Yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court voted in McCutcheon v. FEC, the most critical campaign finance case since Citizens United, to strike down overall contribution limits, known as aggregate limits. The Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law released the following statement from President Michael Waldman:
"Today’s Supreme Court decision rejects decades of precedent and strikes a sharp blow against the interests of average voters. Once again the Court has struck down a law that curbs the corrupting influence of large campaign contributions in our politics. Sadly, the Court has also achieved a new milestone by striking down a federal contribution limit for the first time.Ye Gods! Was I wrong or was I wrong about Chief Justice John Roberts back in 2008, when I, still naive as they come about US politics, wrote the following as part of a blog post about well-known people with a birthday on 27 January (same as mine)?
Our Founders feared corruption. They did not want government beholden to narrow, elite interests. Eliminating these limits will now allow a single politician to solicit, and a single donor to give, up to $3.6 million through the use of joint fundraising committees. Following the Citizens United decision, this will further inundate a political system already flush with cash, marginalize average voters, and elevate those who can afford to buy political access."
His natal chart is available at astro.com
Come back all I said!! Admittedly, Roberts is just one of 9, but it is his Court!US Chief Justice John Roberts has Sun and Mercury in Aquarius, with Aquarius' modern ruler Uranus conjunct Jupiter in Cancer. Jupiter is traditionally connected with law, and government. Incidentally, with his natal Moon almost certainly in Pisces, Sun in humanitarian Aquarius, and that conjunction in sensitive Cancer , I'd say Chief Justice Roberts is a compassionate man, it's good to see such a person occupying that lofty position.
Here's a voice worth a listen:
18 comments:
shaking my head and tears in my eyes.
this isnt and may never be again the Country my Dad dreamed of coming to and making a life for himself and then for his family.
Sonny ~ I can imagine how you must feel - and I share those feelings as far as I can, having been here only since 2004. The rot just keeps on spreading.
I was disappointed, but not surprised by the SCOTUS decision, considering their track record. Of course, I always enjoy and applaud the liberal, dissenter-judge comments, this by Breyer:
“If Citizens United opened a door, today’s decision, we fear, will open a floodgate,” Breyer said. He added that the ruling “overturns key precedent, creates serious loopholes in the law and undermines, perhaps devastates, what remains of campaign finance reform.
... my reaction to the plurality’s reliance upon agency enforcement of this rule (as an adequate substitute for Congress’ aggregate limits) is like Oscar Wilde’s after reading Dickens’ account of the death of Little Nell: ‘One must have a heart of stone,’ said Wilde, ‘to read [it] without laughing.’ ”
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/supreme-court-strikes-down-limits-on-federal-campaign-donations/2014/04/02/54e16c30-ba74-11e3-9a05-c739f29ccb08_story.html
Chomsky's video states the obvious, but I do agree with his assessment that when the populace becomes agitated enough, action will occur, as it has throughout history. The astrology of our extant government and politics would forecast these events, as many astrologers have. That alone gives me faith that we are all simply in-tune with the discord of our times and an eventual resolution will arise.
Regarding your comments about Justice Roberts, compassion really has nothing to do with this decision. I don't like the SCOTUS conservative judges' interpretations of the constitution, but I can't judge their personal behavior, morals, and ethics on those SCOTUS outcomes. I have neighbors and friends that differ with my more liberal slants, sometimes disgustingly so, but that doesn't make them indifferent or unsympathetic to humanity...some are much more sympathetic to the plights than I.
As we've seen with the SCOTUS decision stating abortion and reproductive rights are constitutional, there are many ways around the legalities to result in the denial of abortions. Some clever individual may endeavor a scheme to limit campaign contributions without affecting this latest SCOTUS outcome.
And our lame congress could limit campaign contributions in a heartbeat, if they weren't already purchased. POTUS campaigned on this issue of contribution reform, but "saw the light" once in...there is a 0.000001% chance he may address this issue now that his days in office are numbered...LOL.
mike ~ I hope astrologers are correct and there will be resolution, eventually, one way or another, I doubt it'll be much before 2025 though.
