5 of the top 10 most pro-corporate Justices in the last 100 years

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
We don't run this country for corporations


Hobby Lobby doesn't want to cover its employees' birth control on company insurance plans. In fact, they're so outraged about women having access to birth control that they've taken the issue all the way to the Supreme Court.

I cannot believe that we live in a world where we would even consider letting some big corporation deny the women who work for it access to the basic medical tests, treatments or prescriptions that they need based on vague moral objections.

But here's the scary thing: With the judges we've got on the Supreme Court, Hobby Lobby might actually win.

The current Supreme Court has headed in a very scary direction.

Recently, three well-respected legal scholars examined almost 20,000 Supreme Court cases from the last 65 years. They found that the five conservative justices currently sitting on the Supreme Court are in the top 10 most pro-corporate justices in more than half a century.

And Justices Samuel Alito and John Roberts? They were number one and number two.

Take a look at the win rate of the national Chamber of Commerce cases before the Supreme Court. According to the Constitutional Accountability Center, the Chamber was winning 43% of the cases in participated in during the later years of the Burger Court, but that shifted to a 56% win-rate under the Rehnquist Court, and then a 70% win-rate with the Roberts Court.

Follow these pro-corporate trends to their logical conclusion, and pretty soon you'll have a Supreme Court that is a wholly owned subsidiary of big business.

Birth control is at risk in today's case, but we also need to worry about a lot more.

In Citizens United, the Supreme Court unleashed a wave of corporate spending to game the political system and drown the voices of middle class families.

And right now, the Supreme Court is considering McCutcheon v. FEC, a case that could mean the end of campaign contribution limits – allowing the big guys to buy even more influence in Washington.

Republicans may prefer a rigged court that gives their corporate friends and their armies of lawyers and lobbyists every advantage. But that's not the job of judges. Judges don't sit on the bench to hand out favors to their political friends.

On days like today, it matters who is sitting on the Supreme Court. It matters that we have a President who appoints fair and impartial judges to our courts, and it matters that we have a Senate who approves them.

We're in this fight because we believe that we don't run this country for corporations – we run it for people.


http://elizabethwarren.com/blog/we-dont-run-this-country-for-corporations


Thoughts on this?
 
i kinda like citizens united now, it makes elections way more entertaining.

not sure how hobbly lobby will go. gotta check a SCOTUS prediction site before that calls pretty much every decision ahead of time. they called the ACA one to a judge.
 
They aren't trying to deny these women those services. They aren't saying they want to fire women who take birth control, they have an abjection being forced to pay for something they have a problem with.

On the flip side, if you're a woman, get a job for a company that you don't think hates you?

But they aren't taking any steps to prevent these women from getting this stuff, they just don't want to be the ones paying for it. Even if the women have to pay it out of pocket, it's still cheap, and much cheaper than a baby.
 
they have an abjection being forced to pay for something they have a problem with.

;taxes

Based on a religious pretext

At one point in time interracial marriage was opposed based on a religious pretext. This is one of the reasons religious pretext's don't form the basis of our laws
 
;taxes

Based on a religious pretext

At one point in time interracial marriage was opposed based on a religious pretext. This is one of the reasons religious pretext's don't form the basis of our laws

Except if that religion happens to be liberal government. Gimmie the communist utopia, ahhhhh!
 
;taxes

Based on a religious pretext

At one point in time interracial marriage was opposed based on a religious pretext. This is one of the reasons religious pretext's don't form the basis of our laws
explain to me how not paying for an employees birth control and firing an employee for marrying a minority is on the same level?
 
I'm not sure you're using "religion" in the correct context

Government becomes your new religion in practically all communist societies which have existed. Many communist regimes actually ban most or all religions, and brainwash their populace into thinking such. The underlying method between what China does compared to Sharia with Saudi Arabia have more in common than they differ. They're both craven images used for control.
 
explain to me how not paying for an employees birth control and firing an employee for marrying a minority is on the same level?

They are both opposed based on religious pretexts

Government becomes your new religion in practically all communist societies which have existed. Many communist regimes actually ban most or all religions, and brainwash their populace into thinking such. The underlying method between what China does compared to Sharia with Saudi Arabia have more in common than they differ. They're both craven images used for control.

