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.

(Talking Points Memo)   The Supreme Court could improve the budget deficit--or they could completely screw it up. Given their track record, it seems clear what will happen   (tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 316
    More: Scary, supreme courts, Douglas W. Elmendorf, health law, health insurance exchange, debt limit, deficits, Congressional Budget Office, Wall Street reform  
•       •       •

3399 clicks; posted to Politics » on 14 Jun 2012 at 1:16 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2012-06-14 09:44:08 AM  
This court will invent some convoluted interpretation of existing law, Scalia or Roberts will justify it, Thomas will nod his head while his wife pockets more money from lobbyists, and Kennedy will wring his hands and follow along.

A chorus line of Dancing Itos would do a better job of interpreting the law.

Craziest, most damaged Supreme Court in what, 100 years? I think its becoming consensus you'd have to go back to the 1800s to find one that is on a par with this one.
 
2012-06-14 10:03:05 AM  
The idea that the Court should consider budget when assessing the constitutionality of a law is completely asinine.

"Poll taxes may disenfranchise certain voters, but they allow us to build roads and schools."
 
2012-06-14 10:08:48 AM  

Babwa Wawa: The idea that the Court should consider budget when assessing the constitutionality of a law is completely asinine.


something something COMMERCE CLAUSE
 
2012-06-14 10:14:48 AM  

Generation_D: This court will invent some convoluted interpretation of existing law, Scalia or Roberts will justify it, Thomas will nod his head while his wife pockets more money from lobbyists, and Kennedy will wring his hands and follow along.

A chorus line of Dancing Itos would do a better job of interpreting the law.

Craziest, most damaged Supreme Court in what, 100 years? I think its becoming consensus you'd have to go back to the 1800s to find one that is on a par with this one.


Yup, and conservatives could make the same argument from their perspective, except the symmetry is clearly broken by the fact that Thomas' wife is a political activist that uses his name recognition to raise money for the Tea Party.
 
2012-06-14 10:23:30 AM  

Generation_D: Craziest, most damaged Supreme Court in what, 100 years? I think its becoming consensus you'd have to go back to the 1800s to find one that is on a par with this one.


yup. there will be a lot of books written about this court. and they won't be kind.
 
2012-06-14 10:25:10 AM  

Mentat: something something COMMERCE CLAUSE


The commerce clause is about regulation, not budget.

The court should not be considering whether the law has a positive revenue impact. Nationalizing major industries would have a positive revenue impact, but would not be constitutional (even under the commerce clause).
 
2012-06-14 10:37:31 AM  

Babwa Wawa: Mentat: something something COMMERCE CLAUSE

The commerce clause is about regulation, not budget.

The court should not be considering whether the law has a positive revenue impact. Nationalizing major industries would have a positive revenue impact, but would not be constitutional (even under the commerce clause).


You seem to think that the Constitution matters to this SCOTUS. It's just a window dressing for whatever decision they've made before the hearings.
 
2012-06-14 11:01:58 AM  

Mentat: You seem to think that the Constitution matters to this SCOTUS. It's just a window dressing for whatever decision they've made before the hearings.


I never expressed an opinion on the competence of the current court. I just said I don't think they should factor budgetary impact in on a decision.

I think you're reading someone else's posts and responding to mine.
 
2012-06-14 11:14:12 AM  
The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.
 
2012-06-14 11:21:32 AM  

SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.


and if they rule that it's legal?
 
2012-06-14 11:23:11 AM  

Babwa Wawa: The idea that the Court should consider budget when assessing the constitutionality of a law is completely asinine.


Came here to say this. Budgetary concerns should never enter the decision-making process regarding whether a law is constitutional.
 
2012-06-14 11:25:28 AM  

Babwa Wawa: Mentat: You seem to think that the Constitution matters to this SCOTUS. It's just a window dressing for whatever decision they've made before the hearings.

I never expressed an opinion on the competence of the current court. I just said I don't think they should factor budgetary impact in on a decision.

I think you're reading someone else's posts and responding to mine.


My point was that the SCOTUS doesn't care. They make their decision before the hearings and then come up with some Constitutional veneer to justify their decision. They have no problem tossing away precedent or bypassing the separation of powers.
 
2012-06-14 11:27:05 AM  

FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?


If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.
 
2012-06-14 11:31:52 AM  

SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


Which was championed by Romney as a national model for healthcare.
 
2012-06-14 11:33:27 AM  

Mentat: SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.

Which was championed by Romney as a national model for healthcare.


It's no use arguing with him. Your best bet is to just talk about pie whenever he starts talking.
 
2012-06-14 11:35:25 AM  

Aar1012: Mentat: SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.

Which was championed by Romney as a national model for healthcare.

It's no use arguing with him. Your best bet is to just talk about pie whenever he starts talking.


It's kind of like LSD. Sometimes you just want to see where it takes you.
 
2012-06-14 11:54:20 AM  
The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.

Many people in this country will be pissed about losing what they had under Obamacare. But probably not the same ones who would vote Republican. The people voting Republican, mostly old people, don't care. They have theirs, it's called Medicare.

This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.
 
2012-06-14 12:00:07 PM  

bdub77: The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.


FWIW

"As the Supreme Court weighs the challenge to the 2010 health-care overhaul, there's a cautionary tale for those who may have found hope in the way the justices picked apart the government's arguments defending the law... In 2009, the justices were equally as picky in questioning government lawyers in arguments of an appeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act -- and left the law intact in an 8-1 ruling." Link
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-14 12:21:45 PM  

SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


Why isn't the guy who invented Obomney care to blame, if it were so bad?
 
2012-06-14 12:24:45 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bdub77: The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.

FWIW

"As the Supreme Court weighs the challenge to the 2010 health-care overhaul, there's a cautionary tale for those who may have found hope in the way the justices picked apart the government's arguments defending the law... In 2009, the justices were equally as picky in questioning government lawyers in arguments of an appeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act -- and left the law intact in an 8-1 ruling." Link


The court has become very politicized on this issue though. I think this is a much more polarized issue than voting rights.
 
2012-06-14 12:49:01 PM  

bdub77: The court has become very politicized on this issue though. I think this is a much more polarized issue than voting rights.


bdub77: This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.


Mentat: My point was that the SCOTUS doesn't care. They make their decision before the hearings and then come up with some Constitutional veneer to justify their decision. They have no problem tossing away precedent or bypassing the separation of powers.


Don't you guys think we should wait for a decision one way or the other before condemning the court as politicized and unfair? Wouldn't you feel rather silly about this if they upheld the legislation?

While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.
 
2012-06-14 01:10:01 PM  

Babwa Wawa: The idea that the Court should consider budget when assessing the constitutionality of a law is completely asinine.

"Poll taxes may disenfranchise certain voters, but they allow us to build roads and schools."


I would think it has some relevance when assessing whether or not its a regulation of commerce.
 
2012-06-14 01:14:39 PM  

SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


So no matter what, it's always Obama's fault, forever and ever unto the end of time?

that's an...interesting....philosophy you've got there.
 
2012-06-14 01:20:10 PM  

DamnYankees: I would think it has some relevance when assessing whether or not its a regulation of commerce.


No, it doesn't. The question is (or should be) whether this is a rightful regulation of commerce, not whether it has a positive revenue/expenditure impact on government spending.

The uncompensated seizure and resale of private property would have a positive impact of government balance sheet. Doesn't make it constitutional.
 
2012-06-14 01:22:42 PM  

Babwa Wawa: The uncompensated seizure and resale of private property would have a positive impact of government balance sheet. Doesn't make it constitutional.


