Letters to the Editor for Sunday, September 20, 2009
Published: September 20, 2009
Judicial activism, but from the right
We just finished celebrating Constitution Week but the “right wing gang” on the Supreme Court is about to tarnish it again. The Constitution says “We the people ...”, not “We the corporations ... .”
Click to sendIn 1886 a court reporter for a private publisher made a mistake when he wrongly declared “The defendant corporations are persons ... .” Thus, the personhood of corporations is not grounded in a court decision, but in a mistake. Judicial activism — so detested by conservatives — is again about to be used by the “gang” to make a mockery of precedent.
The McCain-Feingold law bars corporations (and unions) from financing electioneering messages within 30 days of a primary and 60 days of a general election. The issue before the court is the conservative Citizens United organization’s attempt to use “Hillary — the Movie” in the last presidential election. The Federal Election Commission rightly ruled against it as equivalent to an attack ad. This decision doesn’t imperil newspaper or TV free speech, since they are exempt from McCain-Feingold.
In June, the radical Roberts Court issued an obscure order to reargue this case that will enthrone corporate speech over the vox populi. They tipped their hand when they also took the very rare step of reopening two previous related cases that had already been decided. It is apparent that the “right wing gang” wants to open the floodgates to allow corporate entities to drown our democracy with their vast unmatched reservoir of dollars. Paying big money for “free speech” is a real paradox and a real threat to our elections.
To those who think corporations should be allowed to play by the same money rules as people, would you agree to a pro football team playing a high school team? They play essentially by the same rules but there are obvious essential differences and so it is with corporations. Why should big-monied non-person corporations be allowed to impose their rule on “we the people”? Their executives and employees have “free speech” rights so why do corporations need them also? The Constitution makes no mention of corporations and creates no corporate rights. It is a document about people’s rights.
So only liberal judges are activists? These Republican-appointed, unelected ideologues are the real poster boys for runaway judicial activism. They intend to complete their work in time for the next election. Regardless of the party you favor, this infringes on all our Constitutional rights. But guess which party this favors?
DAVID McLOUGHLIN
Forest
Public ignorance
Call me uninformed but it seems that the title of the Dilbert book by Scott Addams, “When did Ignorance Become a Point of View?”, best describes the brouhaha around the health care reform issue.
Watching this game of political football as an observer at the far end of the bleachers, with neither knowledge of the rules nor as a supporter of either team, all that I could see and hear did not make much sense.
The pigskin called the America’s Affordable Health Choice act of 2009 was being kicked and hurled from players to fans and back while cries of “socialist,” “AstroTurf,” “Nazi,” “death panels,” “ignorant” and “terrorist” could be heard above the thunderous noise.
Since the action was beyond my scope of comprehension, I decided to leave the arena and go to the local public library to learn the rules of the game.
No copy of HR 3200 (passed by the House on July 2009) was available at the Lynchburg library system, the librarian said that they would try getting a copy from a repository library (such as the Government Printing Office) or such, she also told me that no patrons had asked to see the bill as of Aug. 26.
Since apparently not one of the 72,596 residents of Lynchburg (U.S. Census Bureau, July 2008) had requested the HR 3200 (1,018 pages), I have to conclude that I am not the only one uneducated about the facts or the rules of the game and maybe all the shouting and yelling is the result of collective ignorance.
JULIO UCHIMURA
Lynchburg
Advertisement
Reader Reactions
You ask how HR 3200 will improve services and reduce costs? By the use of evidence-based practices identified by Comparative Effectiveness Research Panels, which are specifically EXCLUDED from the GOP alternative.
While many think of these as the “Death Panels”, your insurance company has been using these for years to determine what service they pay for and what services they exclude (such as experimental treatments). There is hardly anything sinister in their use. In fact, they help protect the patient both as a recipient of care and a health care consumer. They also help physicians make wise decisions about treatments that are effective and those that have only marginal benefits. They need to be used more, not less.
Baloo—- I could go on for hours about this, but, instead I will concentrate on one point.
—-“punitive damages are capped but still allowed. No more $1,000,000 lawsuits for spilling hot coffee.“—
What do you know about this case? I mean other than the nonsense the “Tort Reformers” have told you.
1. Neither the woman who brought the legal action nor her lawyer ever got a dime.
2. Her goal was NOT to enrich herself. Her goal was to get McDonalds to lower the temperature of the coffee they serve to prevent thousands of cases of serious burns, mostly to children, as a direct result of McDonalds coffee being served MUCH hotter than any other retailer of coffee,
3. Her lawyer successfully convinced the jury that McDonalds had been asked thousands of times by people seriously injured by their product to turn down the temperature. Most of the injured (3rd degree burns) were to little children who accidently pushed a cup of coffee on themselves by accident.
