This is what happens when we lose POTUS elections to the GOP. They stack the court with justices who are beholden to the interests of the GOP namely, the fat cats. The time has long past that we take all contributions out of the elections process and fund elections through the taxpayers.

What can WE do to fight this? There MUST be something???

Also, as a side note in reference to Massachusetts, if the people are so angry with "politics as usual" why don't we really SHOW them how that even with losing that 1 seat, the "party of no" is working hard to KEEP things from getting done...ANTHING, no matter HOW hard we try to "work with the" (in other words SHOW the people that while they "hate us" it's not our fault that we aren't getting any cooperation) and that it is NOT the democrats...put it ALL out in the open...I swear, the right is SO ignorant...

If our president and our congress don't wake up to the fact that the R's are ruthless and will do anything to undermine real progressive reform in this country, the American people may put the party of NO back in power. Then where will we be. We must get tough and even with only 59 votes to stop a filibuster, a lot can get done. Let the R's filibuster; then maybe the people will wake up to the fact that we are being taken advantage of by the corporations. This Supreme Court ruling is just another step to take true democracy away from the common man. Write your representatives and yell at them for not having the will to take it to the enemy.

THE EXECUTIVE CHECKS ON THE SUPREME COURT:

I have an American Government/Political Science college textbook that describes how the Supreme Court simply does not have any enforcement powers. The book gives an example of President Andrew Jackson once responding to an unpopular Supreme Court decision by saying “Chief Justice John Marshall made his decision, now let him enforce it.”

The text notes that the Supreme Court simply does not have any ‘Judicial Implementation’: Defined as the way in which Court decisions are translated into action.

Executives at the State level also have a right to refuse implementation of Supreme Court decisions with which they disagree.

(So, I want the Republican leaders against this decision to know, that under the law, the Republican National Committee, as well, is not obliged to enforce or accept this decision. It is important for the Democratic National Committee to note that for its political interest, as well.)

The Supreme Court exercises restraint, by doctrine and practice, to hear only decisions that are a ‘Justifiable Dispute’. Defined as a dispute that raises question about the law and that is appropriate for resolution before a Court of Law, where ‘hypothetical’ questions are not justifiable cases.

(So I, myself, would define the Supreme Court ruling that a corporation is equal to a human being and having the same rights as an American Citizen in America as a ‘hypothetical’ question, would not you?)

Therefore, I see the Supreme Court as going ‘way over’ its Jurisdiction to even look at this case, where it is also inappropriate for the Supreme Court to rule over a ‘political question’. The Supreme Court is obliged, under restraint, to let other ‘elected’ branches of government make the decisions about political questions.

In the meanwhile, I would be careful about ‘implying’ that corporations are as ‘one United States Citizen’ and have the same rights, when their paying some people 50 cents an hour overseas, where they could then, receive the same punishments as Citizen’s, and be charged with slavery. How about punishing a corporation, as if they were a Citizen, like in Russia, where if corporations break the law, the government makes a hostile takeover and takes their money. Do any of us really want to go there?

Did you all notice it is the Republican leaders out there cheering this decision? NOW, they do not need to try and cover up nor explain their corporate donations. It finally will pay off---the Republican's fight to make sure corporations do not need to curb emissions, they do not need to be regulated, they have no competition in selling drugs at the highest prices, they can take their jobs and their money off shore with no penalty, etc, etc. How did that ole 'trickle down' theory work out, btw?

This reminds me of the 2000 election handed over to Bush by this same establishment. If it does not scare you, that this body needs to be more balanced so that the American people get a fair shake, then you are not paying attention. In the future, do not think it is you that is helping choose and elect candidates, it will be these Corporations flooding the pockets of the candidate that THEY want, the one who will do the most for them! It is the beginning of the end for America as we knew it.

Hope4U,

You are right, ‘Judicial Implementation’, the ways Court decisions are translated into policy, when it comes to Supreme Court decisions, is up to the other two branches of government on whether they will enforce or accept the decision.

Rarely, does a President not give Supreme Court decisions weight, but it has happened, and once with a State refusing to enforce a Supreme Court decision. I am so glad that, in this instance, President Obama is not going along with this recent decision on campaign finance.

However, it is ‘Justiciable Disputes’, not ‘Justifiable Disputes’ as you said, where the Supreme Court is not suppose to listen to hypothetical cases. A political party must have something tangible at stake before the Supreme Court will listen to a case between parties.

Therefore, it will be very interesting to see how our White House Lawyers, including Mr. Obama, responds in public to this.

New York Times, Top Story, 24 States’ Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling Published: January 22, 2010:

The ‘Times reports, “Montana is one of the states that will probably be affected. It has one of the nation’s oldest campaign finance laws, approved by voters in 1912 after a copper baron, William A. Clark of Butte, bribed members of the State Legislature to get a United States Senate seat….

Chris Gallus, a former lobbyist and a lawyer who represents business interests in Montana, said his clients would most likely challenge the statute if it were not stricken.”
------------
(Regardless of the fear that corporations ‘might’ take States to Court over the decision, States and Legislators, Federal and State, do not have to enforce this decision with time, money and funding and States can assert that they will abide by their current Laws on Campaign Finance. Supreme Court decisions do not have enforcement powers, their selves, in our Constitution without our ‘elected’ Legislative and/or Executive Branches deciding if they will join the decision. That is the check on the Supreme Court’s power.)

Come on, Law Professors! Join the conversation, will you? Send your OP-ED’s off and your letters to the media and your State Representatives!

New York Times, Top Story, 24 States’ Laws Open to Attack After Campaign Finance Ruling Published: January 22, 2010:

The ‘Times reports, “Montana is one of the states that will probably be affected. It has one of the nation’s oldest campaign finance laws, approved by voters in 1912 after a copper baron, William A. Clark of Butte, bribed members of the State Legislature to get a United States Senate seat….

Chris Gallus, a former lobbyist and a lawyer who represents business interests in Montana, said his clients would most likely challenge the statute if it were not stricken.”
------------
(Regardless of the fear that corporations ‘might’ take States to Court over the decision, States and Legislators, Federal and State, do not have to enforce this decision with time, money and funding and States can assert that they will abide by their current Laws on Campaign Finance. Supreme Court decisions do not have enforcement powers, their selves, in our Constitution without our ‘elected’ Legislative and/or Executive Branches deciding if they will join the decision. That is the check on the Supreme Court’s power.)

Come on, Law Professors! Join the conversation, will you? Send your OP-ED’s off and your letters to the media and your State Representatives!

The DNC needs to change their title from "Kicking Ass" to getting your Ass Kicked by the RePUGS. I have not seen or heard a word about those crooks trying TO wiretap one of you all Senator phones...DUH... what is your problems, If this was reverse with 4 Democrat guys trying to wiretap a RePUG office, Micheal Steal and the rest of those crooks would be all over the TV shouting this is a terrorist act and be calling for their heads to be on somebody chopping block. BUT..Nooo you mealy-mouths Dummies just sit back and say nothing. It is good to be gentle at times but damn, can't you shout out for the wrongness carrying on in the other party? or, are you all just a bunch of scaddycats with your tail not tuck between your legs but over your back waiting for the REPUGS can keep KICKING YOUR ASSES. PLEASE SAY SOMETHING ABOUT THIS TERRORISTIC ACT if you are not afraid of the REPUGs.

Republicans HOWL when civil rights for PEOPLE are "expanded" by "activist" judges, but when Republican justices FIND constitutional rights for CORPORATIONS! they applaud. The First Amendment in no way applies to corporate entities. Shameful.