Ted Rall for July 03, 2014

  1. Missing large
    wcorvi  almost 10 years ago

    Now it ALL makes sense.

     •  Reply
  2. Moa
    brine Premium Member almost 10 years ago

    Very logical!!!

     •  Reply
  3. Mooseguy
    moosemin  almost 10 years ago

    “Rich supporters get two swings at influencing politics, one as voters and one as donors.”

    -from an article by Stein Ringen, Emeritus Professor at Oxford University, “Is American Democracy Headed for Extinction”

     •  Reply
  4. 76d61a1e 24f8 4715 9907 6808c455736a
    neatslob Premium Member almost 10 years ago

    Yes, they are made up of people who already have rights AS people. To give more rights to the CEO or board as a corporation essentially says these people deserve more rights than the average person.

     •  Reply
  5. Packrat
    Packratjohn Premium Member almost 10 years ago

    Agree, to a point. When the Judicial interprets the law, they are in essence MAKING the law.

     •  Reply
  6. Selfportrait2013
    Ted Rall creator almost 10 years ago

    Anyone who doesn’t hate rich people and corporations that use their power to oppress us is stupid and/or not paying attention.

     •  Reply
  7. Selfportrait2013
    Ted Rall creator almost 10 years ago

    Thank you.

     •  Reply
  8. Missing large
    Bilword  almost 10 years ago

    put a fork in it we’re cooked, thanks to our supreme court.

     •  Reply
  9. Missing large
    yusodum  almost 10 years ago

    An American company means a company owned by Chinese investors with a production force working out of Vietnam. So, sure, you can try to sell me that corporations are people, but why are they automatically granted citizenship?

     •  Reply
  10. Mooseguy
    moosemin  almost 10 years ago

    “I’ll believe Corporations are People when Texas executes one!”

    HA! Best post of the Day! Love it!

     •  Reply
  11. 300px little nemo 1906 02 11 last panel
    lonecat  almost 10 years ago

    See the following for the decision and dissent in the Wheaton College injunction:http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/13a1284_ap6c.pdf+This may seem like a small problem, but I fear that it’s indicative of a trend. Sotomayor argues that the circumstances did not call for an injunction, while the case is pending. Why would the majority have granted this injunction if it weren’t part of their general thinking on the topic? Sotomayor also argues that this decision is inconsistent with and goes beyond the Hobby Lobby decision. There is more to come; the Hobby Lobby decision was only the first step down a slippy slope.

     •  Reply
Sign in to comment

More From Ted Rall