The Supreme Court Turns the First Amendment Into a Weapon for Corporations

[n2doc]

You still think the First Amendment exists to protect individual speech? Quaint. In the Roberts era, it exists to expand corporate power.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

— The First Amendment

In recent years, the Supreme Court under Chief Justice John Roberts has deliberately and dramatically expanded the power of corporations. But even more alarming is how the Roberts Court has advanced this agenda—by contorting and perverting the First Amendment. Under this Court, free speech has been equated with spending, advertising, and even data grabs for marketing purposes, expansive liberties that apply not only to human beings but to corporations, because the Court says they’re people, too.

Originally—and up until fairly recently—the First Amendment was understood to be a shield protecting individual liberty. But the Roberts Court seems increasingly intent on turning the First Amendment into a weapon against the American people, not to mention basic fairness and common sense.

Upon the convening of the 1787 Federal Convention, James Madison, author of the Bill of Rights, wrote that there was no greater challenge facing the new nation than “the aggressions of interested majorities on the rights of minorities and individuals.” The Bill of Rights, and especially the First Amendment, were intended to protect the powerless from the tyranny of the powerful.

more

http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2014/07/08/the-supreme-court-turns-the-first-amendment-into-a-weapon-for-corporations.html

[myrna minx]

1. K&R

[Viva_Daddy]

2. Remember worrying about computers or robots taking over society?

Turns out the real danger was and is Supreme Court infused CORPORATIONS.

[WillyT]

3. HUGE K & R !!! - Thank You !!!

[Uncle Joe]

4. Make no mistake about it, the Roberts Court is committed to furthering corporate supremacy over

the American People and our elected government, religion or speech are just their fig leafs.

They're trying to create a new form of feudalism with mega-corporations being powerful, autocratic Kings, Princes and Dukes to lord over the masses.

The only "In God we Trust" they believe in is stamped on Caesar's money, but the ultimate motivation is all about power and who they deem worthy of having it.

Thanks for the thread, n2doc.

[Jim Lane]

5. The linked article misrepresents the Hobby Lobby decision, which didn't involve the First Amendment.

There was a body of case law about determining whether any particular governmental action violated the Free Exercise Clause. In the 1990s, however, Congress (pandering to hysteria, IMO) decided that federal activities would have to respect claims of "religious liberty" to a greater extent than was required by the First Amendment. It therefore enacted the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

In Hobby Lobby, the litigants attacking the ACA's contraception-coverage mandate invoked both the RFRA and the First Amendment. The Court majority found in their favor on RFRA grounds and thus never considered the Free Exercise Clause. The majority opinion stated:

The contraceptive mandate, as applied to closely heldcorporations, violates RFRA. Our decision on that statutory question makes it unnecessary to reach the First Amendment claim.

In fact, the opinion analyzes the RFRA and concludes that Congress intended rights under the RFRA to be broader than those under the First Amendment.

The importance of this is that Congress could repeal or amend the RFRA. There's no Constitutional barrier to doing so. Harry Reid has already said that the Democrats will pursue that course. (The bill will die when the Republicans in the Senate filibuster it or those in the House refuse to even consider it, but it will be a useful campaign issue.)