Re Chief Justice Roberts - I disagree, at least in part, that personal behavior morals, ethics can't be judged by the decisions he makes in professional life.
Yes - I guess he doesn't kick his cat around , isn't mean to kids, and probably donates regularly to certain charities. All the same he does not personify what his chart says (to me).
Quote from a piece by Dahlia Lithwick here
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2014/04/mccutcheon_v_fec_campaign_finance_decision_justice_roberts_doesn_t_believe.html
Roberts honestly seems to inhabit a world in which what really worries the average Joe about the current electoral regime is not that his voice is drowned out by that of Sheldon Adelson, but that he might be forced to spend his millions “at lower levels than others because he wants to support more candidates” or that he is too busy making billions of dollars at work to volunteer for a campaign, or that he has Jay Z and Beyoncé on standby to perform at a house party in the event that his billions are tied up elsewhere this week.
Really, it’s weird. The man takes the Metro to work, and yet he handily dismisses what every human American knows to be true: That if dollars are speech, and billions are more speech, then billionaires who spend money don’t do so for the mere joy of making themselves heard, but because it offers them a return on their investment. We. All. Know. This. So how can the chief justice blithely assume the following:
...... "Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder’s official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner 'influence over or access to' elected officials or political parties."
Twilight ~ Though disappointing, this decision isn't at all surprising.
And adding my two cents to the discussion you and mike are having, I believe that, generally speaking, our actions, choices and decisions (both public and private) are a reflection of who we are and what we value.
"Every art and every inquiry, and similarly every action and choice, is thought to aim at some good; and for this reason the good has rightly been declared to be that at which all things aim."
Aristotle
Or, to put it another way:
"You shall know them by their fruits."
Matthew 7:16
Adding ~ Until and unless we either know someone intimately, and/or have observed a consistent pattern in their choices (as is the case with some public figures), I don't think we can understand them or their character. Astrology only impels, never compels - don't know who said that, but it's true!
Even then, there are higher and lower manifestations of various astrological energies and signatures, with a whole range in-between.
As an aside, I remember reading somewhere how Aquarius (or is it Uranus?) can sometimes represent the conservative. Aquarius, being an intellectual sign, can be cold and lack empathy. I'm not picking on Aquarius. I don't think any sign is necessarily immune, not even Pisces.
LB ~ Re your second comment - yes, I've written on that side of Aquarius myself. The sign's traditional ruler is Saturn - so what else should we expect? LOL!
Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin - both Sun in Aquarius.
In my early days, I had gathered the mistaken idea that Aquarius Sun always turned out a certain way (humanitarian, social reform, revolutionary even).
Not so, I found out later, not when Saturn is in the driving seat.
It was his Cancer and Pisces bits (Moon, Jupiter, Uranus) I relied on more in suspecting he might be different.
I'm sure he's "a nice guy" in private life - his face tells me that. A bit like our President, who also is probably "a nice guy" in private life, great Dad etc.
Once in positions of power their niceness must become subsumed in other parts of their personality.
Don't know - guessing.
Twilight ~ Something else to consider is that with Uranus and Jupiter -rulers of his Aquarius Sun-Mercury and Sagittarius Venus, respectively- conjunct in Cancer, he *might* be more inclined to consider the interests of his chosen tribe rather than those of the collective. Trine Moon in Pisces and square Neptune in Libra might make it easier to emotionally and intellectually deny certain injustices in favor of getting along with whomever and whatever he's emotionally and intellectually most connected to.
This kind of relates to yesterday's post, doesn't it?:)
Speaking of previous posts, did you happen to notice I left you a comment on an older post of yours?
LB ~ I does echo yesterday's discussion, in a way, yes. Good points you've made. Where does the "chosen tribe" idea come in though, I didn't quite grasp that part? Are you seeing Aquarius as the collective (agreed) and Sagittarius as more of a "tribe" due to Cancer's usual family link?
Hmm - re a comment on an older post, LB. Don't remember one - how old? Did it go into moderation, didn't show up immediately? If it was fairly recent (4 or 5 days) it would have published as usual.