4. The monetary amount was reached by calculation of the profit on coffee alone that would be lost to McDonalds if they stopped selling coffee for the 4 or 5 minutes it would take the home office to type and send a fax to its franchise owners telling them to [turn the temperature down].
5. The suit was successful. Children no longer get 3rd degree burns from McDonalds coffee.
6. The award was reversed on appeal.
So you see, your entire picture of this case was formulated by corporate interests and is, in fact, an urban legend. It never happened. She didn’t get a dime.
Our Founding Fathers NEVER intended corporations to have all the rights of men. Corporations are immortal. They will always have more monetary resources than men. Their duty is to their stockholders, not to any ethical or moral higher authority. When a corporation is guilty of engaging in activities that kill people… there is NO corporate Death Penalty. Giving them MORE rights than our founding fathers intended is in fact giving them more rights than people have. NOT a wise move.
23, I don’t think I’ve ever argued with jimm’s points; in fact, I’ve missed seeing his posts for a few weeks now.
I hope he’d have sense of humor enough to see that I’m just fooling around with the lore about our various personalities that has developed around here this summer. You know, jedi with his peejays (in fact, I think that was one of jimm’s), and jimm with his video games. I don’t really believe for one minute that he lives in his mother’s basement, noodling around on his x-box all day.
jimm, if you’re out there, get back in the game big fella!
Cosmothe23rd,
It is a fact the other nations that have nationalized health care have tort systems that make it very difficult winning lawsuits of the frivilous nature. I don’t think it is unconstitutional either since what is being proposed is:
-You can still litigate for “actual” damages.
-punitive damages are capped but still allowed. No more $1,000,000 lawsuits for spilling hot coffee.
-Judges would be allowed the descretion to make the filer pay the court costs for frivilous litigations.
People files lawsuits knowing the defendent will settle for a small sums just to avoid the court costs or a large sum because they fear the punative damages clause.
I had the opportunity to have a long conversation with a German lawer that laughed loudly at our court system and he stated the behavior of American lawyers would have them dis-BARed in Germany.
I appologize for my grammer I have some livations tonight 
I’m sorry Bif, but a resounding “NO” on the Pot-Luck dinners. Ham & biscuits, macaroni & cheese and beans is NOT my idea of a “Gala” repast. My pets would turn up their snoots at such an offering.
Furthermore, your idea of “matching the dishes to the screen names” would no doubt involve massive theft and a waffle buffet. No thank you. People lacking the imagination to think up their own name, pardon me, AIN’T touching my food!
No, this should have more class than that.
And by the way, why all the abuse of Bigjimm? He was a like-able enough fellow. Mocking or taunting a poster you disagree with simply because you lack the ability to out-argue him is bad form. I don’t think I have ever seen you do that before. I have, instead, enjoyed your attempts to drag our conversations up and out of the gutter, where so many would have us reside permanently if they had their way.
Neither am I giving jimm a ride. I don’t care whether his mom will let him borrow the car.
And no, jedi, I don’t think a pajama party is what they had in mind.
23, your Gala event idea was truly inspired, but pot luck might be more fun.
There could be prizes for matching the dishes to the screen names of the people who brought them. Fred could be tricky and bring something with velveeta in it.
Also, after the blessing and pledge of allegience, Matt could lead us all in a recitation of the N&A Reader Reactions Terms and Conditions.
Good day Baloo. I see you finally got Randolph’s number. A “Senior Socialist”.
With regard to your “reasons”. Fred is eating a large and particularly crumbly piece of exceptionally smelly cheese at the moment. In his absence I thought I would have a go.
1. The cost of malpractice insurance is estimated at 0.5% of health care expenses not 10%.
2. Joint replacement—-France
Insulin—-Canada
Viagra—- England (who, I understand are poised to come out with a blood test for colon cancer that would eliminate routine colonoscopies)
[REMEMBER] A Republican gave us the law that makes it illegal for our government to bargain with pharmaceutical companies over price. Of course I am not suggesting that Democrats have less whores in their ranks.
Tort reform is unconstitutional. Without the ability to seek damages and punishments in a court of law and be judged by your peers—- corporations will simply outspend the common man every time. We will become, in fact, The Corporate States of America.
Fred, What we need is a Gala Dinner-Dance. A premiere social event of the season for all the posters at this site to attend. It should be complete with awards, citations, trophies, commemorative plaques, Championship Belts and blue ribbons of excellence. There should be party hats and noise-makers. Magnificent food in abundance and only the finest liquors should be served.
A once a year event to celebrate all our good fortune, free of rancor and hard feelings.
I will be proud to lead the assembled in prayer. Then, you can lead us all in a stirring pledge of allegiance to the flag.
What say you Fred? What say you all?
Post a Comment(Requires free registration)
- Please avoid offensive, vulgar, or hateful language.
- Respect others.
- Use the "Flag Comment" link when necessary.
- See the Terms and Conditions for details.
Advertisement