If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Slate)   Justice Ginsburg on SuperPACs: "Montana got it right, and that's really saying something"   (slate.com) divider line 171
    More: Interesting, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Citizens United, Montana, Justice Kennedy, employment discrimination, Montana Supreme Court, McCain-Feingold, independent expenditures  
•       •       •

5076 clicks; posted to Politics » on 21 Feb 2012 at 5:45 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



171 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-02-21 02:31:38 PM
o.onionstatic.com
 
2012-02-21 02:34:15 PM

hillbillypharmacist: [o.onionstatic.com image 635x345]


I kind of imagine her doing that to the Justices that voted pro-United.
 
2012-02-21 03:13:13 PM
I wonder if United goes down in some form, if it'll apply to unions as well.
 
2012-02-21 03:23:23 PM

dj_bigbird: I wonder if United goes down in some form, if it'll apply to unions as well.


UNIONSUNIONSUNIONSSOROSUNIONS
 
2012-02-21 03:48:57 PM

dj_bigbird: I wonder if United goes down in some form, if it'll apply to unions as well.


You concerned?
 
2012-02-21 04:04:39 PM
...finding that Montana's history of corruption justified the ban.

If Montana's history of corruption justifies the ban, then New York's history of corruption justifies nuking Albany from orbit then hunting any remaining politicians for their meat.
 
2012-02-21 04:05:47 PM

dj_bigbird: I wonder if United goes down in some form, if it'll apply to unions as well.


the union as a whole? of course

the individual members of a union? of course not


you sound concerned, and ignorant to exactly what a union is (other than something you've been told is the enemy by your corporate whore masters)
 
2012-02-21 04:06:34 PM

dj_bigbird: I wonder if United goes down in some form, if it'll apply to unions as well.


It would probably also apply to contraception, abortion, gay marriage ...
 
2012-02-21 04:09:33 PM

dj_bigbird: I wonder if United goes down in some form, if it'll apply to unions as well.


I hope so. It will help put to rest this conception that "Unions" donate and not the workers of unions. Those workers may just end up donating directly, instead of via the union. In fact I hope they do. Then 'tards who conflate union election contributions with corporate contributions can eat a big sack of shut the hell up.
 
2012-02-21 04:28:33 PM

Elandriel: dj_bigbird: I wonder if United goes down in some form, if it'll apply to unions as well.

I hope so. It will help put to rest this conception that "Unions" donate and not the workers of unions. Those workers may just end up donating directly, instead of via the union. In fact I hope they do. Then 'tards who conflate union election contributions with corporate contributions can eat a big sack of shut the hell up.


Word.
 
2012-02-21 04:42:21 PM

Elandriel: Then 'tards who conflate union election contributions with corporate contributions can eat a big sack of shut the hell up.


Yeah, because that's how that works.
 
2012-02-21 04:42:56 PM

dj_bigbird: I wonder if United goes down in some form, if it'll apply to unions as well.


Citizens United applies to them right now. why else do you think the GOP went all out against the Unions in the first place? Citizens United gave unions the same ability to influence the political debate as corporations, effectively giving Unions the same ability to outright purchase favorable legislation just as corporations have been doing for decades. Since the corporations know that a level playing field like that can only hurt their agenda, they kicked the GOP into action and had them go after Union fundraising. can't have the plebs getting in the way of corporate profits after all. that's simply not done.
 
2012-02-21 04:48:07 PM
or to put this another way:

SCOTUS: 'rich people can pool their money and buy any politican they want and it's legal'

poor person: 'but I don't have any money, don't I get a say?

SCOTUS: 'not my problem. write your congressman.'

Corporations: 'sucker! muhahahahahaha!'

Unions: 'wait, so since i'm now a legal person, I can use my membership money to buy politicans as well?'

SCOTUS: 'um...well...yeah. but we didn't consider that angle in our deliberations.'

Corporations: 'WTF dudes? why are we paying you!? Fix this SCOTUS! now!'

SCOTUS: 'we can't.'

Unions: [starts buying Congressman] 'hey, this is fun! wheeee! hey poor person - have some money! wheeeeee!'

poor person: 'hey, this is alright! I think i'll keep voting pro-union'

Corporations: 'f*ck f*ck f*ck!'
 
