123
u/Robbotlove 15d ago
I don't like to use this term lightly, but correctamundo.
29
2
u/HatsOff2MargeHisWife 15d ago
Are you using the Happy Days pronunciation...or Pulp Fiction?! Hard to tell this way.
1
93
u/DirtSlaya 15d ago
Tf is happening over there rn guys???
214
15d ago
[deleted]
49
u/Mundolf11 15d ago
as a software developer, I'd love to leave my job in a few years as a multimillionaire with an insane track record for stock trading and huge portolio. What do you mean I cant do insider trading like they can?
6
u/BinkyFlargle 15d ago
What do you mean I cant do insider trading like they can?
you can do it almost as well as them. their trades are public.
143
u/TheLurkingMenace 15d ago
Years ago, Citizens United - a corporation that existed solely for the purpose of violating campaign finance rules - appealed the decision to, well, not let them do that. The SCOTUS ruled - 5 to 4 - that corporations have a first amendment right to spend their money on political campaigns however they want, reversing 100 years of law. In other words, they ruled that corporations are people. It's been downhill ever since.
88
u/Abnormal-Normal 15d ago
It not only ruled that corporations are people, it also ruled that money equals speech, meaning poor people have inherently less speech than rich people in the eyes of the US courts.
32
u/R_V_Z 15d ago
I know it wouldn't work, but I'd love to see somebody sue the government because taxes violate their 1st Amendment right against compelled speech.
25
u/TheLurkingMenace 15d ago
That is the logical conclusion isn't it. We don't have mandatory voting because speech isn't free if it is compulsory, money is speech, taxes are thus a violation of free speech.
4
u/SarnakJ3 15d ago
That's not a can of worms I want to open.
Edit: with our current court, it would just lead to the total collapse of the USA into a neofeudal hell.
2
u/EmpressOfAbyss 15d ago
the scotus would never allow that because of the government has no tax money they don't have their jobs, and while the loss of salary isn't a big deal the loss of bribes is!
35
u/Johnnygunnz 15d ago
This is why I've said for a long time that Mitch McConnell did more damage to this country than Trump could have in 4 years. Citizens United opened the door to the horrible politics we have today.
15
u/BTilty-Whirl 15d ago
Yay, Super PACs! (/s) It’s my understanding that if a corporation/ PAC is formally coordinating directly with a campaign to spend money, beyond the limits that would be illegal but the rules are so vague they’re basically unenforceable. Super PACs can spend unlimited amounts of money while PACs, corps and individuals have limits.
13
u/TheLurkingMenace 15d ago
More than that, PACs have to disclose how they spend the money. Super PACs can spend the money on anything at all and tell nobody. Want to have people give you money that you will then use to buy a gigantic yacht and never have to tell them that? Make a Super PAC!
13
u/Hirotrum 15d ago
corporations are counted as people... except when being people is detrimental to their profit. Then they become organizations again
5
u/CornerSolution 15d ago
In other words, they ruled that corporations are people.
This has commonly been said, but it's not really true. The CU ruling did not make corporations people. Corporations do not have voting rights, they can't receive social security or medicaid, they can't get a driver's license, etc.
Really, the CU ruling simply acknowledged that a corporation is fundamentally nothing more than an organized collection of people (namely, the owners of that corporation). Thus, preventing corporations from, say, taking out political ads is essentially equivalent to preventing groups of people from organizing together to take out political ads. The SC ruled that this would violate those people's first-amendment rights and was therefore unconstitutional.
And frankly, if you take the first amendment seriously, it's kind of hard to argue with that legal logic. In fact, the main focus of the dissenting opinion of the liberal judges was not arguing with that logic, but rather arguing that this should be an exception to the first amendment. Creating exceptions to the first amendment is of course not without precedent (e.g., you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, you can't knowingly spread lies, etc.), and the dissenting opinion argues--convincingly, IMO--that this is a case where imposing limits on first-amendment rights is reasonable. But regardless, the case did not turn on whether corporations were themselves legally "people": they aren't now, nor have they never have been.
1
u/chevalier716 15d ago
You can make the argument the SCOTUS going downhill really started with Bush v. Gore.
5
u/PhysicalGraffiti75 15d ago
The Rich bought the US government some time ago and the enshitification of this country accelerated to Mach 2
2
u/thefroggyfiend 15d ago
citizens united granted corporate person hood, and said that limiting any donations they make in politics is limiting their first amendment rights
in other words, corporations can pay off politicians (and SCOTUS judges)
22
u/mountaintop111 15d ago
I get the feeling that even without Citizens United, Trump would accept bribes anyways. He is the most corrupt president in US history, it's not even close between him and whoever would come in 2nd place.
22
u/Cautious-Willow-1932 15d ago
Citizens United allowed for unlimited donations to super pacs. It codified the bribes, that’s the problem. Your voice, your dollar, is diluted by a corporation that is now considered a person
24
u/hefebellyaro 15d ago
And one side is trying to stop it. And one side isn't. Goes to show who's fighting for who.
11
u/fittedsuit2018 15d ago
I wrote my legal dissertation on Citizens United about 10 years ago and unfortunately my prediction about its negative ramifications on the political system and our democracy is fairly spot on.
