Audio: Clarence Thomas Defends Supreme Courts Campaign Finance Decision

[jacobonline]

Clarence Thomas is a traitor to this country. What a disgusting human being. He allowed our politicians to be bought and sold. Have fun burning in hell you corporate sellout moral-less asshole.

[Spudst3r]

By overturning the laws of ELECTED BODIES, right wing judges participated in the same judicial activism which they so adamantly oppose the left for doing. Such hypocrites.

[ExposingUncleToms]

CLARENCE THOMAS IS THE WHITE MASTERS DOG

[writersblock26]

Thank you for posting this, newsburghnews.

[MsZeitgeist85]

Thurgood Marshall was right.

Thomas is unfit for this job and his perversion of the judicial system proves it. 

[luismiguel10486]

Impeach this dirty scoundrel, he is a sold out to big interest, always looking out for his republican brethren. He has no honor.

[MrFrankBullitt]

Never trust a black republican...

[writersblock26]

@MrFrankBullitt And why not? Should I assume that all black Democrats are somehow inherently trustworthy...I think not.

[PERIZ99]

Thomas is the lowest of the low; He's absolute scum.

[killerbee2k]

Listening too all the racist comments here really shows the true nature of leftism. They dont attack Clarence Thomas intellectual views or arguments, they attack Clarence Thomas integrity and worth as a human being, calling him "house negro", "uncle Tom". You Leftist communist are the worst racist the world has even seen, and yeah the NSDAP is National Socialist Deutcher Arbeiter Partai. Go figure you fucking socialist racist scumbags.

[MsZeitgeist85]

What would you expect from a political hack that was an attorney for Monsanto.

[Snoopies622]

Man, what a tool.

[Zachw2007]

Very well Justice Thomas, very well.

[3684541]

I like all the hacks on here trying to dispute Thomas' legal opinion. More power to ya!

[sklanger]

See further, Thomas v. Chicago Park Dist., 534 U.S. 316, 320 (2002). "[T]he core abuse against which [the First Amendment] was directed was the scheme of licensing laws implemented by the monarch and Parliament to contain the evils of the printing press in 16th and 17-century England.

What's funny is your quackery on what the framers intended, seeing as you confuse the modern meaning of a term with its historical meaning.

[sklanger]

Except freedom of the "press" refers to the means of publication -- the printing press.

The framers did not understand "press" to mean the institutional press or press corps, which is its modern meaning.

So under your theory, the New York Times corporation would have neither freedom of speech nor freedom of the (printing) press under the First Amendment.

And religious groups would be unable to freely exercise both speech and religion, since only individuals, according to you, have that right.

[sklanger]

"The founders never intended to give an entity such as a corporation the same rights as individual citizens"

Prove it.

Prove that the framers intended corporate speech to be excluded like (for example) libelous speech. There's scholarship demonstrating that the original meaning of "freedom of speech" did not include libelous speech.

There's none demonstrating that the original meaning of "freedom of speech" excludes corporate speech.

[sklanger]

Moreover, under your theory, Congress would be able to ban the spokesmen of the major political parties from speaking on behalf of their parties, which take corporate form.

Book publishers, newspaper publishers, religious groups, and even civil rights groups which take corporate form -- virtually all of them -- would have no general First Amendment right to free speech.

If you think that's what the framers intended, you're out of your mind.

[sklanger]

"those ordinary citizens have every right to speak on their own behalf as individuals."

Those individuals also have a right to speak in association with other individual persons. Corporate speech is simply the speech of a group of individual persons associated in common cause.

The First Amendment itself gives people the right "to ASSEMBLE, and to petition the Government" -- a recognition of an associational right.

The text certainly does not say that corporate speakers are excluded.

[sklanger]

Half of the states already have no restrictions on corporate funded political speech prior to an election. There is no evidence that corporations are pouring "billions" of dollars into the state election process.

And since the vast majority of corporations are comprised of "ordinary citizens," I don't see what your point is.

[sklanger]

"Now it's OK for foreigners to be sticking their noses in our elections"

It's always been OK for foreigners to "stick their noses in our elections" if by "sticking their noses" you mean engaging in speech about politics.

Last time I checked, the First Amendment applied to citizens and resident noncitizens alike.

[sklanger]

"Do you think the Venezuelan corporation CITGO, which has American subsidiaries, should have more of a voice in our elections than you as an individual?"

Foreign newspapers like the Guardian already "have more of a voice" than you as an individual. They endorse American presidential candidates (as the Guardian did when it endorsed Obama) and have more sway among elite liberal opinion makers than your average mom-and-pop corporation.

You didn't complain then. So don't kid yourself now.

[shniebly16]

He is a great man:)

[xp19375]

@waydownNMway

As I said before, when a corporation says something, it is really someone withing the corporation saying it.

I still have a voice in the election. If I wanted to, I could start a website and post my opinions on it, just as CITGO can. I am able to say what I want, and they are able to say what they want. Neither one of us can force people to agree or even listen. Corporations will not suddenly have more power because of this.

[xp19375]

@waydownNMway

Corporations are made of individuals, therefore they have the rights of those individuals that make them up. When a corporation says something, it is really a statement of someone within the corporation.

Remember, many corporations are charities and humanitarian causes, and most business corporations are not going to alienate half of their customers to get their opinions out.

[MueX]

Sorry, but equating yelling fire in a theater with political speech is certainly a straw man argument.

Claiming, "I have studied constitutional law and I art uber and you art therefore a moron" is certainly an argument by appeal to authority.

And your last statement, if that isn't an ad-hominem then I don't know what is.

Epic fail on your part. It's understandable though. Always that constitution thing getting in the way, so let's call people names instead!