But that's because there's a specific provision in the constitution you can point to which it would violate. The same can't be said of Obamacare.
 
2012-06-14 01:24:10 PM  

Generation_D: Craziest, most damaged Supreme Court in what, 100 years? I think its becoming consensus you'd have to go back to the 1800s to find one that is on a par with this one.


If Romney gets elected you'll only have to look back on the current court to find a crazier one. So that's nice...
 
2012-06-14 01:24:40 PM  

Babwa Wawa: While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.


What about the mandatory hospital insurance that was done by the US government of the 1790s?
 
2012-06-14 01:26:25 PM  

SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


I sure as f*ck hope you get paid lots of money to be so goddamn stupid.
 
2012-06-14 01:27:05 PM  

SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.


If the Supreme Court says that a law proposed by the president and passed by Congress is unconstitutional, the president broke the law?

Nice spin you've got there, trying to lay the groundwork for impeachment. If the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it's not "illegal" to have passed it.

I didn't think anyone could be that stupid, but hey, it's a free country.
 
2012-06-14 01:27:36 PM  
Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.
 
2012-06-14 01:29:54 PM  

Babwa Wawa: bdub77: The court has become very politicized on this issue though. I think this is a much more polarized issue than voting rights.

bdub77: This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.

Mentat: My point was that the SCOTUS doesn't care. They make their decision before the hearings and then come up with some Constitutional veneer to justify their decision. They have no problem tossing away precedent or bypassing the separation of powers.

Don't you guys think we should wait for a decision one way or the other before condemning the court as politicized and unfair? Wouldn't you feel rather silly about this if they upheld the legislation?

While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.


Citizens United cemented their Worst Ever status regardless of what this ruling yields.
 
2012-06-14 01:30:46 PM  

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.

So no matter what, it's always Obama's fault, forever and ever unto the end of time?

that's an...interesting....philosophy you've got there.


Well, what I'm hearing from Obama and his toadies is that nothing is ever Obama's fault. Not even Obamacare. Someone else always to blame. People getting tired of that.
 
2012-06-14 01:31:10 PM  

Dusk-You-n-Me: bdub77: The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.

FWIW

"As the Supreme Court weighs the challenge to the 2010 health-care overhaul, there's a cautionary tale for those who may have found hope in the way the justices picked apart the government's arguments defending the law... In 2009, the justices were equally as picky in questioning government lawyers in arguments of an appeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act -- and left the law intact in an 8-1 ruling." Link


I cannot see any way that Thomas or Alito vote that the individual mandate is constitutional. Scalia really should vote constitutional based on his concurring opinion on Gonzales v. Raich, but he did also say during questioning that he thought EMTALA was a dumb law and that we shouldn't obligate ourselves with providing people who are dying with emergency health care, and he LOVED bringing up all of the stupid Tea Party talking points like the broccoli argument. The only people I can see swinging to say it is constitutional are Kennedy and Roberts. Both of them seemed deeply conflicted, Kennedy because he realizes that single-payer is the only other option if the mandate is struck, and Roberts because it is impossible to separate the mandate from the penalty that enforces the mandate.
 
2012-06-14 01:35:14 PM  

Serious Black: Roberts because it is impossible to separate the mandate from the penalty that enforces the mandate.


The penalty to enforce the mandate *is* the mandate. Without a penalty it's not a mandate at all.
 
2012-06-14 01:36:26 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well, what I'm hearing from Obama and his toadies is that nothing is ever Obama's fault.


-Bush Tax extensions
-Guantanamo still open
-Domestic Surveillance
-Opposing gay Marriage until recently
for starters...yep nothing. We just blindly follow "our leader" no matter what.
 
2012-06-14 01:36:31 PM  

Weaver95: SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.

So no matter what, it's always Obama's fault, forever and ever unto the end of time?

that's an...interesting....philosophy you've got there.


It's not a philosophy. He's an idiot.
 
2012-06-14 01:37:46 PM  
This whole subject makes me very very angry...

I don't even give a shiat if it is legal or not. This nation's priorities are all farked up. For-profit health insurance should not even exist. Next there will be for-profit prisons ...oh wait...

ANY profit gained through someone's suffering is a detestable practice. The fact that we as citizens are not willing to bare the individual responsibility to keep our nation healthy and educated makes me really sad. We have become a nation of "I got mine, fark you" and "if I don't take advantage of it, someone else will". Then we are rewarded for it.

Conservatives like to talk a good game when it comes to morality but don't seem to have the slightest understanding of the common good.

Make no mistake, this is not about if it is legal or anything else ...its about money (in the end)... greedy farks. Oh, and did I forget to mention, the affordable healthcare bill sucks dick. What a milquetoast hunk of shiat. Historic healthcare reform my ass.

/grumble, grumble, grumble
 
2012-06-14 01:39:06 PM  

ImpendingCynic: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

If the Supreme Court says that a law proposed by the president and passed by Congress is unconstitutional, the president broke the law?

Nice spin you've got there, trying to lay the groundwork for impeachment. If the Supreme Court strikes down a law as unconstitutional, it's not "illegal" to have passed it.

I didn't think anyone could be that stupid, but hey, it's a free country.


Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.
 
2012-06-14 01:39:49 PM  

SkinnyHead:
Well, what I'm hearing from Obama and his toadies is that nothing is ever Obama's fault. Not even Obamacare. Someone else always to blame. People getting tired of that.


so what do you think Obama has done right? I mean...he's had to have done SOMETHING you agree with....
 
2012-06-14 01:40:23 PM  
Step 1: Keep all the expensive stuff that people want.
Step 2: Get rid of the revenue generating stuff that people don't want.
Step 3: Blame Obama when the deficit explodes.
 
2012-06-14 01:40:26 PM  
What date are the scheduled to rule?
 
2012-06-14 01:40:36 PM  

Babwa Wawa: While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.


And, see, the problem with the penalty part of the mandate is it's a capitation. Just like the poll tax.

That Congress intentionally omitted the standard boilerplate about the rest of the provisions standing if one part is found to be unconstitutional probably spells doom for the entire thing. Guess we'll find out Monday, or a week from Monday.

//I still support single-payer insurance.
 
2012-06-14 01:41:12 PM  

SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.


So Congress should not be held accountable too for passing it in the first place?
 
2012-06-14 01:41:22 PM  

SkinnyHead: If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess.


SkinnyHead: If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


Back in the day, trolling used to mean something.
 
2012-06-14 01:42:57 PM  
The cause of this problem is that hospitals and medical practitioners are now legally required to treat sick/injured people regardless of their ability to pay. That creates both the free riders (the really poor) and the bankruptcies (for people that want to pay, but can't pay THAT much).

There are three solutions:

1. Require payment. No money? Go die somewhere else.
2. Require insurance. This is the heart of ObamneyCare.
3. Single payer - which is really requiring insurance, but the government is the only vendor.

Personally, I have great insurance, but I would prefer #3. I wouldn't even mind making the tax burden a regressive one(sales or earnings). We all use it fairly equally, so we should probably all pay a similar percentage. It would take a huge burden off of business (and attract more jobs) and it would eliminate a horrible expense when people are between jobs. Unless you have a chronic condition, you don't pay for COBRA.
 
2012-06-14 01:42:57 PM  

SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.


Passing a law that gets struck down by the Supreme Court is not an illegal act. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.
 
2012-06-14 01:43:05 PM  

DamnYankees: Serious Black: Roberts because it is impossible to separate the mandate from the penalty that enforces the mandate.

The penalty to enforce the mandate *is* the mandate. Without a penalty it's not a mandate at all.