2012-02-21 04:52:11 PM

GAT_00: Elandriel: Then 'tards who conflate union election contributions with corporate contributions can eat a big sack of shut the hell up.

Yeah, because that's how that works.


Shutup!!! I can dream! :(
 
2012-02-21 04:55:59 PM
It's too late, the damage is done. The dominoes are falling. The republic has commited suicide with the greenback dagger engraved with the false motto: In God We Trust.
 
2012-02-21 05:51:25 PM
Oh great, this is coming from the same people who led our country straight into the devil's playground.
 
2012-02-21 05:51:37 PM
Whoo!!! That's my state! Montana's my state! I'm in Montana right now baby!! YEEEAAAAHHHH!!! *takes off shirt, flings it*
 
2012-02-21 05:51:45 PM
When they correctly decided the Citizens United case I had no idea there would be so much wailing and gnashing of teeth. And don't forget about the lamentation of the women. The ACLU thinks you're stupid. (Well, they'd never say that.)
 
2012-02-21 05:52:57 PM

GAT_00: UNIONSUNIONSUNIONSSOROSUNIONS


CORPORATIONSCORPORATIONSCORPORATIONSKOCHBROSCORPORATIONS


...oh wait, that one is true, nm.
 
2012-02-21 05:53:45 PM
"We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." He further declared that "[t]he appearance of influence or access [coming from unlimited corporate spending] will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy."

Really? I beg to differ. Koch Brothers
 
2012-02-21 05:54:08 PM
ONIONSONIONSONIONSGARLICONIONS
 
2012-02-21 05:56:08 PM
Money is speech, corporations are people, and the Constitution says so. Cope with it, libs.
 
2012-02-21 05:56:10 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: Whoo!!! That's my state! Montana's my state! I'm in Montana right now baby!! YEEEAAAAHHHH!!! *takes off shirt, flings it*


Please. I think we all realize that nobody actually lives there. It's a made up place, like Belgium.
 
2012-02-21 05:56:30 PM
Ugh...I hate her glasses.
 
2012-02-21 05:57:31 PM

Fuggin Bizzy: Whoo!!! That's my state! Montana's my state! I'm in Montana right now baby!! YEEEAAAAHHHH!!! *takes off shirt, flings it*


nice, where in?

Was there a couple weeks ago visiting family. Started in butte (saw a tweaker sing karoke....quite the sight) worked our way to bozeman (where they live) and then to kalispel
 
2012-02-21 06:01:21 PM
WRU states' rights people?
 
2012-02-21 06:01:21 PM

Gulper Eel: ...finding that Montana's history of corruption justified the ban.

If Montana's history of corruption justifies the ban, then New York's history of corruption justifies nuking Albany from orbit then hunting any remaining politicians for their meat.


Speaking as a New Yorker, I'm OK with this.
 
2012-02-21 06:03:33 PM

aselene: Money is speech


Spoken like a true "Conservative".
He who has the money makes the rules.
The rest of the losers can eat cake.
 
2012-02-21 06:04:01 PM

Weaver95: SCOTUS: 'rich people can pool their money and buy any politican they want and it's legal'


As a progressive, opponent of Citizens United, and campaign finance reformer, I understand your concern with this proposition. But it's not the most offensive proposition in the campaign finance debate. To me, "rich people pooling their money" to promote a political cause isn't our main problem. Our main problem is "rich people pooling apolitical investor money to promote a political cause." Let The Donald give away as much of his fortune to elect Mitt the Machine as he likes. But there is no reason the government shouldn't be allowed to make The Donald give away only his own money, not other peoples' money, to do it.
 
2012-02-21 06:04:22 PM

aselene: corporations are people, and the Constitution says so


No, it doesn't. That's not where corporate personhood comes from.
 
2012-02-21 06:04:44 PM
is this the thread where we point out that Clarence Thomas's wife works for a powerful superpac and stands to gain a great deal from the continued existence of such organizations?
 
2012-02-21 06:05:55 PM

CapnBlues: is this the thread where we point out that Clarence Thomas's wife works for a powerful superpac and stands to gain a great deal from the continued existence of such organizations?


No, because words and things.
 
