news-record.com

Skip to the site menu
Skip to search

OPINION

Supreme Court majority creates a judicial fraud

Sunday, February 7, 2010
(Updated 3:00 am)

Corporations are not the people, and nothing in the Constitution or any amendment thereto fairly lends itself to any such interpretation. It was only an act of judicial and intellectual fraud by which any contrary holding could emerge.
The Supreme Court Five have not just made law from the bench, they have fabricated Constitution from the bench. And while other decisions may have nibbled around the edges of this patently dubious proposition, in one gulp this disreputable majority now presumes to swallow the thing whole hog.
Deborah Debandi
Greensboro

Comments

View Comments

This letter has been closed to new comments. Comments are accepted on select letters to the editor between the hours of 7 AM and 5 PM, EDT, Monday through Friday.

Inappropriate content? Please report abuse.

J.M.W.

February 7, 2010 - 3:20 am EST

How else are they going to kick out a lying Muslim with a blank check from the Federal Reserve?

xeno10

February 7, 2010 - 7:35 am EST

Ms. Debandi, your LTTE is "right on target" -- and I agree with you 100% -- yes I do! Seriously.

lilbean

February 7, 2010 - 6:39 am EST

Debandi, what is that french? papers please!

By Jonathan D. Salant

Dec. 4 (Bloomberg) -- Barack Obama raised more than $750 million for his presidential campaign, a record that surpassed what both presidential nominees took in four years earlier.

rush-palin2012

February 7, 2010 - 6:56 am EST

"Debandi, what is that french? papers please!"

No kidding. It seems the News-Record is having a hard time printing letters from real Americans today.

America's corporate interests have spoken. When's the last time a Muslim hired anyone anyway? I mean besides suicide bombers and Rahm Emmanuel.

danagain

February 7, 2010 - 7:54 am EST

"No kidding. It seems the News-Record is having a hard time printing letters from real Americans today."

Likely Italian origin but that was an ignorant statement. Plenty of "real" Americans have last names of foreign origin, myself included.

neocon

February 7, 2010 - 8:05 am EST

Please tell me it ain't Abdulmonidejihadiourburnko. :]

danagain

February 7, 2010 - 8:11 am EST

Close but mine has a few more vowels in it ;--)

oh good grief

February 7, 2010 - 9:05 am EST

Reminds me of the time I was driving a group of elderly women to a bridal shower. The soon-to-be groom had a multiple syllable, not-common-around-these-parts last name.

The most elderly woman in the car said: "Tell me again what the groom's name is. I keep forgetting."

The last name was told to her and she responded, "Well It could be worse. It could have been 'Snodgrass'."

I guess "Snodgrass" was her "measuring stick" for surnames. (No offense meant to any Snodgrasses, living or dead.)

danagain

February 7, 2010 - 12:20 pm EST

One time I had a client with the name Beerwart. Shoulda kept her maiden name imo. Snodgrass is pretty bad too.

left-wing conspiracy theorist

February 7, 2010 - 1:34 pm EST

I used to work with 'beer wort'. Does that count?

danagain

February 7, 2010 - 3:29 pm EST

I have too. Beer + wort makes sense, but not beer + wart.

JGALT

February 7, 2010 - 6:04 pm EST

dcolin got beer warts at the beach.

dcolin

February 7, 2010 - 11:42 pm EST

Clients you have clients.

Come on dan they are customers.
You are a hoot.

rush-palin2012

February 7, 2010 - 11:09 am EST

"Plenty of "real" Americans have last names of foreign origin, myself included."

Including our 'Dear Leader'

novel

February 7, 2010 - 11:12 am EST

I guess all of our ancestors had foreign/foreign-sounding names at one point.

danagain

February 7, 2010 - 12:20 pm EST

Except for Native Americans.

Sawdust

February 7, 2010 - 3:38 pm EST

The ancestors of the so-called "native Americans came here from somewhere else.

spike

February 7, 2010 - 11:04 pm EST

Yes and a name like Eisenhower could be someone right out of Hitler's bunker. It's not, it's the last name of our 34th president and a republican, too.

Sawdust

February 7, 2010 - 7:22 am EST

What is a corporation, then, a building? a bunch of earth-moving equipment? A fleet of trucks? I can go to Legal Zoom and form a corporation without any of those things, or anything else, for that matter, except a credit card to pay Legal Zoom. I don't even need a place to live, or an office building, but there I am, a corporation. And I'm a people.

neocon

February 7, 2010 - 8:03 am EST

Liberals loathe corporations. They will have little or no purpose once the 'fundamental change' barry spoke of is complete. The goods and services they provide will be produced in community organized plants run by the DGS (Dept. of Goods & Services)

Your Maytag and coffee maker will once again be produced right here in the good ol US of A.

It's gonna be such sweet economic justice when the former ceo of Exxon-Mobil moves a used 12 footer in a couple of spaces down from me and sets the pink flamingos out front. I can hardly wait...Go barry.

wonderwhy

February 7, 2010 - 8:15 am EST

Ms. Debandi is a "union" a "citizen"? Just curious, what exactly constitutes the a "citizen" in order to be eligible to receive constitutional rights?

Sawdust

February 7, 2010 - 3:41 pm EST

You don't have to be a citizen during the reign of King Barack the Magnificent; any old Nigerian terrorist can have constitutional rights, just not the people who make the country work, and make it possible for the aforementioned terrorist to have a lawyer provided at no expense to him.

Mick

February 7, 2010 - 8:42 am EST

ding ding ding......... we have a winner

ghost from white oak

February 7, 2010 - 11:40 am EST

" Corporations are not the people, and nothing in the Constitution or any amendment thereto fairly lends itself to any such interpretation."

Maybe it's in the paragraph after your "right to guvmint health care", I'm not sure.

fishgutz

February 7, 2010 - 11:58 am EST

Prior to this decision, News corporations had first amendment rights and 90% used that right to push liberal democrats and the liberal agenda.
This ruling simply levels the playing field and that is why liberals attack upholding the constitution as "activism." When a hundred years of law and precedent are wrong, the court is right to overturn them. It is not making new law. Only congress has that authority.
The supreme court was wrong when it upheld slavery, sperate but equal and Jim Crowe laws. It was wrong when it declared that "public use" could be twisted to mean any indirect public benefit such as increased tax revenue to take property from one private party to give to another private party. That was "making law." But does Deb think that was "activism" by the justices?

hugh

February 7, 2010 - 2:45 pm EST

Golly gee Wally, Mrs. smith my English teacher says that if you write something that someone else has already written and turn it in as if is your own, that's called plagiarism.

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&client=firefox-a&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen...

neocon

February 7, 2010 - 3:11 pm EST

Go to the head of the class, hugh.

danagain

February 7, 2010 - 3:36 pm EST

Oooopppss, I thought the N&R checked for this. At least she used her real name. Maybe. Seriously.

oh good grief

February 7, 2010 - 3:41 pm EST

Whoa, not just a word or two or even one line -- the entire letter by Little Debbie is plagiarized. Now THAT takes "twinkies"!

Sawdust

February 7, 2010 - 3:44 pm EST

Maybe she is the infamous 'Ellie Light".

12next ›last »

eMail Updates

Learn More
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

Featured Ads

Search

Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us
Advertisement | Advertise with Us

News & Record Network Sites

User Tools

  • Social Networking
  • RSS
  • Share
  • Sign in to MyNR

Search