End corporate control of Supreme Court

14 Responses to End corporate control of Supreme Court

  • OccupyKT says:

    I can’t tell if the voting option is working.

  • alfred newman says:

    Not sure exactly what you mean, but it sounds great. The Supreme Court is supposed to be above all the bribary and graft, not contributing to it.

  • Boomer says:

    What is the level of corporate control over the Supreme Court? Do you mean in regards to selection of Supreme Court judge’s or the opinions handed down by the court. What’s the proposal for ending such control to the extent that it exists?

  • NoTyrants says:

    Corporations are non-democratic governments. Ultimately they represent capital investors but when in true competition these entities have provided useful services. Without the input of a democratic voice, corporations become tyrants. This has been the case with the emergence of monopoly tyrannical corporate governments. The American people are being taxed without representation from their elected leaders whose loyalty resides with the corporate governments and the capitalist oligarchs who are more than ever, solely served by these privatized non-democratic corporate governments.

  • Chris Sutton says:

    Recent decisions by members of the Supreme Court, such as CItizens United and income hidden by Associate Justice Clarence Thomas (his wife earned $700,000 while with a Tea Party group) shows that an investigation and possible impeachment proceedings should be colled for. 25 members of Congress have started the process and we need to increase the pressure and media coverage.

    • Kat says:

      The amount earned is now said to be over 1M – she has a vested interest in seeing that AHCA does not pass the SC – and her husband likely be a dissenting vote.

  • Fred Adams says:

    So, let me get this straight. A wife can not have a personal life if her husband is a politician or Judge…..What about an individuals rights of free speach and association? Oh wait only liberals can have those rights. Are you complaining that the brother in law of Nancy Pelosi got 500 million if federal tax dollars for a startup that never started up. I guess not. It is easy to be blind when your think you should be running the world.

    • Kat says:

      I believe he did not claim it on their joint tax return. Of all people to understand how the IRS tax forms are – Justice Thomas should.

      Has nothing to do about whether or not whether Mrs Thomas can work outside the home and have an opinion – I believe that too – however, Justice Thomas rules on the Supreme Court and did not report income from his wife’s affiliations and her position in helping the Tea Party get started.

      • OnePercenter says:

        Well Kat, perhaps their tax status was “married filing separately.” Then he would not be required to report his wife’s income. Perhaps you should learn a little about the tax code before you spout off.

  • Kountry Klubber says:

    Pelosi isn’t a judge serving for life. Plus her husband worked on a project with public disclosure. Besides, the communist Chinese and their Republican servants are the ones that undercut the solar industry in the United States.

    Thomas wife lied on her taxes, and he lied about her income for years on end. We all what the IRS does to lefties in a second when they do the same. But somehow, here, it doesnt matter.

    Study those distinctions, and stop being such an undereducated right-winger whose supposed morals fly out the window the minute it’s someone from your own side.

  • Gerald minguez says:

    Politicians who have made a career out of it should be held to
    term limits. Too much self serving going on.

  • Kat says:

    How did Citizens United pass the Supreme Court? – how can a corporation be a person – serve in the United States Armed Forces, file a tax return – the list goes on – This is such a wrong ruling, but the lobbyists made sure that they wielded their influence to the Supreme Court and got their way.
    Again, big MONEY gets their way.
    Why do you think that the United States Congress goes through their hearings to question the Supreme Court Justices so thoroughly to make sure that their “special” interests are met -either right or left wing corporate interests?
    Change things – the Supreme Court appointees shouldn’t be forever and should have to answer to ALL laws of the land. They currently really answer to no one except themselves. They rarely recuse themselves – even when they should when there is a conflict of interest.

  • yasky2012 says:

    Retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor issued her own polite public dissent to the recently decided case on corporate political spending, telling law students that the court has created an unwelcome new path for wealthy interests to exert influence on judicial elections.

    In her first public remarks on the controversial campaign money case, O’Connor said she believes the ruling creates “a problem for an independent judiciary.”


  • KennSpace says:

    Dear Occupy Seattle,

    I lived in the Glenn Hotel in downtown Seattle when the WTO protests happened. It happened at my front door. I was a part of promoting it, and involved in it.

    There is something going on, and I am going to be a part of it. I have helped organize and promote protests in Bellevue, Olympia, and Seattle Washington; another big one is coming. I feel it will be a “WTO” sized protest in multiple cities. I will be helping to advertise and promote it. I was at the WTO protests in Seattle (with thousnds of really awesome people, and a few freaks) when a bunch of “anarchists” started busting windows with crowbars. We surrounded them, and they got in a circle with their crowbars. I tried to get the Seattle police to come arrest these “anarchists” that were fifty feet away, and threatening violence and breaking windows… The Seattle police would not budge from their “police line”, making all of us the enemy, after all there was 1000’s of union people sitting in the street – oooh scary…. I am not the enemy, but I will be in Seattle at 700 Stewart street at the Federal couthouse January 20th, 2012!!!

    The Corporate Occupation of the United States

    Our corporate controlled government (through corporate lobbying and election funding ) is out of the peoples control. People want government control back. Makes sense to me… I feel US corporate capitalism (corporatism) is a type of economic fascism: To have a corporate being where the chain of command eventually muddles all responsibility to any human being. These corporate beings are running your life, and controlling your government. (Enough to really make an individual mad and protest.) In reality, the corporate being does not exist, and when it comes to face it’s corporate responsibility, it is a piece of paper. (Or a CEO saying; “I do not recall that”, “I did not have that information”, “that was not my responsibility, I was running the company, and not just that department”,,, and on and on. It has bred a corporate culture of abuse, because they keep getting away with it..), Corporate person-hood is plain and simply wrong: A corporation is not a human being. Restore capitalism to individual responsible chains of command, or this struggle will be lost. (This also includes corporate lobbying and corporate election funding, being outlawed; And a new form closer to individual control is established.)

    Please Sign the petition to amend the Constitution for revoking corporate personhood at:


    (I feel January 20th, 2012: will be a bigger day in US history than WTO in Seattle. The battle continues, rage against the machine is real.)

    January 20, 2012 – Move to Amend Occupies the Courts!

    Move To Amend is planning bold action to mark this date — Occupy the Courts — a one day occupation on Friday January 20, 2012, of the Federal Courts, including the Supreme Court of the United States and as many of the 89 U.S. District Court Buildings as we can. Inspired by Dr. Cornell West, who was arrested on the steps of the Supreme Court last month, Move to Amend will lead the charge on the judiciary which created — and continues to expand — corporate personhood rights.