Is Obama's Supreme Court appointee's sexuality an issue?

[Guest]

Is Obama's new Supreme Court appointee gay?
Does it matter?
If it doesn't; why all the secrecy?
What do you think?

Here's a story by Andrew Sullivan, the same man who made Sarah Palin's life miserable by investigating her son Trig's parentage; so he no rightie.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/is-the-media-about-to-get-personal-over-kagans-sexuality-thanks-to-andrew-sullivan/

[Guest]

Is Obama's new Supreme Court appointee gay?
Does it matter?
If it doesn't; why all the secrecy?
What do you think?

Here's a story by Andrew Sullivan, the same man who made Sarah Palin's life miserable by investigating her son Trig's parentage; so he no rightie.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/is-the-media-about-to-get-personal-over-kagans-sexuality-thanks-to-andrew-sullivan/

It matters, only if sfe is an activist.

Yoda

[Guest]

why would it matter about Kagan?
To each his/her own....for their private (no pun intended) choice(s)....as well as each to their own opinion about it.

btk

[Guest]

why would it matter about Kagan?
To each his/her own....for their private (no pun intended) choice(s)....as well as each to their own opinion about it.

btk

OK; but then why all the secrecy?

[Guest]

OK; but then why all the secrecy?

This is the hardest part about a smear....has she been asked directly, if so how has she answered? I really don't know because I haven't researched this but it makes no never mind to me. But 1 blogger started this, true or not, and now Why all the secrecy?

It has been said that "A lie is half way around the world before the truth has time to put its shoes on."

[Guest]

This is the hardest part about a smear....has she been asked directly, if so how has she answered? I really don't know because I haven't researched this but it makes no never mind to me. But 1 blogger started this, true or not, and now Why all the secrecy?

It has been said that "A lie is half way around the world before the truth has time to put its shoes on."

Why do you classify the question as a "smear".

[Guest]

Is Obama's new Supreme Court appointee gay?
Does it matter?
If it doesn't; why all the secrecy?
What do you think?

Here's a story by Andrew Sullivan, the same man who made Sarah Palin's life miserable by investigating her son Trig's parentage; so he no rightie.

http://www.mediaite.com/online/is-the-media-about-to-get-personal-over-kagans-sexuality-thanks-to-andrew-sullivan/

I think it matters significantly. The Supreme Court will be called on to make decisions on same-sex marriages. The court needs to look at this with clear heads and not be influenced by a member with an agenda.

[Guest]

I doubt if the SCOTUS justices being heterosexual influence their decisions in any way. Why should it be any different for a gay/lesbian justice unless as some other poster wrote-- an activist is involved? Kagan does not show up in any gay/lesbian activist searches that I have seen.

I do question her ability to get past Obama's shadow as she seems so much of an Obama political player.

[Guest]

I doubt if the SCOTUS justices being heterosexual influence their decisions in any way. Why should it be any different for a gay/lesbian justice unless as some other poster wrote-- an activist is involved? Kagan does not show up in any gay/lesbian activist searches that I have seen.

I do question her ability to get past Obama's shadow as she seems so much of an Obama political player.

Once she is on the bench the shackles will be removed and sexual identity will be moot. She is activist orientated as when she went after the military for their "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policies.
Obama, who has little , if any, private sector experience, always has a political agenda. He did not pick her name out of a hat.

[Guest]

Why do you classify the question as a "smear".

While I don't consider someone's sexuality any problem....historically accusing someone of being gay or outing them has been a blood sport. But I think you probably know that. Most of that is changing as the younger generations start to take over.

What was the purpose of the blogger posting that Kagen was gay? Why did you ask if it was important but why did you speculate about the "secrecy"?

If she isn't then it isn't a secret!

[Guest]

Aren't there more important issues at stake than someone's sexuality?

[Guest]

Aren't there more important issues at stake than someone's sexuality?

Well, maybe to you or maybe to me, there are more important issues but to millions of people it is definitely a big deal. I am not going to delve into people's beliefs or people's religion, but that is just a fact of life.

[Guest]

This is the hardest part about a smear....has she been asked directly, if so how has she answered? I really don't know because I haven't researched this but it makes no never mind to me. But 1 blogger started this, true or not, and now Why all the secrecy?