Yeah, I've called it the "individual sternly worded suggestion" at least once, notwithstanding the whole toothless enforcement mechanism.

I still have no idea how SCOTUS will rule personally. I'd say it's about 50-50 between a 5-4 decision that it's unconstitutional on some BS grounds that the word regulate does not include the ability to command people to do something despite its very presence in 1780's era dictionaries and a 6-3 decision that fully incorporates the Necessary and Proper Clause doctrine from US v. Comstock into economic matters.
 
2012-06-14 01:43:22 PM  

LectertheChef: Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.


Hmmm. I think I'm going to need to see a picture of Christ on a dildo in order to evaluate your statement.

Please?

/I asked nicely.
 
2012-06-14 01:43:44 PM  

LectertheChef: Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.


Unfortunately, your right, the majority of this country is retarded. If we took a comprehensive look at the healthcare systems in the rest of the world, took the best parts and built a system for our country that was realistic, sustainable and affordable, that plan would be soundly rejected. And not by a small margin either. It's because the American people overwhelmingly want universal healthcare, but are also unwilling to pay for it, and will not give up anything for it. After all, we can't stop doing hip replacements on eighty year old women with severe dementia, and God forbid if you can't go down the hall for an MRI fifteen minutes after complaining of a headache to your doctor.

The problem with our system is that everyone's hands are in the cookie jar. No one wants to give up anything; we want it all, and we want it now. No waits, no exceptions, and at no cost to you.
 
2012-06-14 01:45:42 PM  

SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.


By that logic, virtually every single legislator and executive that has ever served is a lawbreaker, and many of those have been subsequently voted back into office.
 
2012-06-14 01:47:19 PM  

Jairzinho: SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.

So Congress should not be held accountable too for passing it in the first place?


The ones who voted for it, sure. Lawbreakers should be voted out.
 
2012-06-14 01:49:02 PM  

Jairzinho: SkinnyHead: Well, what I'm hearing from Obama and his toadies is that nothing is ever Obama's fault.

-Bush Tax extensions
-Guantanamo still open
-Domestic Surveillance
-Opposing gay Marriage until recently
for starters...yep nothing. We just blindly follow "our leader" no matter what.


Extending the Bush cuts were required to continue funding unemployment. That is how Congress works. Everybody gets what they want.

Gitmo can't be closed until Congress allows money to be used to move prisoners to US soil. The Republicans blocked that, so Gitmo can't close until the prisoners are transferred to another country. They can't come here as long as the GOP keeps it up.

What about domestic surveillance?
Yep, about gay marriage. If there was chance to get it through Congress Obama would support that, as well as legalizing some drugs. However, he is too much of a politician to lose votes over issues like that which don't stand a chance of going through.
 
2012-06-14 01:50:25 PM  

SkinnyHead: If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.


actually, no - they don't. Thats the job of the House of Representatives...not 'the voters'.
 
2012-06-14 01:53:15 PM  

BigBooper: Unfortunately, your right, the majority of this country is retarded. If we took a comprehensive look at the healthcare systems in the rest of the world, took the best parts and built a system for our country that was realistic, sustainable and affordable, that plan would be soundly rejected. And not by a small margin either. It's because the American people overwhelmingly want universal healthcare, but are also unwilling to pay for it, and will not give up anything for it.


Yup. Which is why we end up with unconstitutional abominations like this one. A good single payer program would do wonders for our country on many levels.

Serious Black: stupid Tea Party talking points like the broccoli argument.


It's a perfectly valid argument: if we are justifying mandate of purchase of a privately sold product that cannot be sold across state lines, because ownership of that product mitigates costs of a different industry, we have to draw a line somewhere. Either it's open season because everything can be drawn to have a connection to health care costs (the broccoli argument), it's blatantly unconstitutional, or there's a line drawn somewhere.

The government is shying away from clearly defining a guiding principle to explain how certain mandates would be constitutional and others would not be. Not to define such a line is to draw an unconstitutionally broad interpretation of the interstate commerce clause.
 
2012-06-14 01:53:44 PM  

SkinnyHead: The ones who voted for it, sure. Lawbreakers should be voted out.


So just to be clear. You believe any legislator who votes for any law which is subsequently overturned by the Supreme Court should lose their seat?
 
2012-06-14 01:54:20 PM  

madgonad: The cause of this problem is that hospitals and medical practitioners are now legally required to treat sick/injured people regardless of their ability to pay.


I always ask this basic question to people when this discussion comes up:

Are we a nation that willingly allows sick people to just die because they are not rich enough?
If the answer is no, then we as citizens will be ultimately responsible for the cost (no way to avoid it)
If the answer is yes, then you are a floating turd of a human being

So, if we, as citizens, are going to be ultimately responsible for the cost, why the hell can't we have government, non-profit, tax funded "insurance"?
 
2012-06-14 01:55:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: Jairzinho: SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.

So Congress should not be held accountable too for passing it in the first place?

The ones who voted for it, sure. Lawbreakers should be voted out.


Which law(s) were broken? Be specific. Identify clauses in the Constitution, specific sections of the U.S. code, or individual federal regulations by number.
 
2012-06-14 01:56:37 PM  

ImpendingCynic: SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.

Passing a law that gets struck down by the Supreme Court is not an illegal act. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.


Of course it is. Passing an illegal law is illegal. It's illegal to do that.
 
2012-06-14 01:56:43 PM  

SkinnyHead: Jairzinho: SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.

So Congress should not be held accountable too for passing it in the first place?

The ones who voted for it, sure. Lawbreakers should be voted out.


Don't you claim to be some kind of law-talking-guy? Shouldn't you know the difference between violating an ESTABLISHED law (or interpretation of it, like the boilerplate Miranda Warning both explaining the rights of a suspect under questioning and ensuring the suspect's understanding of them as constituting proof that questioning of the suspect was done pursuant to their 4/5th Amdt rights) and doing something ambiguous that is later determined to be outside the law.

So far as I know, no one has ever gone to jail based on the overturning of a duly-debated and passed US Congressional bill/law (John Adams' Alien and Sedition Acts come to mind - did Johnny go to jail?). Again, so far as I know, that would be an ex-post-facto application of the newly-overturned bill.

Example: SCOTUS recently determined that the right to possess firearms is an individual right. States or municipalities that had "collective right" laws or interpretations were not summarily rounded up and imprisoned for violating 2nd Amdt rights of everyone in the district - those rules/laws ceased to have any legal weight behind them. I think they're even technically still on the books - it would only be ENFORCEMENT of those laws/rules that becomes a violation of a citizen's rights (as ruled by SCOTUS).

In short: you can't go back and try Obama for signing a law that Congress passed.
 
2012-06-14 01:56:53 PM  

madgonad: Gitmo can't be closed until Congress allows money to be used to move prisoners to US soil.


Closing Gitmo as a facility is irrelevant; the Executive branch has authority to state that all detainees must be tried or released regardless of what Congress says.
 
2012-06-14 01:57:34 PM  

SkinnyHead: ImpendingCynic: SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.

Passing a law that gets struck down by the Supreme Court is not an illegal act. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.

Of course it is. Passing an illegal law is illegal. It's illegal to do that.


you keep using that word...I don't think it means what you think it means.
 
2012-06-14 01:58:33 PM  

SkinnyHead: Passing an illegal law is illegal.


Can you cite the provision of the Constitution of a statute which says this?
 
2012-06-14 01:59:10 PM  

SkinnyHead: Of course it is. Passing an illegal law is illegal. It's illegal to do that.


You are an idiot and you should stop typing.

Wait, did I just get trolled?
 
2012-06-14 01:59:30 PM  

SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.