[MueX]

Oh how quaint. First a strawman with a touch of the old appeal to authority then you move on to the ad-hominem!

Got to love liberals. See you in november, with millions of other morons who actually have read that pesky constitution.

[MueX]

Oh so now you're suddenly a constitutional lawyer...with silly oxycodone pictures probably grabbed from moveon (ohh another evil corporation with foreign funding from george soros) plastered all over his page.

So tell me, how does a constitutional lawyer end up making an obvious straw-man argument? Yelling fire in a theater, and political speech are a far cry from each other.

[MueX]

Try reading the constitution instead of your loony liberal blogs.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

You can't get around 'shall make no law.' We are free to assemble, yes even into corporations, and are free to say what we wish.

[xp19375]

@waydownNMway

It is still one man, one vote. Corporations cannot vote, however, the people that make them up can. All this decision says is that corporations can say whatever they want about a candidate.

Seriously, how is this different than before? And how is this different than a commentator voicing his opinion?

[RaginCelt]

I don't see any mention of Corporations being granted same rights as a person in the Constitution or Bil of Rights. It's a very dangerous precedent that will set the stage for corporations to be able to buy elections and eventually control our government.

[MueX]

Silly goose. Corporations don't have the same rights as a person. They have the same rights de-facto. That meaning, the people who choose to assemble into a corporation, or a partnership, or a union, or a social club...do not lose their constitutional right to free speech simply because they have exercised their constitutional right to assembly.

[goodatbasebal]

@RaginCelt That isnt entirely true. the McCain-Feingold ammendment still holds limits to campaign contributions on people (corporations). Now as to your question about corporations being protected under the 14th amendment i believe, it does not necessarily mean that corporations are humans but if a lawsuit with a corporations occurs damages can be taken from the corporation as a whole rather than some employees. You dont have to take my word for it. But research it yourself :)

[aSingleDallasGuy]

The only tragedy about the supreme court's decision is that 4 justices ignored the US Constitution. The idea that terrorists have US rights and American companies do not? Yeah that's fair! Liberals are jackass's. They think the constitution says what it wants to.

[MueX]

Oh no, I got the point correctly. The constitution says "Congress shall make no law." Can't get around that. We're free to associate in any form we wish and say what we want.

As plainly shown by your lack of concern when that 'Big Evil Multinational Corporation' released fahrenheit 9-11, it's all about squelching opposing views..

I'm more concerned about events like Bill Clinton having to return half a million dollars from that Chinese General who donated to his campaign back in the 90's.

[xp19375]

@waydownNMway

Every person gets one vote, so when it comes time for the election, the people decide. All this decision says is that corporations, which are just associations of people, can voice their opinions. How is that different than Kieth Olberman or Glenn Beck voicing their opinion about an election?

[xp19375]

@waydownNMway

Do you think people's freedom of speech should be taken away just because they decide to form a corporation?

[thudmother]

I am Thudmother, and I approve this comment.

[bobby200606]

REPUBLICANS:

The Party of NO

The Party of Torture

The Party of Racism

The Party of Economic Collapse

[MueX]

The Party of Economic Collapse.

You must be a medical marijuana patient, for you can't seen to remember this election way back in 2006. You know, the one where the democrats took control of the congress, and thereby the economy?

[66605]

Thank you Justice Thomas for respecting the Constitution more than bad precedent! We need more judges like yourself. What part of "Congress shall make no law" don't they understand?

[nomosocialists]

The man that the oh-so tolerant Left tried to destroy comes back to haunt them. It is good that the Supremes leveled the playing field a bit. Barry, you might have to ask SEIU to stel $100 million from there members this time instead of the 85 they gave you last time!

[zaurakdigis]

The worse Supreme Court justice of all time!

Corporations are not individuals and are not "we the people". The court legislated here and set a precedent that any law can be overturned anytime, regardless of the case before them.

[MueX]

That's really nice. I don't remember the looney left complaining when a 'big evil company' was putting fahrenheit 911 on movie screens all over the country. Yet, now that's it's a two man corporation making an anti-hillary video suddenly we have a threat to democracy?

Oh please, do us a favor and drink some bleach.

[bigdogsdontbark]

He is a great man

[YTdawn]

This is a veritable asteroid into the democrat hornets nest. The howls coming from BHO and his Dem sock puppets indicate that this evens the field against union dues theft for campaign support as well as ACORN million$ from thin air. DC is proving that corruption is not limited to corporate boardrooms now that the One has the keys to the treasury. Do, however, limit or disallow contributions from foreign owned firms operating in the USA.

[DillonX]

We're having a major Governor's race in Texas.

Gov Perry has served longer than any prior governor & is running against Sen Hutchinson.

Even after massive campaign ad spending, they each have over $10 million in their campaign chests, and inasmuch as they're both CORPORATE WHORES this gross disgusting SC decision will allow many more millions to be spent on ads.

Debra Medina, the only 1 who'd work for "we the people" has about $10,000 in campaign funds now.

[Aaronk29]

So you're saying that since he has 10 million dollars in campaign funds that he is a corporate whore. Seems like a pretty foolish thing to say.

Debra doesn't have 10 million dollars in campaign funds, thus debra loses.

Money makes the world go round, the world go round, the world gor round!! (sadly)

[FzSBLACKMAGICK]

There's something about this man, I've always liked him.

God bless you Clarence.

[mojwop]

I love this honorable man!!

[TheHerrUlf]

Americans! Keep fighting for your Constitution and for Liberty!

Whether you realize it or not you are thereby fighting for us in the rest of the world, too.

Thanks!

[Hellpig]

Now the playing field is even for GOP against SOROS and the treasonous unions and state run media

[hillsborovillage]

Thank you, Justice Thomas. Long live the First Amendment (and you, too!)