It has been said that "A lie is half way around the world before the truth has time to put its shoes on."

OK; let's get it in the open. Donna is trying to answer this and as usual I mostly agree with her take on an issue, but what intriguing me is that when a fact is hidden it is usually for a reason.
Reporters are now trying to determine her sexuality because it is not evident. Mayor Koch in NY went through the same scenario.

I just think that a Supreme Court Justice that is going to be deciding issues that will impact the American people for generations should not be concealing anything. We have a right to know every aspect of this person.
If anything is being concealed about a candidate I suspect a hidden agenda that would be revealed if that secret came out.

What is this hidden agenda? I don't want to find out too late to do anything about it, but that's probably going to happen.

[Guest]

I heard today that the Obama regime is not going to divulge her sexual preferences because they are baiting the republicans.

They are waiting patiently for the republicans to say something or out her about her preferences so that Obama can pounce on that and gain sympathy for her to make the confirmation process easier for her.

Baiting is one of the oldest tricks in the book. Hopefully the Republicans will not fall for it.

[Guest]

Hey, isn't this the transparent president. The one who said everything will be done in the open. If you believe that I have some swamp land for sale. LOL

[Guest]

I think it matters significantly. The Supreme Court will be called on to make decisions on same-sex marriages. The court needs to look at this with clear heads and not be influenced by a member with an agenda.

Donna....if you were to do some research on this issue I trust you find that highly closeted gays have been the most vocal anti-gay. They have to be or else risk being outed. Just in the past few years several closeted politicians have been outed and when their voting record was rabid anti-gay.

[Guest]

Donna....if you were to do some research on this issue I trust you find that highly closeted gays have been the most vocal anti-gay. They have to be or else risk being outed. Just in the past few years several closeted politicians have been outed and when their voting record was rabid anti-gay.

I am sure you would agree that a rabid anti-gay person is unfair to gay people and therefore should recuse themselves from voting on gay issues.
You probably then would agree that this would only work if we knew the sexual preferences of the Judge in advance. Otherwise the system would not work.

[Guest]

OK; let's get it in the open. Donna is trying to answer this and as usual I mostly agree with her take on an issue, but what intriguing me is that when a fact is hidden it is usually for a reason.
Reporters are now trying to determine her sexuality because it is not evident. Mayor Koch in NY went through the same scenario.

I just think that a Supreme Court Justice that is going to be deciding issues that will impact the American people for generations should not be concealing anything. We have a right to know every aspect of this person.
If anything is being concealed about a candidate I suspect a hidden agenda that would be revealed if that secret came out.

What is this hidden agenda? I don't want to find out too late to do anything about it, but that's probably going to happen.

I am really confused now.....It has been reported that the White House asked her and she said she was straight. She dated men in college.


This is just a crazy statement....

Reporters are now trying to determine her sexuality because it is not evident.

She isn't married...that does not make her gay. It makes her NOT married thats all.

Prove that she is gay....find her partner or a former partner. Or give it up.

[Guest]

I am sure you would agree that a rabid anti-gay person is unfair to gay people and therefore should recuse themselves from voting on gay issues.
You probably then would agree that this would only work if we knew the sexual preferences of the Judge in advance. Otherwise the system would not work.

I would suggest you do know the sexual perference of this person. She says that she is straight her friends say that she is straight. She is an unmarried woman....I had at least 3 aunts who were unmarried. None were gay. Just unmarried. They used to be called Old maids.

[Guest]

I would suggest you do know the sexual perference of this person. She says that she is straight her friends say that she is straight. She is an unmarried woman....I had at least 3 aunts who were unmarried. None were gay. Just unmarried. They used to be called Old maids.

How much you want to bet that she is a gay woman?

[Guest]

as one of the silliest discussions I've read on this board. Traditionally, the President nominated someone who he felt was a highly capable jurist, and if the Senate agreed with that assessment, the individual was confirmed.

This tradition continued until 1987, when Judge Robert Bork's nomination was rejected by the Senate because he believed the role of the Judiciary was to see that the constitution was upheld and that Judges should exercise judicial restraint and avoid legislating from the bench. Since that time, judges are being evaluated, not on their competence but rather by their political philosophy - liberal meaning that the Constitution is a 'living' document and the words be changed to fit the needs of society; or conservative, those that believe the Constitution was written in clear English and that changes to it should come from the legislative branch of government. I do not know nor do I care about Ms. Kagan's views in this matter. The lady is clearly qualified and should be quickly confirmed by the United States Senate.

