Β  Β  Β  Β  Β  Β  Home | About | Donate

Now We Have a Judicial System Just for Corporations


#1

Now We Have a Judicial System Just for Corporations

David Morris

In the last 20 years the Supreme Court has created a parallel judicial system to resolve disputes involving corporations that is effectively run by the very corporations whose behavior is under investigation.

Here is how that judicial coup against an independent judiciary occurred.


#2

A good reminder that elections have consequences.


#3

This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.


#4

Rule by autocratic kings, dictators and juntas be damned... Rule By Corporations is the fascism of the future. Efficiency is the key. Efficiency of rule that is. When you cannot sue for redress, when even when you can manage to sue you are forced into a kafkaesque arbitration run around, when a state's or nation's laws are exempted from application (to corporations)... will we still call ourselves a free people?

The Constitution, the Bill of Rights and years of legal precedence as well as common law are being cast aside by corporations who would make for humanity a shackle albeit one that was subject to arbitration.

If you place yourself in the shoes of succeeding generations, you must wonder what they will think of us this generation who gave up so much so easily! We have a name - the Baby Boomers - and it will come to stand not just for a population surge after WW2 but will stand for the generation that created an economic boom era but then went bust as a free people while doing it.

Instead of more freedom we remove privacy, redress against the powerful and even simple justice and fairness for the little guy against the big guys. Privatized freedom is there... if you can afford it.

Where are we heading? We are heading to a place where the following generations will revile us for the weakness we showed in having been free and then allowed those same freedoms to be taken away from THEM. What we do we barely feel at the moment but the true weight of what we do will being a crushing burden for following generations. We actually take away their freedoms more than we do our own in effect.

We should all be ashamed that we betray our heritage. All of us! Even we who struggle to oppose it. We participate in one way or another. Best we fight harder and be proud that some of us remembered who America used to be or at least was supposed to be

Of the... By the ... For the... (***).

(***) - the use of the term 'people' is currently under legal arbitration and may not be used at this time.

Serfs up! Catch the wave!


#5

i've witnessed the creeping corporate coup throughout my life, and have noted the expansion of pro-corporate clauses in "terms of service agreements" including the requirement for arbitration, but have never seen this narrative about the evolution of arbitration and the role of the Supreme Court, as compiled by Morris in this article.

This is key to understanding the oppressive nature of the corporatacracy, and their generational tactics in expanding their literal control over our lives. Thanks David Morris for your diligent work!

All of us have a lot of diligent work cut our for us, if we are to retrieve our humanity from the tentacles of the corporatocracy.


#6

Why are we surprised at this court-friendly protection of the large corporations? It only makes sense under capitalism that laws would be enacted to provide legal sanctuary and protect the profits of the large corporations that rule our everyday lives.

This is capitalism and it is working exactly as it is intended ... to protect capital. Court Justice Louis Brandeis put it this way...

β€œWe can have democracy in this country or we can have great wealth in a few hands, but we can’t have both.”

-- Democracy and capitalism are not compatible.


#7

Much depends on how one defines democracy.

The MIC would probably like to define it as whatever countries that do as we tell them have, and not whatever countries that show independence have.

Our legislators would probably like to define it as whatever the USA currently has.

I am guessing that you would probably define it as rule by the masses. Clearly, if we have rule by the few, then we do not have rule by the masses.


#8

My cynical take is that "democracy" means submission to the US market-take-all ethic.


#9

That would be the definition of our legislators. Thats pretty much what we have now.


#10

Owl, that is a rather cheap shot to encourage voting "the lesser of two evils."


Dems ALWAYS allege that the makeup of the Supreme Court determines so much, that you MUST vote for them β€” always. And your comment does their bidding.
β€’ FACT IS, everything that the article described transpired without the "holier-than-thou" Democratic Party ever even MENTIONING or explaining the process that was weakening our judicial system and was putting it under attack, much less criticizing it.
β€” By NOT building an awareness and opposition to it, DEMS were connivant with the corporate goal of arbitration.
β€” They actively left their constituents ignorant of the process, preventing any type of resistance to it.