I've been in the process of changing my computer and operating system this week, because Microsoft is stopping support for WinXP next Tuesday, 8 April, so all kinds of quirks might have happened without my noticing, especially on Tuesday.
LB ~ Found it - and another waiting for moderation....thanks for the heads up! ;-)
Will get to it shortly.
Twilight ~ Cancer energy (associated with the 4th house) seems to be more motivated by a need to provide security for a smaller circle: self, family, home - however they happen to define these things. Home (and tribe) can mean something different to different people, up to and including their country or planet(!) of origin.
Aquarius, being associated with the 11th house, has a larger circle, since it's an energy that's most comfortable in the world of ideas and ideals and those who share them - at least in the abstract!
Which isn't to say Cancer can't care about larger issues or that Aquarius can't care about home and family.
But what do I know??? :)
In case I misunderstood your question, just to clarify, his Sun and Mercury are in Aquarius, ruled by Uranus.
His Venus is in Sag, ruled by Jupiter.
*Rulers* of these 3 personal planets, Uranus and Jupiter, are conjunct in Cancer.
DARE = disclose, amend, reform and elect
The Dems have been trying to reform contributions...we'll probably be hearing a lot of rhetoric leading to the 2016 performances.
"If we're going to have policies that support the great middle class, which is the backbone of our democracy, we have to change the politics," Pelosi said. "And that's why we have issued this DARE."
The acronymed agenda calls for legislation to overturn Citizens United by amending the Constitution; to provide for public campaign financing through a small-donor matching program; to block efforts restricting ballot access, including voter ID laws; and to require currently non-disclosing political groups -- those organized as social welfare nonprofits and trade associations -- to disclose their donors when they run political ads.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/01/dare-campaign-finance_n_1729753.html
DARE has been attempted previously, but keeps failing. Time to change the SCOTUS decision through congressional action...contact our congressional delegates and make some noise.
Older DARE news:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/01/10/campaign-finance-reform-congress_n_2442149.html
Re Roberts' astrology...his 10th house would be the strongest indicator for his professional decision. astro.com does not have his time of birth, so no determination can be made of his houses. Capricorn is the natural 10th house sign and Capricorn can appear cold and heartless, but that usually defies their agonizing considerations of the topics...they typically make good CEOs, managers, and bosses from a corporate viewpoint, but the underlings do not appreciate Capricorn's saturnine management style!
You've made some good points, LB, but without houses, it's difficult to apply your interpretation.
LB ~ That's what I thought - thanks for confirming. :-)
mike (again) ~ I'll believe DARE when I see it in action! Dems know what's needed, but also know they'll be stemming the $$$$$$$$$$$$$$$ to their own campaign stash. The only one of 'em I'd trust on this is Bernie Sanders. I certainly don't trust Pelosi. It'll sound good on the trail to 2016 though.
Re Roberts' chart - pity about lack of time of birth - maybe he has refused to make it public.
North Node is in Capricorn, that's all. Failing 10th house, Capricorn rising would be good too. Without either, this would be a disappointing astro match I think, at least for the John Roberts we are allowed to know about.
I guess astrology doesn't always fit - other elements of life and experiences can modify, soften or harden the way the chart manifests.
Guessing again! Nobody knows for sure.
It might be more appropriate to consider the charts of the USA and the constitution. Depending on the USA chart used, using 7-4-1776 gives the Sun at 13* Cancer and Saturn at 16* Libra...right there is problematic for out current grand cross transits. Transiting Mars is retrograde and will affect both natal Sun and Saturn for several more months. The Sibley chart puts Sun in the 8th and Saturn in the 10th. In a court of law, 10th house rules the judge. Also, government and its leader.
"The Constitution was adopted on September 17, 1787, by the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and ratified by conventions in eleven States. It went into effect on March 4, 1789."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution
mike ~ I guess all we need to know about Roberts is that he was put in place by GW Bush!
We shall see what this month's Grand Cross will bring. I've had the feeling before when these Grand patterns arrive, that what they reflect isn't ever truly visible until many years afterward, when the pattern of events around them can be clearly discerned.
Post a Comment