Her sexual orientation is none of our business and bringing into the discussion is 'yellow journalism' at its worst! Every person has views on specific subjects that they may wish to see changed; however I hope we all realize Robert Bork's wisdom when he said, "The truth is that the judge who looks outside the Constitution always looks inside himself and nowhere else."

[Guest]

If Harriet Meirs wasn't qualified, why is this person qualified? They have basically the same references.

[Guest]

BBQ man, I'm with you! hahaha! This entire thread is hysterical! :1rotfl:

It would be beyond hysterical, if it wasn't so sad. Do some of you even think about what you write. Recuse herself if she's gay. Seriously??? Obama always has a political agenda? hahaha! HE'S THE PRESIDENT! Ya think?

Here's how it will go down. Whether she's gay, a spinster, or a liberated woman that doesn't need a man in her life... she will be confirmed. Deal with it.

I just love reading the stuff in here! :popcorn:

BTW, is Clarence Thomas still searching for pubic hairs in his coke can??? :laugh:

[Guest]

BBQ man, I'm with you! hahaha! This entire thread is hysterical! :1rotfl:

It would be beyond hysterical, if it wasn't so sad. Do some of you even think about what you write. Recuse herself if she's gay. Seriously??? Obama always has a political agenda? hahaha! HE'S THE PRESIDENT! Ya think?

Here's how it will go down. Whether she's gay, a spinster, or a liberated woman that doesn't need a man in her life... she will be confirmed. Deal with it.

I just love reading the stuff in here! :popcorn:

BTW, is Clarence Thomas still searching for pubic hairs in his coke can??? :laugh:

Well, I'm glad that us "sad people" give you a laugh. We must be like the jokers that the Kings and the "high and mighty", keep around for laughs.

Oops, must go now, the queen needs to be cheered up.:a20:

Have you heard about that high horse they used to talk about?


"Ridicule is man's most potent weapon"
--Saul Alinsky-Marxist, Obama mentor

[Guest]

How much you want to bet that she is a gay woman?

If you don't have any proof....GIVE IT UP.

[Guest]

If you don't have any proof....GIVE IT UP.

Just a friendly wager. She will "come out of the closet" after she is confirmed. What say you?

[Guest]

Just a friendly wager. She will "come out of the closet" after she is confirmed. What say you?

You are on!

[Guest]

You are on!

OK. Do you want a time limit? I say she will come out within 2 years. The first few months will be getting her feet wet and getting up to snuff. After the dust settles and she is all caught-up, she will let her guard down.

[Guest]

What if she "bats from both sides of the plate"? :)

[Guest]

Again and again in these political posts when a serious discussion is taking place and the "liberal" doesn't like the issue or has "nothing" of value to rebut with; the tactic is to ridicule the questioner or the issue.

[Guest]

Once she is on the bench the shackles will be removed and sexual identity will be moot. She is activist orientated as when she went after the military for their "Don't Ask Don't Tell" policies.
Obama, who has little , if any, private sector experience, always has a political agenda. He did not pick her name out of a hat.

Do you think that Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are not activist justices? Give me a break.

[Guest]

Do you think that Roberts, Scalia, Alito and Thomas are not activist justices? Give me a break.

One example, please, of any of them writing law instead of upholding the Constitution. I'm retired, I can wait for the answer.

[Guest]

Don't hold your breath waiting, RichieLion. We don't want to lose you.

[Guest]

One example, please, of any of them writing law instead of upholding the Constitution. I'm retired, I can wait for the answer.

Citizen's United

[Guest]

Citizen's United

Really? The Supreme Court in this case overturned the illegal restricting of free speech guaranteed by by the First Amendment of the Constitution and you call this "judicial activism"? Oh please!!! Come up with a better answer than that.

Oh, and in addition; this decision was authored by Justice Kennedy; so your answer, besides being wrong on the face of it, was not authored by one of the four "conservative justices" named by Saratoga.

[Guest]

Really? The Supreme Court in this case overturned the illegal restricting of free speech guaranteed by by the First Amendment of the Constitution and you call this "judicial activism"? Oh please!!! Come up with a better answer than that.