I can feel ThinCranium's butthurt through TCP/IP! Is this some part of IPv6 that I don't know about?
 
2012-06-14 01:59:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: ImpendingCynic: SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.

Passing a law that gets struck down by the Supreme Court is not an illegal act. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.

Of course it is. Passing an illegal law is illegal. It's illegal to do that.


I can't wait to see your mental gymnastics when SCOTUS strikes down the Arizona "papers please" law.
 
2012-06-14 02:00:20 PM  

Babwa Wawa: bdub77: The court has become very politicized on this issue though. I think this is a much more polarized issue than voting rights.

bdub77: This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.

Mentat: My point was that the SCOTUS doesn't care. They make their decision before the hearings and then come up with some Constitutional veneer to justify their decision. They have no problem tossing away precedent or bypassing the separation of powers.

Don't you guys think we should wait for a decision one way or the other before condemning the court as politicized and unfair? Wouldn't you feel rather silly about this if they upheld the legislation?

While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.


Based on 12 years of watching these courts? Nah. Seen more than enough to call it.
 
2012-06-14 02:01:09 PM  

bdub77: Dusk-You-n-Me: bdub77: The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.

FWIW

"As the Supreme Court weighs the challenge to the 2010 health-care overhaul, there's a cautionary tale for those who may have found hope in the way the justices picked apart the government's arguments defending the law... In 2009, the justices were equally as picky in questioning government lawyers in arguments of an appeal of the 1965 Voting Rights Act -- and left the law intact in an 8-1 ruling." Link

The court has become very politicized on this issue though. I think this is a much more polarized issue than voting rights.


Which is not necessarily a bad thing. Polls show the majority of Americans support the individual pieces of the health plan; even among Republicans. The last thing the Supreme Court would want to do is make it into an election issue by ruling against it. As has been proven time and time again... people will always vote for who they feel cares about them.
 
2012-06-14 02:01:53 PM  

SkinnyHead: ImpendingCynic: SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.

Passing a law that gets struck down by the Supreme Court is not an illegal act. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.

Of course it is. Passing an illegal law is illegal. It's illegal to do that.




God - I'm just a (long-time) lurker, but for fakr sake, I always thought Skinnyhead was a troll, not an actual legitimate retard. Please kill yourself.
 
2012-06-14 02:02:37 PM  

doyner: I can't wait to see your mental gymnastics when SCOTUS strikes down the Arizona "papers please" law.


Oh, that's easy. Any decision he doesn't agree with is because of an activist judge. I can't believe people still fall for his schtick.
 
2012-06-14 02:02:48 PM  

Perlin Noise: SkinnyHead: Of course it is. Passing an illegal law is illegal. It's illegal to do that.

You are an idiot and you should stop typing.

Wait, did I just get trolled?


Skinnyhead is the first person you should have ignored after you started posting in this tab
 
2012-06-14 02:03:01 PM  

DamnYankees: But that's because there's a specific provision in the constitution you can point to which it would violate. The same can't be said of Obamacare.


Regardless, the effect of a law on the budget has nothing to do with the law's constitutionality. Otherwise, any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable. And that's not a correct interpretation of the commerce clause.
 
2012-06-14 02:03:48 PM  

Babwa Wawa: Otherwise, any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable. And that's not a correct interpretation of the commerce clause.


It's not? Sounds like it would be to me. What's wrong with that interpretation?
 
2012-06-14 02:05:54 PM  

DamnYankees: Babwa Wawa: Otherwise, any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable. And that's not a correct interpretation of the commerce clause.

It's not? Sounds like it would be to me. What's wrong with that interpretation?


Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?
 
2012-06-14 02:06:23 PM  

Soup4Bonnie: doyner: I can't wait to see your mental gymnastics when SCOTUS strikes down the Arizona "papers please" law.

Oh, that's easy. Any decision he doesn't agree with is because of an activist judge. I can't believe people still fall for his schtick.


It can be fun.

I wonder if he thinks GWB was a criminal for signing McCain/Feingold into law now that Citizens United has overturned it...
 
2012-06-14 02:06:47 PM  
...Kennedy stains the front of his robe after the sloppy corporate blowjob and facial?
 
2012-06-14 02:07:23 PM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: Babwa Wawa: Otherwise, any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable. And that's not a correct interpretation of the commerce clause.

It's not? Sounds like it would be to me. What's wrong with that interpretation?

Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?


Pretty sure it would violate the 5th amendment:

No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.
 
2012-06-14 02:08:19 PM  
Either way they go, they have the final say, and like Roe v Wade it will be controversial and facepalming for about 50% of people, joy for the other 50% or so.
 
2012-06-14 02:09:02 PM  

CPennypacker: Skinnyhead is the first person you should have ignored after you started posting in this tab


thanks for the advice, I'll do that now.
 
2012-06-14 02:09:22 PM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: Babwa Wawa: Otherwise, any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable. And that's not a correct interpretation of the commerce clause.

It's not? Sounds like it would be to me. What's wrong with that interpretation?

Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?


Because its violating their right to life.

They could make you eat broccoli though.
 
2012-06-14 02:09:37 PM  

DamnYankees: Pretty sure it would violate the 5th amendment:

No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.


Due process does not mean criminal trial. Police can shoot crazed gunmen without a trial - and not violate due process - because they are killing the crazed gunman in accordance to the law. The law can be changed to include homeless people as valid targets.

Note that being homeless in this scenario would not be a criminal act.
 
2012-06-14 02:10:09 PM  

Mentat: Aar1012: Mentat: SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.

Which was championed by Romney as a national model for healthcare.

It's no use arguing with him. Your best bet is to just talk about pie whenever he starts talking.

It's kind of like LSD. Sometimes you just want to see where it takes you.


And sometimes you start going down one road and then say, "Naw, fark this. I've got cold beer at the house, headphones and mario kart".
 
2012-06-14 02:10:46 PM  

sprawl15: Due process does not mean criminal trial. Police can shoot crazed gunmen without a trial - and not violate due process - because they are killing the crazed gunman in accordance to the law. The law can be changed to include homeless people as valid targets.


Good luck with this. If you can convince a judge that planned murder is proper "due process", then the individual mandate is the least of your problems.
 
2012-06-14 02:13:02 PM  

SkinnyHead: ImpendingCynic: Passing a law that gets struck down by the Supreme Court is not an illegal act. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.

Of course it is. Passing an illegal law is illegal. It's illegal to do that.


Law enforcement is done by the executive branch. Guess the FBI should arrest every representative and senator who has ever voted for a law that was later struck down.

Some of the PATRIOT Act was declared unconstitutional...guess George W. Bush should be in prison as well.

And yes, the character of "SkinnyHead" is actually that ignorant. Think Archie Bunker with a GED in law.
 
2012-06-14 02:13:57 PM  

DamnYankees: sprawl15: Due process does not mean criminal trial. Police can shoot crazed gunmen without a trial - and not violate due process - because they are killing the crazed gunman in accordance to the law. The law can be changed to include homeless people as valid targets.

Good luck with this. If you can convince a judge that planned murder is proper "due process", then the individual mandate is the least of your problems.


But we've got solid precedent. How could a judge not decide in favor of such a program?
 
2012-06-14 02:15:32 PM  

Dr Dreidel: So far as I know, no one has ever gone to jail based on the overturning of a duly-debated and passed US Congressional bill/law


I didn't say anything about anyone going to jail. I said it's illegal to pass an illegal bill. If someone in office does something illegal like that, voters should consider not voting for the lawbreaker when he comes up for re-election.
 
2012-06-14 02:16:04 PM  

bdub77: This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.