2012-02-21 06:06:11 PM
DERPDERPDERPDERPDERPDERPHURPDERPDERP
 
2012-02-21 06:06:20 PM

Weaver95: or to put this another way:

SCOTUS: 'rich people can pool their money and buy any politican they want and it's legal'

poor person: 'but I don't have any money, don't I get a say?

SCOTUS: 'not my problem. write your congressman.'

Corporations: 'sucker! muhahahahahaha!'

Unions: 'wait, so since i'm now a legal person, I can use my membership money to buy politicans as well?'

SCOTUS: 'um...well...yeah. but we didn't consider that angle in our deliberations.'

Corporations: 'WTF dudes? why are we paying you!? Fix this SCOTUS! now!'

SCOTUS: 'we can't.'

Unions: [starts buying Congressman] 'hey, this is fun! wheeee! hey poor person - have some money! wheeeeee!'

poor person: 'hey, this is alright! I think i'll keep voting pro-union'

Corporations: 'f*ck f*ck f*ck!'


I declare this comment the winner.
 
2012-02-21 06:06:26 PM

ib_thinkin: aselene: corporations are people, and the Constitution says so

No, it doesn't. That's not where corporate personhood comes from.


Show me in the Constitution where it says the government can regulate corporate speech.
 
2012-02-21 06:06:31 PM

dj_spanmaster: hillbillypharmacist: [o.onionstatic.com image 635x345]

I kind of imagine her doing that to the Justices that voted pro-United.


Doubtful, she and Scalia are BFFs outside of the chambers.
 
2012-02-21 06:07:42 PM
The problem isn't with ads on TV. It's all those dumbasses who watch the TV. And then they go vote like dumbasses. amirite?
 
2012-02-21 06:08:10 PM

smeegle: aselene: Money is speech

Spoken like a true "Conservative".
He who has the money makes the rules.
The rest of the losers can eat cake.


The rest of you losers can eat cake IF YOU CAN AFFORD IT. Taanstafl.
 
2012-02-21 06:08:31 PM

ib_thinkin: CapnBlues: is this the thread where we point out that Clarence Thomas's wife works for a powerful superpac and stands to gain a great deal from the continued existence of such organizations?

No, because words and things.


oh okay thanks for the heads-up
 
2012-02-21 06:09:48 PM

Gulper Eel: ...finding that Montana's history of corruption justified the ban.

If Montana's history of corruption justifies the ban, then New York's history of corruption justifies nuking Albany from orbit then hunting any remaining politicians for their meat.


It's Wyoming and not Montana but consider the Johnson County War. New York isn't more corrupt. And in comparing Wyoming to Montana, you know about the Johnson County War because people were allowed to live.
 
2012-02-21 06:10:14 PM

aselene: Money is speech, corporations are people, and the Constitution says so. Cope with it, libs.


Money is...well, actually it's Federal Reserve Notes. It's not speech. Spending money might be considered speech, but usually it's considered commerce, and handled under a different clause in the Constitution.

Corporations aren't people, but they are made up of people. If a corporation was a person, would that mean companies like Toshiba, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Sony, etc. are actually illegal aliens? Because that would be hilarious.

Word find for Corporation/Corporations in the US Constitution returns 0 results.

Libs have coped with it - Obama's super pac is raking in millions...and it's got the Republicans, who thought they were very clever with this whole thing, extremely worried. After all, they didn't think their cunning plan could backfire on them.
 
2012-02-21 06:11:33 PM

aselene: Show me in the Constitution where it says the government can regulate corporate speech.


Interstate commerce, mothafarka.
 
2012-02-21 06:13:30 PM

Dr. Whoof: Corporations aren't people, but they are made up of people. If a corporation was a person, would that mean companies like Toshiba, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Sony, etc. are actually illegal aliens?


This. That's where the Constitution says you can't regulate corporate speech. It has nothing to do with corporate personhood, which is a byproduct of state (and, occasionally) federal law granting limited liability to corporate shareholders.
 
2012-02-21 06:14:38 PM

ib_thinkin: aselene: Show me in the Constitution where it says the government can regulate corporate speech.

Interstate commerce, mothafarka.


The Founding Fathers never intended for the Commerce Clause to be abused to tell people what they can and can't say. Anyway, this may come as a surprise to liberals, but the Constitution has other clauses too. For example, there's a whole slew of amendments. The first one says that Congress can't regulate speech.
 