Oh, and in addition; this decision was authored by Justice Kennedy; so your answer, besides being wrong on the face of it, was not authored by one of the four "conservative justices" named by Saratoga.

Since when is a Corporation a person with free speech?

[Guest]

Since when is a Corporation a person with free speech?

I hope the following definition of a corporation clears this up for you Cologal. In any event the decision was written by Justice Kennedy. Try to find one written by Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas to rebut the original point. You're in left field here.

"What Does Corporation Mean?
A legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes.

The most important aspect of a corporation is limited liability. That is, shareholders have the right to participate in the profits, through dividends and/or the appreciation of stock, but are not held personally liable for the company's debts."

[Guest]

I hope the following definition of a corporation clears this up for you Cologal. In any event the decision was written by Justice Kennedy. Try to find one written by Scalia, Roberts, Alito or Thomas to rebut the original point. You're in left field here.

"What Does Corporation Mean?
A legal entity that is separate and distinct from its owners. Corporations enjoy most of the rights and responsibilities that an individual possesses; that is, a corporation has the right to enter into contracts, loan and borrow money, sue and be sued, hire employees, own assets and pay taxes.

The most important aspect of a corporation is limited liability. That is, shareholders have the right to participate in the profits, through dividends and/or the appreciation of stock, but are not held personally liable for the company's debts."

I guess that judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder. I see the Citizens United case given corporations overwhelming say in politics. If you don't like that case perhaps the equal pay case that this court overturned saying the woman had to file within 18 months.

[Guest]

I guess that judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder. I see the Citizens United case given corporations overwhelming say in politics. If you don't like that case perhaps the equal pay case that this court overturned saying the woman had to file within 18 months.

You made my point Cologal. Thank You!!! The Supreme Court, by law, can not view an issue except by how it complies with the Constitution. There is no room for "eye of the beholder". The law is the law Cologal. If the law is flawed, as you seem to think so, it has to be changed by the House and the Senate in accordance to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no role in the making of law. When it does it's unConstitutional.

Also, again, the case you cite was written by Justice Kennedy. Usually he's one of "yours".

[Guest]

You made my point Cologal. Thank You!!! The Supreme Court, by law, can not view an issue except by how it complies with the Constitution. There is no room for "eye of the beholder". The law is the law Cologal. If the law is flawed, as you seem to think so, it has to be changed by the House and the Senate in accordance to the Constitution. The Supreme Court has no role in the making of law. When it does it's unConstitutional.

Also, again, the case you cite was written by Justice Kennedy. Usually he's one of "yours".

The law is subject to interpretation that's how we come to have your and mine as you say. I said judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder.

Somewhere something says " We the people" not "We the corporations"

[Guest]

The law is subject to interpretation that's how we come to have your and mine as you say. I said judicial activism is in the eye of the beholder.

Somewhere something says " We the people" not "We the corporations"

I gave you the definition of a corporation and If you choose to ignore the fact of it there is nothing else to say to someone whose mind is made up in spite of facts. (Also, again, again, and again; the brief was written by Kennedy and is thereby invalid as an answer to the original question.)

[Guest]

I gave you the definition of a corporation and If you choose to ignore the fact of it there is nothing else to say to someone whose mind is made up in spite of facts. (Also, again, again, and again; the brief was written by Kennedy and is thereby invalid as an answer to the original question.)

I find your response laughable.....

[Guest]

I find your response laughable.....

Why? Because it is factual and an honest reading of the law, or do you believe that this should not be a nation of laws?

[Guest]

I find your response laughable.....


Curious exactly what is FUNNY ??????

[Guest]

I find your response laughable.....

Great comeback.

[Guest]

Why? Because it is factual and an honest reading of the law, or do you believe that this should not be a nation of laws?

Sure thats it....I think we should do away with all laws.

[Guest]

I keep telling myself: "Don't respond to any post by Cologal".

Then I respond because the posts make me mad.

I respond even tho Cologal will never accept the facts and responds to them with the most insulting comments.

[Guest]

I keep telling myself: "Don't respond to any post by Cologal".

Then I respond because the posts make me mad.

I respond even tho Cologal will never accept the facts and responds to them with the most insulting comments.