I love these arguments. It's a little like when creationists argue that the existence of earthquakes and volcanoes are a sign of the end of days.

Dred Scott
Jones v. Van Zandt
Cruikshank
Plessy v. Ferguson
And let's not even start on the Burger court, which gave us such gems of legal reasoning as the Lemon test and the Miller test, as well as, of course, the ultimate abortion of a legal opinion, Roe.

But sure, a court concluding that the 1st amendment extends to organizations of people, and not just people, or (potentially) that the commerce clause is not unbound is far worse and more lawless than any of that. And ohhh, so dangerous! Oh noes, the government is limited in its power to curtail the actions of the people! Heaven forfend!

Seriously, I have no doubt whatsoever that each and every member of the Supreme Court takes its role - and the constitution - very seriously. Their good faith, yes, including that of those with whom I disagree vehemently, is manifest. Those who cry "they're just weaving contrived constitutional arguments into their political decisions" really don't know what they're talking about.
 
2012-06-14 02:16:29 PM  

DamnYankees: If you can convince a judge that planned murder is proper "due process", then the individual mandate is the least of your problems.


What the fark are you babbling about?

We're talking hypothetical legislation that would state that it's open season on homeless people, in the interest of reducing spending. In such a hypothetical, you'd just point to the law and say "see?" and the judge would nod and send you on your way. You argued that 'any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable', and I'm asking to see if you actually believe that and are willing to defend it or if you're just full of shiat and asserted the above solely because it supports your position.

That you're refusing to even address the hypothetical is pretty good evidence of the latter.
 
2012-06-14 02:17:53 PM  

sprawl15: In such a hypothetical, you'd just point to the law and say "see?" and the judge would nod and send you on your way.


Except for the fact that this would never happen, you're exactly right.

sprawl15: You argued that 'any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable', and I'm asking to see if you actually believe that and are willing to defend it or if you're just full of shiat and asserted the above solely because it supports your position.


I believe it, provisionally, because I can't think of any example which would violate it.
 
2012-06-14 02:18:14 PM  

Garet Garrett: the ultimate abortion of a legal opinion, Roe.


Why do you believe Roe is the "ultimate abortion of a legal opinion", to be listed alongside things like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson?
 
2012-06-14 02:19:11 PM  

DamnYankees: SkinnyHead: Passing an illegal law is illegal.

Can you cite the provision of the Constitution of a statute which says this?


I like the idea of an illegal (rather than unconstitutional) law.

"Hi, I'm Bob Loblaw. Have you been the victim of an illegal law? Visit my website - Bob Loblaw's Law Blog."

Just when you thought a troll couldn't get any more obvious.
 
2012-06-14 02:19:57 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: DamnYankees: SkinnyHead: Passing an illegal law is illegal.

Can you cite the provision of the Constitution of a statute which says this?

I like the idea of an illegal (rather than unconstitutional) law.

"Hi, I'm Bob Loblaw. Have you been the victim of an illegal law? Visit my website - Bob Loblaw's Law Blog."

Just when you thought a troll couldn't get any more obvious.


Why should you be punished for committing a crime that someone else noticed?
 
2012-06-14 02:21:18 PM  

Garet Garrett: bdub77: This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.

I love these arguments. It's a little like when creationists argue that the existence of earthquakes and volcanoes are a sign of the end of days.

Dred Scott
Jones v. Van Zandt
Cruikshank
Plessy v. FergusonAnd let's not even start on the Burger court, which gave us such gems of legal reasoning as the Lemon test and the Miller test, as well as, of course, the ultimate abortion of a legal opinion, Roe.

But sure, a court concluding that the 1st amendment extends to organizations of people, and not just people, or (potentially) that the commerce clause is not unbound is far worse and more lawless than any of that. And ohhh, so dangerous! Oh noes, the government is limited in its power to curtail the actions of the people! Heaven forfend!

Seriously, I have no doubt whatsoever that each and every member of the Supreme Court takes its role - and the constitution - very seriously. Their good faith, yes, including that of those with whom I disagree vehemently, is manifest. Those who cry "they're just weaving contrived constitutional arguments into their political decisions" really don't know what they're talking about.


Citizens United essentially allows a few people (CEOs, board members, etc.) to 'speak' for, and louder than, everyone that they employ. In fact, in general, it allows the wealthy to "speak" louder than the less wealthy. Our politics were already too money-based; Citizens United made the problem far, FAR worse.

For any sort of sanity to return to US politics, there needs to be LESS money involved, not more.
 
2012-06-14 02:22:46 PM  

qorkfiend: Garet Garrett: the ultimate abortion of a legal opinion, Roe.

Why do you believe Roe is the "ultimate abortion of a legal opinion", to be listed alongside things like Dred Scott and Plessy v. Ferguson?


It's horribly contrived and utterly without legal foundation. It couldn't command a majority for its essential holding. The notion that there's a trimester system that's germane to the rights involved was a formulation of the minds of the authors, untied to either legal or scientific reasoning.

Casey, with which I also disagree, effectively re-wrote Roe in a way that made the constitutional case for a limited right to abortion (and some of the parameters of that right) at least comprehensible. Like Roe written by actual judges.
 
2012-06-14 02:24:33 PM  

LectertheChef: Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.


You know why the US was great after WWII? Because WWII killed something like 400,000 Americans. Just think if we killed that percentage of our population again, why we could remove almost a third of the stupid from this country.
 
2012-06-14 02:25:02 PM  

LordJiro: Garet Garrett: bdub77: This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.

I love these arguments. It's a little like when creationists argue that the existence of earthquakes and volcanoes are a sign of the end of days.

Dred Scott
Jones v. Van Zandt
Cruikshank
Plessy v. FergusonAnd let's not even start on the Burger court, which gave us such gems of legal reasoning as the Lemon test and the Miller test, as well as, of course, the ultimate abortion of a legal opinion, Roe.

But sure, a court concluding that the 1st amendment extends to organizations of people, and not just people, or (potentially) that the commerce clause is not unbound is far worse and more lawless than any of that. And ohhh, so dangerous! Oh noes, the government is limited in its power to curtail the actions of the people! Heaven forfend!

Seriously, I have no doubt whatsoever that each and every member of the Supreme Court takes its role - and the constitution - very seriously. Their good faith, yes, including that of those with whom I disagree vehemently, is manifest. Those who cry "they're just weaving contrived constitutional arguments into their political decisions" really don't know what they're talking about.

Citizens United essentially allows a few people (CEOs, board members, etc.) to 'speak' for, and louder than, everyone that they employ. In fact, in general, it allows the wealthy to "speak" louder than the less wealthy. Our politics were already too money-based; Citizens United made the problem far, FAR worse.

For any sort of sanity to return to US politics, there needs to be LESS money involved, not more.


Well yeah, that makes it a bad idea but not necessarily bad constitutional law.
 
2012-06-14 02:25:28 PM  

sprawl15: madgonad: Gitmo can't be closed until Congress allows money to be used to move prisoners to US soil.

Closing Gitmo as a facility is irrelevant; the Executive branch has authority to state that all detainees must be tried or released regardless of what Congress says.


Not true.

There is specific language in the annual funding bills that FORBID any use of money or resources for the purposes of moving prisoners at Gitmo to the US territory. They either get repatriated by their own countries (who don't want them), taken in by another nation (Tongo took some?!?), or leave them there.
 
2012-06-14 02:25:59 PM  

SkinnyHead: Dr Dreidel: So far as I know, no one has ever gone to jail based on the overturning of a duly-debated and passed US Congressional bill/law

I didn't say anything about anyone going to jail. I said it's illegal to pass an illegal bill. If someone in office does something illegal like that, voters should consider not voting for the lawbreaker when he comes up for re-election.