What do you think Christianity (or indeed, all the Abrahamic religions) is?
 
They are both opposed based on religious pretexts



What do you think Christianity (or indeed, all the Abrahamic religions) is?

Are you high? Did you not understand? You think there's a difference between religious control and "atheistic" totalitarian governments like China? Do tell. This should be interesting.
 
Are you high? Did you not understand? You think there's a difference between religious control and "atheistic" totalitarian governments like China? Do tell. This should be interesting.

Since "atheistic" does not automatically require a particular government,; please elaborate on how atheistic=totalitarian.
 
They aren't trying to deny these women those services. They aren't saying they want to fire women who take birth control, they have an abjection being forced to pay for something they have a problem with.

On the flip side, if you're a woman, get a job for a company that you don't think hates you?

But they aren't taking any steps to prevent these women from getting this stuff, they just don't want to be the ones paying for it. Even if the women have to pay it out of pocket, it's still cheap, and much cheaper than a baby.

so much is wrong with that.

the insurance pays for birth control pills, not hobby lobby. this is not persecution of white christians, it is recognizing preventive medicine for what it is.

women are not obligated to change jobs because of the medicine they need. this is distinct from the replacement heroin you now need. don't relapse now. no woman has ever been addicted to birth control pills like you are addicted to smack.

hobby loby saves money by providing birth control, because $30 worth of pills is less than a $7000 pregnancy and prenatal.

congress shall form no law respecting the establishment of religion, christian sharia or muslim sharia.
 
Since "atheistic" does not automatically require a particular government,; please elaborate on how atheistic=totalitarian.

As compared to totalitarian Sharia of Saudi Arabia, or totalitarian Judaism of Israel. Just pointing out there's no difference. While America isn't quite totalitarian, but isn't quite atheistic either. But if fools like Buck had their way, we'd welcome China as our role model. The act of requiring something is what makes something a religion. That's the whole point why religions were invented in the first place, to have the select few "enlightened" dictate your actions. Back then we humans were too smart just to take the word of another human without thought, but now that we became civilized and modern, we let government tell us to use a lead paint containing reusable shopping bag. Because the science shows while it's toxic to humans, the lead would pollute the environment instead of us absorbing it. Cause the earth is all that matters, plus it's a good excuse for population control against the suckers who buy the bags!
 
As compared to totalitarian Sharia of Saudi Arabia, or totalitarian Judaism of Israel. Just pointing out there's no difference. While America isn't quite totalitarian, but isn't quite atheistic either. But if fools like Buck had their way, we'd welcome China as our role model. The act of requiring something is what makes something a religion. That's the whole point why religions were invented in the first place, to have the select few "enlightened" dictate your actions. Back then we humans were too smart just to take the word of another human without thought, but now that we became civilized and modern, we let government tell us to use a lead paint containing reusable shopping bag. Because the science shows while it's toxic to humans, the lead would pollute the environment instead of us absorbing it. Cause the earth is all that matters, plus it's a good excuse for population control against the suckers who buy the bags!

Holy Red Herring batman!
 
so much is wrong with that.

the insurance pays for birth control pills, not hobby lobby. this is not persecution of white christians, it is recognizing preventive medicine for what it is.

women are not obligated to change jobs because of the medicine they need. this is distinct from the replacement heroin you now need. don't relapse now. no woman has ever been addicted to birth control pills like you are addicted to smack.

hobby loby saves money by providing birth control, because $30 worth of pills is less than a $7000 pregnancy and prenatal.

congress shall form no law respecting the establishment of religion, christian sharia or muslim sharia.

Ok, the insurance pays for the pills, but hobby lobby pays for the insurance. If I took you out to dinner, and you ordered a steak, the fucking sizzlier actually contracted for delivery of that steak, and paid it's supplier, but they send me the fucking check.

Same with hobby lobby. Now, am I "declaring war on you" if I tell you you can't order steak because I'm Hindu? And you are limitead to pork and poultry? Of course not. And if the government comes in and permits me to deny you beef on my dime since I'm Hindu and those are my beliefs they are not establishing a religion, they are upholding my religious freedoms not to have to be forced to watch you dessacrate a sacred animal, and force me to pay for it.