Why would anyone ask this question:

do you believe that this should not be a nation of laws? It deserved the flippant answer it got.

Why is it that only your comments or explanations are facts? I post something and it gets dismissed as liberal hate speech. I ask for some one to point out the hate speech....nothing.

In this case the poster said because Justice Kennedy wrote the opinion my argument was wrong I guess because Kennedy sometimes leans left. But I am still entitled to my opinion as you are to yours.

[Guest]

Curious exactly what is FUNNY ??????

He gave me a definition of a corporation and Kennedy wrote the opinion so my argument is wrong.


That was what was funny.

[Guest]

And why insult the many lesbian women who live in The Villages?
You do your thing (or not!), they do their thing. The nominee is to be judged on her credentials and acumen...not some speculative gossip or how much she weighs or where she went to school or what shoes she wears (the Pope has been criticized for his shoes!). Get a grip...get a life.

[Guest]

If Harriet Meirs wasn't qualified, why is this person qualified? They have basically the same references.

Surely you jest...Meirs was so unfit for the position that even Bush's Republican friends in Congress opposed her. That's why the nomination was withdrawn.
There's no comparison. The nominee has argued before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General so she knows the court very well.

[Guest]

He gave me a definition of a corporation and Kennedy wrote the opinion so my argument is wrong.


That was what was funny.

I'll try to explain this to you one more time Cologal. Saratogaman said in response to me; basically ("You don't think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito are judicial activists; give me a break!!").

So; I said "Name one of their rulings that makes new law instead of interpretation"; in so many words.

No one has come up with a ruling crafted by any of them to dispute me and the case you noted, although I think it still is not making new law, is not a ruling by the 4 named justices.

I hope this clears this up for you. Not funny anymore, huh?

[Guest]

I'll try to explain this to you one more time Cologal. Saratogaman said in response to me; basically ("You don't think Scalia, Thomas, Roberts or Alito are judicial activists; give me a break!!").

So; I said "Name one of their rulings that makes new law instead of interpretation"; in so many words.

No one has come up with a ruling crafted by any of them to dispute me and the case you noted, although I think it still is not making new law, is not a ruling by the 4 named justices.

I hope this clears this up for you. Not funny anymore, huh?

I believe that they are judicial activists... just as many right wing people see the liberals on the court a jugical activists. The activist part is in the eye of the beholder. On this we will have agree to disagree.

[Guest]

Surely you jest...Meirs was so unfit for the position that even Bush's Republican friends in Congress opposed her. That's why the nomination was withdrawn.
There's no comparison. The nominee has argued before the Supreme Court as Solicitor General so she knows the court very well.

This is exactly the same as the Harriet Meirs nomination. A person with no judicial experience is being nominated for the highest court in the land.

The difference is that, in general and in the case of Harriet Meirs, is that the Republicans were more true to their values than Democrats. Republicans saw an inexperienced candidate and balked at confirming that candidate. The Democrats know Kagan is unqualified but they're a bunch of rubber-stamping, valueless, kool-aid drinking sycophants of the Obama Regime.

[Guest]

That's spin, pure and simple. The recent decision to allow corporations and unions to give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns -- previously limited by law -- is judicial activism. Period.

[Guest]

That's spin, pure and simple. The recent decision to allow corporations and unions to give unlimited amounts of money to political campaigns -- previously limited by law -- is judicial activism. Period.

No, in actuality, this ruling overturned bad law prohibited by the Constitution, and I can't believe that you are even ignoring the original point of the question, when you were the one who started it.

[Guest]

I believe that they are judicial activists... just as many right wing people see the liberals on the court a jugical activists. The activist part is in the eye of the beholder. On this we will have agree to disagree.

No, activism is not in the eye of the beholder.

Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court makes law with a fanciful reading of supposed intent of the Constitution.

Your view of Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court does not agree with a view of yours.

[Guest]

No, activism is not in the eye of the beholder.

Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court makes law with a fanciful reading of supposed intent of the Constitution.

Your view of Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court does not agree with a view of yours.

Then who decides what is fanciful? See it is in the eye of the beholder what you may see as a fanciful reading I may see as a strict interruption.


Thanks I am glad we got to that point.