To later claim that putting THEM in power at the polls would "solve" this issue, begs the question.
β€” It totally ignores their corporate collusion over many decades and furthers their phony electoral Mythology.
β€’ ONLY with a people-empowering third party given access to the airwaves and polls, can we actually VOTE our way out of this. Electing Democrats a best slows down the process a bit. It does not stop it. Any other means would be less peaceful.


#11

I voted for Nader while living in Florida. A lot of good it did me in the long run.


#12

Good for you. So did I. Without regrets. But you miss the point.

A lot of good it would have done to vote for Gore then, too. Sadly, far more Florida Dems voted for W than for Nader. Besides, the election was stolen, first by Jeb then by SCOTUS, and THEN the Dems caved – each, an act of treason if you examine it closely.

They would not let Nader speak about important things such as this growing arbitration in the debates. We all lost with this. We passively accept this as "the rules." BS.

This is not about choosing from Column A or B one day every 4 years, and then not helping build solutions all the other 1459 days. That's what THEY want.

Especially if whoever wins now refuses to see, much less address the core problems, and YOU aren't even allowed to hear other views. Sounds like prison to me.

If the problems are serious – and they are – yet dismissed as non-existent by BOTH parties of the Duopoly (this arbitration, case in point), then VOTING is not & will not be enough.

Even if you feel you must vote for the lesser of two evils today, we need to spend time & energy supporting the coming together of folks to build the alternative and insist on their active participation in debates and more.

Or change will NOT happen at the polls.

WHO is now SUING to challenge the Debate Commission's control over WHO gets to speak? Libertarians and Greens, That's who. We deserve an equal playing field for all candidates that are on enough ballots to win – minimally. They have a right to be heard.

So this year, Bernie looks around, decides to run as a Dem. That party does EVERYTHING they can to ignore or silence his message, like lock in delegates, and holding few debates. Non-corporate positions are not acceptable by either duopoly party.

The support he receives from the public surprises them, and shows how very much the people long for, thirst for, other solutions. Real democracy which empowers and serves People. Now the DNC reacts almost like he is an enemy to be taken down by Hillary, their rules, or Biden.

THAT is the problem. Democracy is seen as an enemy by those on high. Only by bursting through can we ever hope to regain anything like it. The chances are slim enough.

We need TEN Naders or Sanders or Steins ... allied in a party that believes in & fights for their message.


#13

Exactly when will this happen? How many years will it take to create a viable third party? Seriously. In the last election the Green Party got less than 1% of the vote (a third of a percent actually). 161,000 people voted for the third party... that's it.


#14

No simple answer. It's more about HOW than WHEN.

It's been 15 YEARS, since the 2000 election with Nader. If all the folks who SAY they want a real democracy β€” fair wages, a single-payer healthcare system, a repaired infrastructure, good education for all, decent housing, fair election laws, preventing democracy-killing "trade laws" like TPP, justice, peace, etc. β€” actually Identified with one another, and Registered with the Greens, for example, which supports such policies, we would SEE the Growing registration & membership numbers publicly, and the tide might start to shift. You need a Vision, a platform, a visible Place To Go.

It cannot be inside any organization that attacks it (the Duopoly parties), or you will waste all energies fighting the wrong battles.

We must build this Place To Go, and migrate to it. As we DO, we can still vote as we wish, until there are enough folks & candidates to make the changes. The Sanders Effect makes it seem closer that we realize. It needs its own supportive party/coalition outside the Duopoly, though, to be independent and free to grow.

β€” see: http://switch2green.org


#15

I think it is more about when (after 15 years) than you think. But I agree with the need to build a party and I'm sure lots of people agree with that too ...so where is it? 15 years did not produce much progress did it?

