservative leaning judges make decisions on behalf of corporations, but it's always so when liberal leaning judges do so on behalf of the people? In The New York Times Op-Ed,"Keeping Politics Safe for the Rich," it is asserted that the Supreme Court "upended the gubernatorial race in Arizona, cutting off matching funds to candidates participating in the state's public campaign finance system." But the rich can spend endlessly of their own money as Whitman did with some $81 million in California and Bloomberg did with some $100 million in New York.

Th Supreme Court's decision declares what Jim or Jane can do with their money via matching funds but not what a billionaire or multiple millionaire can do with theirs. I think the law has to do with the inability of the power structure to envision the giving of millions of people via the internet and has hence corrected itself to maintain the balance of power. The Roberts' court has sided on the side of corporations and the wealthy repeatedly. Remember corporations are now people too. Surely these rulings aren't just.


WordsPoeticallyWorth said...

Decisions for the poluaces' expenditure
Is sumtimes wearable tearable and tethable
But Luck to charitable influences of poor picture
And see Godly intent to weather and weaker this fable!

Hello there. You'll have to excuse me as I sumtimes make up my own words! And why not as the dictionary was written as such with hindsight and foresight! I hope life enriches you in spirit from Godly Christians doing charitable deeds of care. Love and best wishes, Andrew.

Judith Ellis said...

Thanks, Andrew. Many blessings!

DB said...

I continue to observe that Conservatives do not perceive Liberaliam as an opposing point of view, but think of Liberals as a gang of people who are just wrong, in many various ways.


Judith Ellis said...

DB - Sadly, I think you're right.