Corrente

If you have "no place to go," come here!

Progressive Take on Montana Court Decision

Submitted by Alcuin on Tue, 01/10/2012 - 8:54pm
Departments: 
Department of Now It All Makes Sense

More evidence that liberals are fine with State power, as long as the State is acting in their interests. All rise and give fealty to the Federal Government! One commenter here said that Ron Paul was in favor of States' rights so that he could take us back to the 1850s. I don't know about that - are the Vermont secessionists seeking a return to 1850?

Comments

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

and so, sadly, they have to rebuke the Montana Supreme Court. Why does anyone listen to them at all? Glad the comments were largely in favor of Montana. Here is what I wrote.

The U.S. Supreme Court has been on the side of big banking, business, and landholders since the getgo. Let's not fool ourselves. Some justices may be good on social issues, but most side with the corporations and chamber on everything else. The NY Times did a piece on this years ago called "Supreme Court, Inc.".

I am proud that the Montana Supreme Court are not a bunch of ideologues. They still believe in the rule of law that effects their neighbors. And they know how it effects them since they are close to it. In Montana you cannot give more than $160 to a candidate for the state legislature; $200 to a Supreme Court justice. So we have extremely low limits. As this decision points out corporations still can form PACS and flood the airwaves, but they have to identify themselves. PACS and corporations still influence pedal as witnessed by legislators changing their votes after a dinner with Monsanto.

Montana's history with the Anaconda Copper Mine and other huge corporations like railroad and power companies was one of horrible corruption which led to horrible working conditions in the mines and smelters, lack of any kind of sanitation, polluting of rivers and streams to the point where the people had enough of being ruled by Copper Kings, yes "Kings".

Just because the Southern states used states' rights for ill against minorities does not mean that the original idea of a confederation of states was a bad idea. When 12 of the 13 legislatures were dominated by small farmers and businessmen after the Revolution, our elite merchant banking big landowning founders decided to make a not very democratic republic instead where they "the betters" would control the lives of the "mob".

If we the sheeple are looking for an escape from the pen aka alternatives to our corrupt and bankrupt system, then take a gander at Montana.

Submitted by Alcuin on

From an anarchist point of view, more political entities is a good thing. I've long had the view (perhaps incorrect) that one could make a correlation between anarchism and an ecological system. When a ecological system is healthy, there are thousands and thousands of species of living critters. When one species gets out of balance, the others compensate in some way - perhaps through mutant viruses. And the system gets back into balance. What we have in this country is an ecological/political system wildly out of balance and the idea of States Rights does not scare me nearly as much as it does committed liberals, who are in love with the Federal government. Government closer to the people is always a good thing, in my mind. I don't like government at all, so in that sense I suppose I could be accused of being in the Libertarian camp. When government is closer to home, it is easier to keep an eye on it, I think. Power corrupts and all that kind of thing. Different approaches to solving social problems, which could happen in a confederation, is a good thing. Montana, as I understand it, is investigating the Canadian approach to health care for its Medicaid program. And Vermont, of course, has applied for a waiver from Obamacare so that it can proceed with its idea of a just health plan. I'm all in favor of competition. Corporations are mortally afraid of competition - that is why they have enlisted the coercive power of the State to serve their interests. The so-called "progressive reforms" of the early 20th century which established commissions of various kinds to "regulate" corporations just made it easier for corporations to continue with their nefarious activities. Now, instead of having 100 different laws to comply with in 20 states, they only had one set of rules, which they could corrupt very easily. It always amazes me how liberals don't understand this.

Submitted by MontanaMaven on

took over the city council. But eventually they overreached and the more sane conservatives of the town started to ostracize them. When they threatened to burn down a nature park most citizens were appalled. The park gals had to get a lawyer and get an injunction. Eventually the council members had to back off or be found guilty of collusion. Fascinating.

We've forgotten the fine art of ostracizing those with bad behavior until Occupy. They began by making much mockery of Wall Streeters and their stupid bull. The graphic art of the Occupy movement is great. Much of it has variations on bulls balls being snipped or bull being hog tied.

i think i am a left libertarian. I don't like the state much either, but at a more local level we should be trying new things. Weren't the states supposed to be the places to experiment?

Yes, Brian Schweitzer is also seeking a waiver so we can have our own Medicare for All. And Attorney General Bullock who argued the limits on campaign cash case in front of the MT Supreme Court is running to replace him as governor.

Turlock