Meta
-
Recent Posts
Recent Comments
Tag Archives: U.S. Supreme Court
Money as "free speech": Colbert, Maddow, & me
Commentary from Stephen Colbert & Rachel Maddow on the disastrous Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FED — & my own observations on how the Republican Party has become just as psychopathic as corporations. Continue reading
Posted in Polis
Tagged Citizens United v. FEC, corporations, Daughter Number Three (blog), democracy, Democratic Party, free speech, good government bad government, health care reform, political parties, psychopathy, Rachel Maddow, Republican Party, The Colbert Report (TV), U.S. Supreme Court
2 Comments
Toward a 28th Amendment: Corporations are not human persons
Sign the Motion to Amend: part of the Campaign to Legalize Democracy’s campaign to amend the U.S. Constitution to abolish corporate personhood. It’s time to take democracy back.
Government by psychopathy
The U.S. Supreme Court’s ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission had granted the fake-persons known as corporations vast new powers of “free speech” by which to further corrupt American democracy.
Posted in Polis
Tagged Alaska Psychiatric Institute (API), Citizens United v. FEC, corporations, diabetes, Eli Lilly, Exxon, Exxon Valdez, free speech, GMO (genetically modified organisms & foods), good government bad government, Haiti, Jim Gottstein, Joel Bakan, Monsanto, natural disasters, psychiatric drugs, psychiatry, psychopathy, Shaun of the Dead (movie), The Corporation (book and film), U.S. Supreme Court, zombies, Zyprexa
1 Comment
The Daily Tweets, 2010-01-22: U.S. Supreme Court sells out democracy to highest corporate bidders
The news that greeted me this morning: the U.S. Supreme Court’s 5-4 activist decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which further extended the legal fiction that corporations are “persons” by granting their extremely deep special interest pockets pretty … Continue reading
No, Debbie, Title VII does NOT prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in employment. Hello?
Wishing doesn’t make it so: despite Anchorage Assembly Chair Debbie Ossiander’s contention that Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers sexual orientation discrimination, federal case law consistently shows that it does not. Here’s more proof, with a recent 3rd Circuit Court of Appeals case which found that an effeminate gay man in Pennsylvania (but not actually Emmett Honeycutt) laid off from his job had recourse under Title VII for discrimination based on gender role stereotyping, but not for sexual orientation.
Kelley testimony 2: Oncale Supreme Court decision on workplace sexual harassment does not protect LGBTs from discrimination
The U.S. Supreme Court decision in Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc., 523 U.S. 75 (1998) was offered by one speaker in July 21 Assembly testimony as proof that existing law already exists to protect LGBT people from unfair discrimination. But, as attorney and UAA professor Pamela Kelley writes, Oncale’s application is very narrow: to sexual harassment between members of the same sex (regardless of sexual orientation) in the workplace.