2012-02-21 06:16:59 PM

aselene: ib_thinkin: aselene: Show me in the Constitution where it says the government can regulate corporate speech.

Interstate commerce, mothafarka.

The Founding Fathers never intended for the Commerce Clause to be abused to tell people what they can and can't say. Anyway, this may come as a surprise to liberals, but the Constitution has other clauses too. For example, there's a whole slew of amendments. The first one says that Congress can't regulate speech.


Where in the Constitution does it say corporations are people or enagage in speech?
 
2012-02-21 06:18:40 PM

ib_thinkin: Dr. Whoof: Corporations aren't people, but they are made up of people. If a corporation was a person, would that mean companies like Toshiba, Toyota, Honda, Mitsubishi, Sony, etc. are actually illegal aliens?

This. That's where the Constitution says you can't regulate corporate speech. It has nothing to do with corporate personhood, which is a byproduct of state (and, occasionally) federal law granting limited liability to corporate shareholders.


If we ban all political spending of any kind by corporations with a primarily commercial purpose, but

1) allow all political spending by corporations with a primarily advocacy purpose, and

2) allow all political spending by every individual member of every corporation, commercial or advocacy,

who is banned from speaking freely?
 
2012-02-21 06:20:42 PM

Weaver95: or to put this another way:

SCOTUS: 'rich people can pool their money and buy any politican they want and it's legal'

poor person: 'but I don't have any money, don't I get a say?

SCOTUS: 'not my problem. write your congressman.'

Corporations: 'sucker! muhahahahahaha!'

Unions: 'wait, so since i'm now a legal person, I can use my membership money to buy politicans as well?'

SCOTUS: 'um...well...yeah. but we didn't consider that angle in our deliberations.'

Corporations: 'WTF dudes? why are we paying you!? Fix this SCOTUS! now!'

SCOTUS: 'we can't.'

Unions: [starts buying Congressman] 'hey, this is fun! wheeee! hey poor person - have some money! wheeeeee!'

poor person: 'hey, this is alright! I think i'll keep voting pro-union'

Corporations: 'f*ck f*ck f*ck!'


God damn you've become funny since your epiphany
 
2012-02-21 06:21:14 PM

aselene: The Founding Fathers never intended for the Commerce Clause to be abused to tell people what they can and can't say. Anyway, this may come as a surprise to liberals, but the Constitution has other clauses too. For example, there's a whole slew of amendments. The first one says that Congress can't regulate speech.


When corporations operate across state lines, you best be damned sure that the Founding Fathers intended the Interstate Commerce clause to apply to that.

And you might be surprised to know that regulating corporate expenditures is not in and of itself regulating speech. Heck, you might be shocked to learn that regulating speech isn't in and of itself a violation of the First Amendment!

We regulate corporate expenditures all the time when it comes to things that look like speech.

We limit the venues: try to erect a billboard in the stretch of I-95 between New Haven and New London; go for it.

We outright ban content: try to produce kiddie porn; go for it.

We COMPEL corporate speech: try to market cigarettes without actually including the Surgeon General's warning; go for it.

We do all sorts of things to corporations, fully within the blessings of the Constitution, that we couldn't do to individuals. See, this is the problem about invoking the Constitution when you don't understand the thing: it doesn't take long for someone to explain to you why you're wrong.
 
2012-02-21 06:21:46 PM
I have a question on Citizens United. Do the corporations that donate to a particular SuperPAC have to report what SuperPAC and how much of the corporate dollar went to it?
 
2012-02-21 06:24:20 PM

Philip Francis Queeg: aselene: ib_thinkin: aselene: Show me in the Constitution where it says the government can regulate corporate speech.

Interstate commerce, mothafarka.

The Founding Fathers never intended for the Commerce Clause to be abused to tell people what they can and can't say. Anyway, this may come as a surprise to liberals, but the Constitution has other clauses too. For example, there's a whole slew of amendments. The first one says that Congress can't regulate speech.

Where in the Constitution does it say corporations are people or enagage in speech?


Corporations are made up of people, and they speak via the corporate treasury.
 
Displayed 50 of 171 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report