[Guest]

Then who decides what is fanciful? See it is in the eye of the beholder what you may see as a fanciful reading I may see as a strict interruption.


Thanks I am glad we got to that point.

Fanciful is when you try to use a decision to deprive a person of his rights under the Constitution by inventing a reason to deprive someone of those rights. When a decision is made which restores these Constitutional rights, such as in the overturning of an ill conceived law in the case previously mentioned, how can that be called fanciful?

[Guest]

I gave you the definition of a corporation and If you choose to ignore the fact of it there is nothing else to say to someone whose mind is made up in spite of facts. (Also, again, again, and again; the brief was written by Kennedy and is thereby invalid as an answer to the original question.)

Clearly, your mind is made up and I will not waste my time by confusing you with the facts. Your postings shed no light, show no interest in learning what and why others think the way they do. Tell us why there may be room for dialogue...how we may learn from you and how you may learn from us. Do you want to dialogue or pontificate?
If the former, I'm open; if the latter, I'm not interested and unimpressed.

[Guest]

Again and again in these political posts when a serious discussion is taking place and the "liberal" doesn't like the issue or has "nothing" of value to rebut with; the tactic is to ridicule the questioner or the issue.

As does the self-anointed conservative or alleged constitutional whoopdedoo.
Bias is okay, if you can build a case for your point of view. Resorting to labels conveys no information; continuing to parrot nonsense of others convinces no one.
Give us some salient, provable facts or we will pay no attention to diatribes, talking points and utter nonsense.
It's an imperfect world, we have in imperfect government system, but allow for open discussion and efforts to move forward. If you want to knock who got elected, just remember they did get elected. Somebody won, somebody lost.
Limbaugh, Maddow, Hannity, Savage, Olberman, et al did not get elected. They make millions but produce nothing.
What have you added to the dialogue...and the nation?

[Guest]

No, activism is not in the eye of the beholder.

Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court makes law by its decisions with a fanciful reading of supposed or alleged intent of the Constitution nx its authors...when there is nothing in the written document to support the point.

Your view of Judicial Activism is when the Supreme Court does not agree with a view of yours.

Please quote chapter and verse from the Constitution that gives corporations and unions equal standing with individuals...people...and are guaranteed unlimited ability to influences elections with unlimited contributions.

How can a strict constructionist support that decision and say it was not judicial activism?

[Guest]

Fanciful is when you try to use a decision to deprive a person of his rights under the Constitution by inventing a reason to deprive someone of those rights. When a decision is made which restores these Constitutional rights, such as in the overturning of an ill conceived law in the case previously mentioned, how can that be called fanciful?

At least one constitutional scholar saw it another way. Again no where in the constitution are corporations given the rights of citizens.

[Guest]

At least one constitutional scholar saw it another way. Again no where in the constitution are corporations given the rights of citizens.

Freedom of speech is a Constitutional Right. The Supreme Court has ruled that contributing money to the candidate of you choice who espouses your ideals, and in effect is speaking for you, is akin to free speech.

Did you complain when the Supreme Court decided that burning our American Flag was free speech?

Also again, I am vindicated because you still haven't come up with a ruling by the four conservative justices that started this discussion.

[Guest]

As does the self-anointed conservative or alleged constitutional whoopdedoo.
Bias is okay, if you can build a case for your point of view. Resorting to labels conveys no information; continuing to parrot nonsense of others convinces no one.
Give us some salient, provable facts or we will pay no attention to diatribes, talking points and utter nonsense.
It's an imperfect world, we have in imperfect government system, but allow for open discussion and efforts to move forward. If you want to knock who got elected, just remember they did get elected. Somebody won, somebody lost.
Limbaugh, Maddow, Hannity, Savage, Olberman, et al did not get elected. They make millions but produce nothing.
What have you added to the dialogue...and the nation?

You're hilarious!!! Thanks for the laughs.

You proved my point by writing an entire diatribe attacking me personally.

By the way; you don't know me and you have now idea what I might or might not have done to contribute to our nation. You have to calm down and just use your intellect and not your anger.

[Guest]

At least one constitutional scholar saw it another way. Again no where in the constitution are corporations given the rights of citizens.

Read the 14th amendment

Check with Wikipedia

Try :corporation rights under the constitution.

Just stay away from Liberal spin sources.