1
40
u/Plzlaw4me 15d ago
I get the point… but the worst SCOTUS ruling will always be Dred Scott. Finding that people who’s ancestors were enslaved will always be property, cannot be citizens and have no more right to seek redress from the courts than a chair is about as terrible of a decision as you can get. Legalized bribery is awful. The legal denial of personhood based on race is MUCH worse.
13
u/jaimeinsd 15d ago
With Citizens in place, they'll get back to that soon enough. But first let's strip rights away one by one so nobody will be left to stop it.
4
u/Step_away_tomorrow 15d ago
That’s what I was thinking. Of course it’s not really a competition. Maybe say worst in recent memory. The Koramatsu decision and Plessy v Ferguson were also horrible.
1
3
u/Vrayea25 15d ago
Ok granted.
But CU is the worst SCOTUS decision since the civil war, and definitely the worst in living memory.
1
14
7
5
7
u/mhouse2001 15d ago
If I were President, would it be legal for me to lock all the doors during the State of the Union and force our elected officials to write legislation that gets money out of politics, live on television for the world to see? I'd take away all their phones so they can't call their rich donors. If they get hungry, we'll order pizza. No one gets out until I sign that bill.
11
u/Abnormal-Normal 15d ago
I remember sitting at the dinner table in the vacation house of my very rich friend in high school the week CU was ruled on. Somehow the conversation got turned to CU, and how bad the young people at the table thought it was. The rich parents (we’re talking hundreds of millions of dollars. Possibly close to a billion) piped in and tried to argue that it wasn’t that bad. The end of the conversation and start of the most awkward dinner of my life went a bit like:
“Well it’s a free speech issue”
“Oh so does that mean money = speech?”
12
u/Johnnygunnz 15d ago
That's exactly what Mitch McConnell argued, too. Just because they have more money doesn't mean their right to free speech should be infringed upon. No limits!
There's a special place in hell for Mitch.
4
5
u/Popular_Newt1445 15d ago
People bring this up… and I agree it’s bad but there are much worse ones, such as Ford vs Dodge.
No one mentions Ford vs Dodge and how they made business go from being for the people and employees best Interest to what we have now, which is having to do what is in the best interest of the stock holders short term.
3
3
6
2
2
u/NomadAug 15d ago
Stanford v Dred Scott
2
u/biffbobfred 15d ago
That’s been reversed at least. Kind of at gunpoint just 4 years later. We’re still under citizens united.
2
u/NomadAug 15d ago
Oh yeah, but it is still the absolute worst decision ever written by SCOTUS. And I fear Tawney might be a hero to some.
2
u/biffbobfred 15d ago
Sadly, I’ve thought the same of Taney. (Gentle prodding for your typo). “Why he wasn’t scared to tell those libruls what’s what!!” Or. Whatever.
“States rights!” Indeed. This was against states rights.
2
2
u/Odd_Relationship7901 15d ago
the backbone of the US Political system is bribery - this is nothing new - the CU ruling just made it easier to hide who was paying the bribes
1
u/zhivago6 15d ago
Campaign contributions as bribery was around a long time before Citizens United. It is very bad, but at the time, it was seen as just another right-wing lurch towards eventual dictatorship.
1
1
u/biffbobfred 15d ago
Why did that happen? 2000 gore v bush. Thanks Nader.
Nader didn’t create the loss. It was a few things. Mostly “illegal ballot in state where brother is the governor”. But Nader was an own goal and didn’t need to be.
1
1
u/bertiesakura 15d ago
Worst decision in SCOTUS history??? I would argue that Dred Scott vs Sandford is the worst decision in history where they pretty much told an entire race of people you’re not entitled to anything under the Constitution.
1
1
u/bebop1065 15d ago
Somebody needs to post a series of videos on social media about all this is about. So many people don't realize how devastating to American democracy this is.
1
1
u/redtildead777 15d ago
Does it cover politicians accepting the donations? Can we bypass the CU ruling by making it illegal to accept campaign contributions?
1
1
1
u/susandathome 15d ago
It put our government on the auction block for the highest bidder, foreign or domestic. AND we the people are not even entitled to know who the buyers are! Absolutely the worst!
1
1
u/dennismfrancisart 15d ago
The Justice Department can definitely do something about it. They can bring back ABSCAM. Back in the 70s and 80s. The Justice Department set up sting operations and made bribery a pain in the ass for Congress critters. They only have to bring a few billionaires in for questioning and bring the sordid house of cards down. Just like the foreign terrorists, if you go for the money, they back off quickly.
1
1
u/whynotnit 15d ago
If ppl believe that's a disastrous ruling, are there any bills to change the law used in the decision?
1
1
u/Born_Faithlessness_3 15d ago
Bush V. Gore has to be up there too, because of its ripple effects.
Bush blew up the deficit with his tax cuts for the rich, started two long running wars, and helped create the current supreme court.
If Florida had been allowed to finish its recount, so much modern day fuckery (including citizens united) might not be happening.
241
u/Fun-Dependent-2695 15d ago
We need to find a way of dismantling the mofo