Feinstein very concerned.

[Tahuyaman]

I am shocked that she is concerned.

I just find find it odd that she would go public with the notion that she is "concerned" that a person is unfit for the Supreme Court becasue he believes in fulfilling his duties in the way he's required.

[Tahuyaman]

What's next? Is she going to be equally concerned if a president says that he believes that he should not have the power of a King or dictator?

[Peter1469]

You could care less what it is.

Like I said, that decision gave rights to corporations because people had the same rights. Granting the right of free speech to corporations dilutes that right for citizens. Corporations aren't citizens any more than undocumented immigrants are citizens.





Feel free to educate us. It's only fair to warn you that it may surpass your one-sentence reply limit.

[Tahuyaman]

He just knows what's spoon fed to him by like minded leftists.

[del]

You could care less what it is.

got nothing, huh?

[Dr. Who]

IMO corporate personhood was and still is a tool for the globalist agenda. It is a legal fiction that generally ascribes most of the rights of human beings (citizens) to a legal entity. While not specifically protected from civil or criminal action, its puppeteers, that being its majority shareholders who are very much involved in the direction of the corporate entity, are shielded from any form of legal responsibility, which is thus transferred to its (often uninformed) directors and officers, AKA the ultimate scapegoats.

A series of most unfortunate decisions by SCOTUS, beginning with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819) granted personhood to corporations.

In a most shocking case of SCOTUS abuse, that being Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific -118 U.S. 394 (1886) the court actually refuses to entertain any argument about the fictionality of corporate personhood and grants it (civil) rights under the 14th Amendment, a precedent that has endured for more than 100 years.

[Tahuyaman]

got nothing, huh?

Look who's talking.

[Tahuyaman]

IMO corporate personhood was and still is a tool for the globalist agenda. It is a legal fiction that generally ascribes most of the rights of human beings (citizens) to a legal entity. While not specifically protected from civil or criminal action, its puppeteers, that being its majority shareholders who are very much involved in the direction of the corporate entity, are shielded from any form of legal responsibility, which is thus transferred to its (often uninformed) directors and officers, AKA the ultimate scapegoats.

A series of most unfortunate decisions by SCOTUS, beginning with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819) granted personhood to corporations.

In a most shocking case of SCOTUS abuse, that being Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific -118 U.S. 394 (1886) the court actually refuses to entertain any argument about the fictionality of corporate personhood and grants it (civil) rights under the 14th Amendment, a precedent that has endured for more than 100 years.

Are you with Feinstein and highly concerned that Gorsuch is an originalist and constitutional constructionist?

would you rather see a justice who believes in the concept of judicial activism and believes it's their job to create or re-write law?

Do you believe in disregarding the constitution when it seems convenient to do so?

[decedent]

IMO corporate personhood was and still is a tool for the globalist agenda. It is a legal fiction that generally ascribes most of the rights of human beings (citizens) to a legal entity. While not specifically protected from civil or criminal action, its puppeteers, that being its majority shareholders who are very much involved in the direction of the corporate entity, are shielded from any form of legal responsibility, which is thus transferred to its (often uninformed) directors and officers, AKA the ultimate scapegoats.

A series of most unfortunate decisions by SCOTUS, beginning with Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward – 17 U.S. 518 (1819) granted personhood to corporations.

In a most shocking case of SCOTUS abuse, that being Santa Clara v. Southern Pacific -118 U.S. 394 (1886) the court actually refuses to entertain any argument about the fictionality of corporate personhood and grants it (civil) rights under the 14th Amendment, a precedent that has endured for more than 100 years.

Great post. Thanks for this.


While I don't see globalism as a significant threat, I agree that granting citizen rights to corporations is dangerous.

[del]

Look who's talking.

i'm used to you having nothing.