Quote:
Originally Posted by The_Dunedan
Collectivism strikes again. Funny how I don't see anybody bitching about the Unions suddenly having their advertising hands untied by this same decision; sauce for the goose but none for the gander, eh?
Equally funny how those of us who have repeatedly called for an end to Corporate Personhood from a Rightist perspective (because only individual human beings have Rights, including free speech and political agency) are now being cast as cheerleaders for this insane decision.
Only when dealing with the Collectivist Left, in my observation, can vociferous support for the destruction of a thing (Corporate Personhood) be turned 180 degrees and absorbed, processed, and regurgitated as support -for- that thing. "You want to eliminate C.P. but you're an evil uncaring moronic tea-bagging Right-winger, so you want to -keep- C.P. because that's what evil uncaring moronic tea-bagging Right-wingers want!" The Collectivist Right has its' own similar problems, but only the C.L. seems so eager and able to take someone's actual positions and turn them inside out and upside down for the sake of scoring rhetorical brownie points. Some of y'all might want to take a closer look at the TEA Party protest signs; discounting the ones going after Obama and his Care, the single biggest target of these people's anger is the banks and auto companies who were bailed out by Bush and then Obama. Woah! Wait! But that's impossible! Everyone knows right-wing teabaggers worship banks! Yeah, and left-wingers want to force all the White women to have abortions to make room for more niggers. The first bolded statement operates on the same level of intellectual bankruptcy and moronic prejudice as the second.
|
Wait, so this entire rant is because people here have not expressed as much outrage at unions as they have regarding corporations? Maybe because this particular case dealt with corporations, was explicitly about corporations, and, in the context of American politics, corporations have funds available for political campaign that are literally dozens of times larger than the unions' budget.
Now, regarding the libertarian right and this case, I am sure you will point to yourself as an example of someone who disliked this ruling. And that is fair.
But the point remains that the 5 members that voted for this ruling have consistently called themselves strict constitutionalists, have argued that they were so during their confirmation hearings, and have publicly supported the notion of a "strict constitutionalism." Furthermore, They were selected and confirmed by politicians and by a political movement that has as its overt theme the idea that the supreme court needs to return to a "strict constitutionalist" stance. So while you might be an exception, I think it is pretty fair to say that the justices themselves and the people who selected them are a significant chunk of the entire libertarian and strict constitutionalist movement.