These women are perfectly free to go to a doctor for normal procedures, that the insurance will likely cover, they aren't saying they refuse to pay for a pap smear, tell the doctor you need basic birth control, it's cheap as fuck, and everyone is happy. And no one is forced to do anything they are morally opposed to.

They arent telling these women they cant cash their paycheck and buy hamburger.
 
Ok, the insurance pays for the pills, but hobby lobby pays for the insurance.

and they don't even have to do that. they can provide no insurance and pay the social responsibility fine, which would save them even more money.

If I took you out to dinner, and you ordered a steak, the fucking sizzlier actually contracted for delivery of that steak, and paid it's supplier, but they send me the fucking check.

don't flatter yourself or waste your time. i would never fuck you, i leave that up to your childhood friend who diddled you.

if the government comes in and permits me to deny you beef on my dime since I'm Hindu and those are my beliefs they are not establishing a religion, they are upholding my religious freedoms

it's not your dime, it's the insurance companies dime.

and birth control pills are not beef, they are medicine that women use to control ovarian cysts, anemia, menstrual cramps and pains, and the like.

they happen to have the effect of preventing pregnancy, and sometimes this happens by preventing a fertilized egg from implanting, which is effectively an abortion to some since life starts once that egg is fertilized.

that's the entire objection right there, and keeping a fertilized egg from implanting is the least likely way a pregnancy is prevented with birth control. normally, that egg never even gets fertilized.

so feel free to go on defending this radical religious agenda and unconstitutional establishment of religion over the rights of women to have access to medicine that they need, it only tells us more about the type of bigoted, brainwashed, religious fundamentalist you are.
 
so much is wrong with that.

the insurance pays for birth control pills, not hobby lobby. this is not persecution of white christians, it is recognizing preventive medicine for what it is.

women are not obligated to change jobs because of the medicine they need. this is distinct from the replacement heroin you now need. don't relapse now. no woman has ever been addicted to birth control pills like you are addicted to smack.

hobby loby saves money by providing birth control, because $30 worth of pills is less than a $7000 pregnancy and prenatal.

congress shall form no law respecting the establishment of religion, christian sharia or muslim sharia.

agreed it's not gonna happen.
 
They aren't trying to deny these women those services. They aren't saying they want to fire women who take birth control, they have an abjection being forced to pay for something they have a problem with.

On the flip side, if you're a woman, get a job for a company that you don't think hates you?

But they aren't taking any steps to prevent these women from getting this stuff, they just don't want to be the ones paying for it. Even if the women have to pay it out of pocket, it's still cheap, and much cheaper than a baby.


It is a slippery slope man.... first they won't pay for birth control, next they will deny it to women, then, when they make birth control illegal, only criminals will have birthcontrol.
 
Ok, the insurance pays for the pills, but hobby lobby pays for the insurance. If I took you out to dinner, and you ordered a steak, the fucking sizzlier actually contracted for delivery of that steak, and paid it's supplier, but they send me the fucking check.

Same with hobby lobby. Now, am I "declaring war on you" if I tell you you can't order steak because I'm Hindu? And you are limitead to pork and poultry? Of course not. And if the government comes in and permits me to deny you beef on my dime since I'm Hindu and those are my beliefs they are not establishing a religion, they are upholding my religious freedoms not to have to be forced to watch you dessacrate a sacred animal, and force me to pay for it.

These women are perfectly free to go to a doctor for normal procedures, that the insurance will likely cover, they aren't saying they refuse to pay for a pap smear, tell the doctor you need basic birth control, it's cheap as fuck, and everyone is happy. And no one is forced to do anything they are morally opposed to.

They arent telling these women they cant cash their paycheck and buy hamburger.

Gee, I am morally opposed to war! I can prove it. So, according to your little scenario I shouldn't be forced to pay taxes, or at the very least, I shouldn't have to pay the portion that goes to the military.
 
Gee, I am morally opposed to war! I can prove it. So, according to your little scenario I shouldn't be forced to pay taxes, or at the very least, I shouldn't have to pay the portion that goes to the military.

i'll do ya one better, my pastafarian religious beliefs forbid it. thus it is a violation of my religious freedom to ask me to pay any taxes that support the military.

:lol:

problem, religious fundamentalist righties?
 
Back
Top