FUSsa-talk Mailing List: So Let's Mobilize! 80% Of ALL Americans Oppose Supreme Court Edict Declaring Corporations To Be People, Bulk Bumper Stickers Available and More

[Robert Tapp (tappx001]

Begin forwarded message:

> From: Robert Tapp <tappx001 [at] umn.edu>
> Date: February 19, 2010 9:06:17 PM CST
> To: Humanist Institute Discussion List <hidisc [at] humanistinstitute.org>
> Subject: [Hidisc] Fwd: So Let's Mobilize! 80% Of ALL Americans Oppose Supreme 
> Court Edict Declaring Corporations To Be People, Bulk Bumper Stickers 
> Available and More
> 
> This is one of the useful groups attempting to undo SCOTUS expanding the 
> <personhood> of corporations. You amy want to subscribe and include earlier 
> installments.
> 
> Bob
> 
> Begin forwarded message:
> 
>> From: The Pen <activist.thepen [at] gmail.com>
>> Date: February 19, 2010 7:57:01 PM CST
>> 
>> Subject: So Let's Mobilize! 80% Of ALL Americans Oppose Supreme Court Edict 
>> Declaring Corporations To Be People, Bulk Bumper Stickers Available and More
>> 
>> 
>> In a moment, the 5th installment of our legal analysis of the various 
>> inexcusable errors in the EDICT by five Supreme Court wolves to rip 
>> apart limits on corporate influence on the people's elections. 
>> 
>> But first, a major poll released just yesterday by the Washington 
>> Post reports 80 percent of all Americans, crossing all party lines, 
>> are opposed to this indefensible ruling (65% STRONGLY opposed). Now 
>> it is our job to mobilize all those people to take real action to 
>> reverse it as a practical reality. In the first instance there must 
>> be congressional legislation (already in process) to mitigate the 
>> damage to our Constitution in the short term, while we are working on 
>> the optimum repudiating constitutional amendment as the direct long 
>> term cure. 
>> 
>> Here's a short list of things YOU can do right now to help build the 
>> visibility of this movement: 
>> 
>> 1) In response to your many requests we have set up a special page 
>> where you can order bulk quantities (packs of 25, 50 and 100) of the 
>> incredibly hot Supreme Court protest bumpers stickers for your 
>> political group, your special event, for swap meets, etc. Based on 
>> your input and feedback we have set the price as low as we can in 
>> quantity, and still to keep the initiative going. 
>> 
>> Bulk Bumper Stickers: 
>> http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers_bulk.php 
>> 
>> 2) If you just want one of the "Corporations Are NOT The People" or 
>> "Impeach The Supreme Court 5" bumper stickers for YOURSELF, remember 
>> we will continue to give them away entirely for free to anyone who 
>> wants one. Now that we have the second printing in house, all 
>> requests in so far will ship tomorrow by first class mail, so please 
>> get your request in ASAP if you have not already. No donation 
>> required, but appreciated, which is what makes it possible for us to 
>> send stickers to anyone who cannot make a donation right now. 
>> 
>> Free Individual Bumper Stickers: 
>> http://www.peaceteam.net/bumper_stickers.php 
>> 
>> 3) Help us give the bumper stickers away by putting a button on your 
>> site linking to the page above. Get the code from the section at the 
>> very top of any of the bumper sticker pages or the action pages on 
>> these issues. We KNOW thousands of you have blogs and web pages of 
>> your own of various kinds. It is so easy, just copy the short code 
>> block and paste it into your page code, and you will automatically 
>> get a courtesy link back on all our own pages. We need EVERYBODY to 
>> post these buttons. C'mon folks, let's get serious. 
>> 
>> 4) And most importantly, spread the word about the action pages so we 
>> can generate as many messages to Congress as possible. Email all your 
>> friends with the links. If you are on Facebook or Twitter use the 
>> special resource links below for them, and all aspects of the social 
>> media, to spread the word. With 80% of the entire country on the side 
>> of truth and justice we SHOULD be able to generate 100 million action 
>> page submissions on this. C'mon folks, let's get serious. Here are 
>> all the links. 
>> 
>> Corporations Are NOT The People Action Page: 
>> http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1029.php 
>> 
>> Impeach The Supreme Court 5 Action Page: 
>> http://www.peaceteam.net/action/pnum1030.php 
>> 
>> The above are the regular action pages, for Facebook use these links: 
>> 
>> [Facebook] Corporations Are NOT The People: 
>> http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1029 
>> 
>> [Facebook] Impeach The Supreme Court 5: 
>> http://apps.facebook.com/fb_voices/action.php?qnum=pnum1030 
>> 
>> And this is the Twitter reply for the Corporations Are NOT The People 
>> action 
>> 
>> @cxs #p1029 
>> 
>> And this is the Twitter reply for the Impeach The Supreme Court 5 
>> action 
>> 
>> @cxs #p1030 
>> 
>> 5) And while we are talking about sending emails to friends, be sure 
>> to add links for any of the above to your own email "signature", to 
>> put them at the bottom of each of your own outgoing emails. If you 
>> are not sure how to do it, check out the help function of your email 
>> program, or email us and we'll provide tech help. 
>> 
>> OK then, now here we go with the fifth installment of our analysis of 
>> the worst errors in the unleash the corporations ruling from The 