In order to be a lawBREAKER, you have to have BROKEN an existing law. Point to the EXISTING law which Obama would have broken by signing PPACA.

// without violating 4th-dimension limitations
 
2012-06-14 02:26:13 PM  

LordJiro: For any sort of sanity to return to US politics, there needs to be LESS money involved, not more.


I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that one. I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech - without money, there's no effective means of communicating with the electorate. And I have great faith in people to separate the wheat from the chaff in terms of political communications. The more speech the better. Labor unions, deranged millionaires (even Mike Bloomberg), the PTO, they're all welcome to speak out as far as I'm concerned.
 
2012-06-14 02:26:44 PM  

Perlin Noise: CPennypacker: Skinnyhead is the first person you should have ignored after you started posting in this tab

thanks for the advice, I'll do that now.


I've kept Skinnydick off my IGNORE list because his stupidity was mildly endearing. You know he's a complete dumbf*ck and someone so asinine could never be taken seriously.

Now he's like a puddle of dried vomit. You look because he's curious, disgusting, and you just can't look away; and you wonder why someone hasn't yet put him in the trash.

Adios, simpleton. Don't let your drool ruin your keyboard.

/cman is probably on deck
 
2012-06-14 02:27:02 PM  

Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech


So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.
 
2012-06-14 02:27:10 PM  

DamnYankees: Except for the fact that this would never happen, you're exactly right.


That it would never happen is totally irrelevant. When you test the limits of potential inputs to a logical assertion, you don't just test what is expected. You see this in software: a question that asks for your birthday had better be able to handle an input of 'balloon intestine', or it's shiatty logic.

DamnYankees: I believe it, provisionally, because I can't think of any example which would violate it.


Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?
 
2012-06-14 02:27:11 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: And yes, the character of "SkinnyHead" is actually that ignorant. Think Archie Bunker with a GED in law.


I like to think of him as a more interactive version of Bevets: more goalpost moving, less copypasta
 
2012-06-14 02:27:24 PM  

DamnYankees: SkinnyHead: Passing an illegal law is illegal.

Can you cite the provision of the Constitution of a statute which says this?


No, it's axiomatic. It's illegal to do something illegal.

rufus-t-firefly: Some of the PATRIOT Act was declared unconstitutional...guess George W. Bush should be in prison as well.


If voters believed that Bush acted illegally, shouldn't they be able to consider that in deciding whether to vote for him when he seeks re-election?
 
2012-06-14 02:28:05 PM  

sprawl15: Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?


Because it would violate the 5th amendment. I've said this already.
 
2012-06-14 02:28:14 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: LectertheChef: Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.

You know why the US was great after WWII? Because WWII killed something like 400,000 Americans. Just think if we killed that percentage of our population again, why we could remove almost a third of the stupid from this country.


Not even close. 65,000,000 people voted for Obama last time, and I don't think we've gotten that much smarter in just 4 years.
 
2012-06-14 02:29:20 PM  

madgonad: Not true.

There is specific language in the annual funding bills that FORBID any use of money or resources for the purposes of moving prisoners at Gitmo to the US territory.


Again, you don't need to move prisoners to the US to try them. They can be prosecuted right where they are. I don't know what post you thought you read, but location of prisoners is - again - totally irrelevant.

The problem is not that there is a building called Gitmo, it is the treatment of the people within. Transferring prisoners only changes the name on the sign; I care much more about respecting basic human rights. I could care less where we keep them.
 
2012-06-14 02:29:29 PM  

DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech

So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.


Extortion is speech, I also don't think it's protected by the First Amendment. Try again.
 
2012-06-14 02:29:53 PM  

DamnYankees: Good luck with this. If you can convince a judge that planned murder is proper "due process", then the individual mandate is the least of your problems.


Eric Holder said that "due process" doesn't necessarily mean "judicial process" so a judge might never need to be involved.
 
2012-06-14 02:30:18 PM  

Bontesla: LectertheChef: Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.

Hmmm. I think I'm going to need to see a picture of Christ on a dildo in order to evaluate your statement.

Please?

/I asked nicely.


For all your Christlike dildo needs.
 
2012-06-14 02:30:46 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: LectertheChef: Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.

You know why the US was great after WWII? Because WWII killed something like 400,000 Americans. Just think if we killed that percentage of our population again, why we could remove almost a third of the stupid from this country.


I'm pretty sure we emerged as "great" because all possible competitors had just had their industrial base reduced to rubble and sizable portions of their workforce killed.
 
2012-06-14 02:31:29 PM  

Garet Garrett: DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech

So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.

Extortion is speech, I also don't think it's protected by the First Amendment. Try again.


Extortion is not consensual - bribery is. Why should bribery be illegal?
 
2012-06-14 02:31:32 PM  

DamnYankees: sprawl15: Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?

Because it would violate the 5th amendment. I've said this already.


Due process does not mean criminal trial. Police can shoot crazed gunmen without a trial - and not violate due process - because they are killing the crazed gunman in accordance to the law. The law can be changed to include homeless people as valid targets.

Note that being homeless in this scenario would not be a criminal act.

To save you time scrolling up, after this point you freaked out and said that a hypothetical situation sounds really hypothetical.
 
2012-06-14 02:31:32 PM  

SkinnyHead: FlashHarry: SkinnyHead: The Supreme Court will only be deciding whether Obamacare is legal or not. If the court rules that Obamacare is illegal, then Obama is the one to blame for the mess. He's the lawbreaker.

and if they rule that it's legal?

If Obamacare stands, then Obama is to blame for the mess that is Obamacare.


img6.imageshack.us
 
2012-06-14 02:31:46 PM  

jigger: DamnYankees: Good luck with this. If you can convince a judge that planned murder is proper "due process", then the individual mandate is the least of your problems.

Eric Holder said that "due process" doesn't necessarily mean "judicial process" so a judge might never need to be involved.


Eric Holder is correct. A policeman who shoots a crazed gunman has followed due process and there is no judge involved.
 
2012-06-14 02:32:15 PM  

DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech

So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.


I think the concept that money is speech makes as much sense as saying chocolate pudding is speech. None. Money itself says nothing. It allows some people to speak louder than others. A megaphone is not the speech itself.

//mmmmm pudding!
 
2012-06-14 02:32:38 PM  

SkinnyHead: Dr Dreidel: So far as I know, no one has ever gone to jail based on the overturning of a duly-debated and passed US Congressional bill/law

I didn't say anything about anyone going to jail. I said it's illegal to pass an illegal bill. If someone in office does something illegal like that, voters should consider not voting for the lawbreaker when he comes up for re-election.


That's awesome.

"You are hereby accused of violating the law. You will not be indicted or tried, and there is no punishment other than the possibility that you might not get 50% +1 of the vote in the next election. May God have mercy on your soul."

Also there's the whole thing about an illegal act being "alleged" until it's proven in court...so, since someone who allegedly committed the illegal act will never be charged and tried, it's pretty much a ridiculous exercise to call it "illegal" even if it was.

The only reason not to have someone like S-Head on ignore is to enjoy the ridiculous legal theories that come up.

If he were real, he'd be a "sovereign citizen.

"Judge, I conditionally accept your offer to continue this once I am presented with the documentation so I can inspect any accusatory original instruments for my inspection," replied Kwame, 48, also known as Gregory Ross of Covington, Ga.

Annoyed by Kwame's non-answer, Irwin tossed the suspect - who had been free on bond pending trial - into a holding cell to ponder his options. A few hours later, the judge offered Kwame one last chance to request an attorney - and made clear he'd had it with the legal shenanigans.