I think that if Bernie gets in that a rubicon will have been crossed. The oligarchy's hold over politics (through money) will have cracked and maybe even have been shattered. People will see how an independent can win and my guess is that come future elections that the idea of a third party will seem more plausible to people because they saw that a 'third party' type independent candidate can win.

So if someday you want a Green Party to be the third party... vote for Bernie now and it might not take 15 more years for that to become real.


#16

No one is disputing past election results. Those are the undeniable facts. If third party candidates, however, had realistic access to the national debates, received the free-ride media exposure, and received the support of a major, duopoly party; they may actually have a chance of receiving a respectable number of votes.

That being said, basing the viability or validity of a third-party candidate (or third party) on the number of votes they previously received (or may potentially receive) reveals your desire to squash democratic choice by invalidating any candidate who has no chance at garnering a large number of votes against candidates running for office within the current two-party system.

Eliminating other progressive candidates from the electoral process with social domestic platforms similar to Senator Bernie Sanders eliminates the "competition" among voters that will be for voting for a progressive/socialistic agenda. Isn't that your intent; not having any potential of sharing (splitting) votes among other progressive/social candidates? It's about controlling and limiting choice among the electorate.

That is not democracy ... or at least any form of democracy I strive to attain and want to live under.

Most third parties view the races primarily as opportunities for educating the public about their platforms and about issues not being addressed by the Republican and Democratic Parties. Third party candidates have no illusions about their chances of actually winning a national, general election ... and this includes Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party.

Wereflea, I understand (and even admire) your passionate support for Senator Bernie Sanders. I, and some others, are not denying he is the most progressive candidate of those running under the limited two-party system. I am, however, disappointed in your intolerance, mockery and ridicule of posters who support third parties and/or third party candidates.

Under a true democracy, all voices, political platforms and ideas are encouraged and needed ... even those that some (or even most) may not agree with.


#17

Excuse me. I believe that you are speaking of the nominee for president...oops... um? Did Bernie win the nomination yet? Was I napping and missed something. Damn that Rip Van Winkle and his "a few beers and some bowling". I absolutely agree with the premise that third party candidates should participate but wait... um... I thought a nomination was for a party's candidate not the general election? I guess I was wrong.

I was thinking that it was important for the most progressive candidate who shares far more of the same progressive programs as does Stein win the democratic nomination. I guess I was wrong huh? It seems that third party people would rather Hillary win the nomination and then they can achieve their aims for a third party that way? Frankly I admit I haven't figured out their reasoning though.

I mean it still seems like they don't want to support a progressive candidate like Bernie because he isn't their progressive candidate. They admit Stein can't win but yet they don't want the other progressive candidate to win the nomination. Odd that wouldn't you say? Conspicuously odd actually.

So it's no progressive except their progressive even if their progressive can't win.

Okay got it.

So how's Hillary's foreign policy? Is that progressive enough for you guys? Just asking.


#18

I recommend the following book to you, Wereflea:

It totally supports your belief that candidates on the left need to run under the umbrella of the Democratic Party and he provides reasoning for this position.

Though I do not agree with his position, this a good book to read for those who subscribe to this theory.


#19

Thanks for the recommendation. It hardly just my belief but one that I share with many others. The reality is that the two party system is not just about electing a president. It extends all the way down to the local neighborhood level. It certainly has its flaws and a third party would be a plus in my view but where is this third party in the years in between the presidential elections?

Many Americans voted for Nader who should have bowed out before election day. That was an egotistical fantasy on his part which he opted to pursue rather than help oppose GW Bush. Americans got their fingers burned on touching a third party after that. In a sense Nader's staying in till the end made Americans leery of supporting a third party because it was disastrous for everyone. In effect third party politics left us with a bad taste in the mouth. Almost like we were set up. Nader is too ethical for that to be true but he made a huge mistake pursuing the grail to the end when even he knew it was way beyond his reach.