>> Supreme Court 5. And we don't mind telling you we still have quite a 
>> slog to go yet, so if you are getting the impression that some law 
>> school could build an entire semester's lecture course around 
>> EVERYTHING that is wrong with this case, as an text book example of 
>> bad legal work, it is because they could. 
>> 
>> We have already covered what an abortion on the facts the decision 
>> was in so many ways. Based on this foundation of factual smoke, 
>> Kennedy, writing for the Supreme Court 5 (including also Roberts, 
>> Alito, Scalia and Thomas), then proceeds to build his castle of the 
>> preposterous by committing every sin of legal case precedent citation 
>> possible. 
>> 
>> To help you understand what is really going on here, first we must 
>> explain the concept of "weight". Simply put, when reviewing the 
>> language of previous case precedents, which are presumed to be 
>> binding on all court decisions to follow at the same court level or 
>> lower, all words in a decision are not equal. 
>> 
>> The greatest weight, indeed the only thing that is SUPPOSED to be 
>> followed is the essential heart of the decision itself, the key 
>> language that explains the logical basis for what the court actually 
>> ordered, the WHY of what they in fact did. This is known as the 
>> essential "holding". This is what is meant by a "controlling" 
>> opinion, the whole basis of stare decisis. 
>> 
>> Elsewhere in an opinion a court may comment on other matters, perhaps 
>> to suggest they might have been open to arguments that could have 
>> been made but were not, perhaps to indicate they were expressly NOT 
>> ruling on a particular alternate basis, footnotes of tangential 
>> interest, or whatever. Since the actual decision did not turn on any 
>> of these things, this is what is generally known as "dicta", the 
>> judicial equivalent of shooting their mouths off. "Dicta" is not 
>> binding on any later court decision, so while it may be referred to 
>> in a later decision as context for the state of mind of members of a 
>> previous court in a prior case, it has much less weight than the 
>> "holding". 
>> 
>> Finally, there may be separate opinions by individual or smaller 
>> groups of justices either concurring (agreeing with the majority on 
>> some part of the holding but amplifying with additional reasons NOT 
>> endorsed by the majority) or dissenting (disagreeing with the 
>> reasoning of the majority holding). 
>> 
>> Of all these things, whatever is found in a dissenting opinion 
>> carries the LEAST weight of all as far a later court should be 
>> concerned. This would be the opinion of the side that LOST, the 
>> minority, the side that would not join the majority that carried the 
>> decision, the judicial equivalent of griping. 
>> 
>> And yet, this entire decision, which every person capable of critical 
>> thinking is so upset about, is riddled with references to, and 
>> fundamentally based, on dissents and other divergent minority 
>> opinions mostly by Gang of 5 themselves. (opinion pp. 11, 15, 16, 22, 
>> 26, 27, 28, 29, 31, 33, 35, 36, 37, 38, 40, 44, 46, 47, 49). Often 
>> these dissents are deceptively not even identified as "dissent", 
>> listed only labeled as "opinion" in Kennedy's new logical hatchet 
>> job. Moreover, many were the dissents in the very cases that this new 
>> decision now so rudely presumes to overturn. 
>> 
>> And Kennedy has the utter unabashed gall to conclude his compilation 
>> of basically his own dissents and those of his cronies to state, "For 
>> the reasons stated above, it must be concluded that Austin was not 
>> well reasoned". (opinion p. 47) But all he's REALLY saying is that 
>> they were right all along, as they turn the whole concept of judicial 
>> precedent completely on its head. 
>> 
>> Well, in a sense they WERE "right" all along ... far, far, extreme, 
>> off the deep end right. And the obvious danger now is that having 
>> finally executed their long plotted judicial palace coup (three of 
>> them dissented in 2007 in the WRTL case that they should have done it 
>> then, but perhaps Roberts and Alito, still new on the bench, feared 
>> the political uproar that has in fact resulted now), now suddenly you 
>> can be sure that this decision will be elevated by them to the most 
>> sacred stare decisis precedent that ever was. 
>> 
>> If a first year law student turned in a piece of work like this, 
>> cobbled together as it is from dissents, and dicta from stray 
>> footnotes (for example opinion p. 25), from other cases, they would 
>> earn nothing but a dismissive scowl from their professor. 
>> Unfortunately these five incorrigible men are now Supreme Court 
>> justices, until the people act to remove them. 
>> 
>> Oh, but it gets so much worse, for even where Kennedy does cite from 
>> controlling opinions he dishonestly twists and misconstrues their 
>> actual holdings. For that, he would have been, and should be 
>> expelled. But for that analysis, we will have to keep you in suspense 
>> a little while until the 6th scary episode in this series coming soon 
>> to an email inbox near you. 
>> 
>> Please take action NOW, so we can win all victories that are supposed 
>> to be ours, and forward this alert as widely as possible. 
>> 
>> If you would like to get alerts like these, you can do so at 
>> http://www.millionfaxmarch.com/in.htm 
>> 
>> 
>> usalone373b:346554 
>> 
> 
> _______________________________________________