"As far as the Moor Nations, or Martian law, we're going to go on Georgia law," Irwin said. "As based upon the Georgia statutes, as done by the Georgia Legislature, you have a right to a trial on those issues. That's it. I'm not doing Moorish law. ... I'm not doing paper law. I'm doing Georgia law. ... I have given you opportunities, I have given you offers, and you have refused. ... You're not free to go. A jury will be picked for you today."

Kwame seemed bewildered. "You're placing the occupant of the executor office of the Akeem Kwame [trust] in custody? Is that what you're saying?"

"I'm going to place Akeem Kwame and anybody else that doesn't respond [in custody]. Your imaginary friend. You and the Grand Poobah of the Moor Nation if that happens to be you. "

Asked if he understood his constitutional right to a lawyer, Kwame told Irwin, "I waive those constitutional rights because that Constitution is not in my jurisdiction. I am an American foreign national. I am not an American citizen."

After a few more minutes of this, an exasperated Irwin finally ordered Kwame taken to jail and canceled the trial until the state could do a psychological evaluation.

"That is not my wish today, judge," Kwame said as he was being escorted away. "Let the record reflect, I did not give the court jurisdiction to take me into custody against my free will ...."
 
2012-06-14 02:33:29 PM  
You people all realize that Skinnyhead is just elchip's troll alt, right?
 
2012-06-14 02:33:55 PM  

sprawl15: Due process does not mean criminal trial. Police can shoot crazed gunmen without a trial - and not violate due process - because they are killing the crazed gunman in accordance to the law. The law can be changed to include homeless people as valid targets.


Due process does not mean "in accordance with law", though. I don't know where you are getting that from.

qorkfiend: Eric Holder is correct. A policeman who shoots a crazed gunman has followed due process and there is no judge involved.


The reason the policeman can shoot a crazed gunman is a matter of common law, not constitutional law. I don't see the relevance.
 
2012-06-14 02:35:10 PM  

qorkfiend: jigger: DamnYankees: Good luck with this. If you can convince a judge that planned murder is proper "due process", then the individual mandate is the least of your problems.

Eric Holder said that "due process" doesn't necessarily mean "judicial process" so a judge might never need to be involved.

Eric Holder is correct. A policeman who shoots a crazed gunman has followed due process and there is no judge involved.


Then it's Hobo Season!
 
2012-06-14 02:35:43 PM  

rufus-t-firefly: "As far as the Moor Nations, or Martian law, we're going to go on Georgia law," Irwin said. "As based upon the Georgia statutes, as done by the Georgia Legislature, you have a right to a trial on those issues. That's it. I'm not doing Moorish law. ... I'm not doing paper law. I'm doing Georgia law. ... I have given you opportunities, I have given you offers, and you have refused. ... You're not free to go. A jury will be picked for you today."


Kwame later stated: "That's crap. Mars is wild, untamed. I'm forming a cadre of Martian knights charged with enforcing Martian law. "
 
2012-06-14 02:36:28 PM  

DamnYankees: sprawl15: Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?

Because it would violate the 5th amendment. I've said this already.


Hey, this game could be fun. What if we just banned helping the homeless? Sounds bad. Time to bring in the administrative juggernaut to accomplish indirectly what would be abhorrent if done directly:

Pass a law enabling the Department of Transportation to pass regulations improving the appearance of, and removing obstacles from the free use of public thoroughfares. And then have DOT pass regulations, fully compliant with the APA, that make it illegal, subject to civil penalties, to promote panhandling activities. Define panhandling to include simple vagrancy, and "promotion" to include the support, directly, or indirectly, of such activities. You could even create a jobs program for the newly busy coroner's office when they start dying of starvation.

QED. Homeless problem solved, or at least mightily curtailed. And all done within the purvue of the Commerce Clause.
 
2012-06-14 02:36:29 PM  

Perlin Noise: DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech

So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.

I think the concept that money is speech makes as much sense as saying chocolate pudding is speech. None. Money itself says nothing. It allows some people to speak louder than others. A megaphone is not the speech itself.

//mmmmm pudding!



If I can take the megaphone out of your hand constitutionally, can I stop your printing press constitutionally?
 
2012-06-14 02:36:56 PM  

SkinnyHead: rufus-t-firefly: Some of the PATRIOT Act was declared unconstitutional...guess George W. Bush should be in prison as well.

If voters believed that Bush acted illegally, shouldn't they be able to consider that in deciding whether to vote for him when he seeks re-election?


Sure, but an illegal act should require a bit more than people "believing" it occurred.

Shouldn't passing or signing an illegal law (:snicker:) be treated more seriously than someone exceeding the speed limit?

"Look, officer, you say I was doing 50 in a 30. Can't you just put a sticker on my car, or make me use my hazard lights while driving, to let other drivers know that I tend to speed, rather than actually citing me?"
 
2012-06-14 02:37:28 PM  

DamnYankees: The reason the policeman can shoot a crazed gunman is a matter of common law, not constitutional law. I don't see the relevance.


How do you think the constitutional right to due process is satisfied in the case of the crazed gunman?
 
2012-06-14 02:37:51 PM  

Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech


Ah, I see you're one of those fabulous legal minds. Let me know how that works out for you at your local convenience store next time you try to talk your way into a free case of Twixtm bars. Just because money can facilitate the spread of speech does not make it logically equivalent to speech.
 
2012-06-14 02:38:02 PM  

jigger: qorkfiend: jigger: DamnYankees: Good luck with this. If you can convince a judge that planned murder is proper "due process", then the individual mandate is the least of your problems.

Eric Holder said that "due process" doesn't necessarily mean "judicial process" so a judge might never need to be involved.

Eric Holder is correct. A policeman who shoots a crazed gunman has followed due process and there is no judge involved.

Then it's Hobo Season!


If it's Crazed Gunman the Hobo, then sure.
 
2012-06-14 02:38:29 PM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: The reason the policeman can shoot a crazed gunman is a matter of common law, not constitutional law. I don't see the relevance.

How do you think the constitutional right to due process is satisfied in the case of the crazed gunman?


It's not a matter of constitutional law. It's a matter of common law. EVERYONE has the right to shoot a crazed gunman who is an immediate threat to other people. It's not a constitutional issue.
 
2012-06-14 02:40:25 PM  

Perlin Noise: DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech

So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.

I think the concept that money is speech makes as much sense as saying chocolate pudding is speech. None. Money itself says nothing. It allows some people to speak louder than others. A megaphone is not the speech itself.

//mmmmm pudding!


Of course you're right on what amounts to a completely irrelevant level. Under your theory, it wouldn't offend the 1st Amendment at all to ban the use of megaphones, since that's not speech. Well, then, we could prohibit the use of transponders or radio frequency transmission devices, too. Nothing to stop those politicians from standing on the street corner giving their stump speech to those within earshot!

How quickly the 1st Amendment becomes a token obstacle when you're as literalist as that.
 
2012-06-14 02:40:27 PM  

qorkfiend: jigger: qorkfiend: jigger: DamnYankees: Good luck with this. If you can convince a judge that planned murder is proper "due process", then the individual mandate is the least of your problems.

Eric Holder said that "due process" doesn't necessarily mean "judicial process" so a judge might never need to be involved.

Eric Holder is correct. A policeman who shoots a crazed gunman has followed due process and there is no judge involved.

Then it's Hobo Season!

If it's Crazed Gunman the Hobo, then sure.


Well, we still have to change some of the statues dictating police rules of engagement. But it's not like we have to amend the constitution of anything.
 
2012-06-14 02:40:51 PM  

DamnYankees: EVERYONE has the right to shoot a crazed gunman


Really? Even another crazed gunman? So I can become a crazed gunman and be safe from legal reprisal as long as I only shoot other crazed gunmen?
 
2012-06-14 02:42:35 PM  

DamnYankees: It's not a matter of constitutional law. It's a matter of common law. EVERYONE has the right to shoot a crazed gunman who is an immediate threat to other people. It's not a constitutional issue.


Bullshiat. As you said, "No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The policeman is a government actor, and absolutely bound by this. Either the policeman shooting the crazed gunman satisfies the gunman's right to due process - via legislative authority dictating allowable amounts of force scaled to the situation - or it violates that right.
 
2012-06-14 02:43:39 PM  

Somacandra: DamnYankees: EVERYONE has the right to shoot a crazed gunman

Really? Even another crazed gunman? So I can become a crazed gunman and be safe from legal reprisal as long as I only shoot other crazed gunmen?


No, because "legal reprisal" includes being shot, as you are a crazed gunman. So you won't be "safe" at all.

C'mon people, follow the ball!!!!
 
2012-06-14 02:43:49 PM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: It's not a matter of constitutional law. It's a matter of common law. EVERYONE has the right to shoot a crazed gunman who is an immediate threat to other people. It's not a constitutional issue.

Bullshiat. As you said, "No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The policeman is a government actor, and absolutely bound by this. Either the policeman shooting the crazed gunman satisfies the gunman's right to due process - via legislative authority dictating allowable amounts of force scaled to the situation - or it violates that right.


So you think every murder is a 5th amendment violation?
 
2012-06-14 02:44:00 PM  

Dr Dreidel: In order to be a lawBREAKER, you have to have BROKEN an existing law. Point to the EXISTING law which Obama would have broken by signing PPACA.

// without violating 4th-dimension limitations


Well, the constitution is an existing law, isn't it? if Obamacare is found to be unconstitutional, that means it's against the law. Obama broke the law when he pushed for and signed a bill that is against the law.
 
2012-06-14 02:44:22 PM  

jigger: qorkfiend: jigger: qorkfiend: jigger: DamnYankees: Good luck with this. If you can convince a judge that planned murder is proper "due process", then the individual mandate is the least of your problems.

Eric Holder said that "due process" doesn't necessarily mean "judicial process" so a judge might never need to be involved.

Eric Holder is correct. A policeman who shoots a crazed gunman has followed due process and there is no judge involved.

Then it's Hobo Season!

If it's Crazed Gunman the Hobo, then sure.

Well, we still have to change some of the statues dictating police rules of engagement. But it's not like we have to amend the constitution of anything.


Right.
 
2012-06-14 02:44:36 PM  

LordJiro: Garet Garrett: bdub77: This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.

I love these arguments. It's a little like when creationists argue that the existence of earthquakes and volcanoes are a sign of the end of days.

Dred Scott
Jones v. Van Zandt
Cruikshank
Plessy v. FergusonAnd let's not even start on the Burger court, which gave us such gems of legal reasoning as the Lemon test and the Miller test, as well as, of course, the ultimate abortion of a legal opinion, Roe.

But sure, a court concluding that the 1st amendment extends to organizations of people, and not just people, or (potentially) that the commerce clause is not unbound is far worse and more lawless than any of that. And ohhh, so dangerous! Oh noes, the government is limited in its power to curtail the actions of the people! Heaven forfend!

Seriously, I have no doubt whatsoever that each and every member of the Supreme Court takes its role - and the constitution - very seriously. Their good faith, yes, including that of those with whom I disagree vehemently, is manifest. Those who cry "they're just weaving contrived constitutional arguments into their political decisions" really don't know what they're talking about.

Citizens United essentially allows a few people (CEOs, board members, etc.) to 'speak' for, and louder than, everyone that they employ. In fact, in general, it allows the wealthy to "speak" louder than the less wealthy. Our politics were already too money-based; Citizens United made the problem far, FAR worse.

For any sort of sanity to return to US politics, there needs to be LESS money involved, not more.


Because even your average joe had access to a printing press and unlimited quantities of paper in the 1790's.
 
2012-06-14 02:45:10 PM  

DamnYankees: So you think every murder is a 5th amendment violation?


Private citizens are not government actors. Which is why I'm very clear about a policeman doing the shooting and why I said "The policeman is a government actor, and absolutely bound by this." Try to keep up, sparky.
 
2012-06-14 02:45:18 PM  

DamnYankees: sprawl15: DamnYankees: It's not a matter of constitutional law. It's a matter of common law. EVERYONE has the right to shoot a crazed gunman who is an immediate threat to other people. It's not a constitutional issue.

Bullshiat. As you said, "No person shall be ...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." The policeman is a government actor, and absolutely bound by this. Either the policeman shooting the crazed gunman satisfies the gunman's right to due process - via legislative authority dictating allowable amounts of force scaled to the situation - or it violates that right.

So you think every murder is a 5th amendment violation?


Only for government actors acting in an official government capacity...
 
2012-06-14 02:45:43 PM  

jigger: If I can take the megaphone out of your hand constitutionally, can I stop your printing press constitutionally?


The printing press is an actual medium for speech. Money is not.

The issue here is about opportunity, not censorship. If money is required, on the scale it is now, money effectively wins the argument regardless of what the argument was about. Policy is dictated by who has the most money. It really has nothing at all to do with what is actually being said.

It's very simple, if we don't want the argument/policy to be dictated by money, we have to take it out.
 
2012-06-14 02:46:12 PM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: So you think every murder is a 5th amendment violation?

Private citizens are not government actors. Which is why I'm very clear about a policeman doing the shooting and why I said "The policeman is a government actor, and absolutely bound by this." Try to keep up, sparky.


The 5th amendment doesn't limit itself to government actors. Read it.
 
2012-06-14 02:49:04 PM  

DamnYankees: sprawl15: DamnYankees: So you think every murder is a 5th amendment violation?

Private citizens are not government actors. Which is why I'm very clear about a policeman doing the shooting and why I said "The policeman is a government actor, and absolutely bound by this." Try to keep up, sparky.

The 5th amendment doesn't limit itself to government actors. Read it.


What are you basing this assertion upon?
 
2012-06-14 02:49:10 PM  

Perlin Noise: jigger: If I can take the megaphone out of your hand constitutionally, can I stop your printing press constitutionally?

The printing press is an actual medium for speech. Money is not.

The issue here is about opportunity, not censorship. If money is required, on the scale it is now, money effectively wins the argument regardless of what the argument was about. Policy is dictated by who has the most money. It really has nothing at all to do with what is actually being said.

It's very simple, if we don't want the argument/policy to be dictated by money, we have to take it out.


I can't wait to hear how you run a presidential campaign for less than Let's Go says it takes to travel Subsaharan Africa.
 
2012-06-14 02:49:13 PM  

Garet Garrett: Perlin Noise: DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech

So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.

I think the concept that money is speech makes as much sense as saying chocolate pudding is speech. None. Money itself says nothing. It allows some people to speak louder than others. A megaphone is not the speech itself.

//mmmmm pudding!

Of course you're right on what amounts to a completely irrelevant level. Under your theory, it wouldn't offend the 1st Amendment at all to ban the use of megaphones, since that's not speech. Well, then, we could prohibit the use of transponders or radio frequency transmission devices, too. Nothing to stop those politicians from standing on the street corner giving their stump speech to those within earshot!

How quickly the 1st Amendment becomes a token obstacle when you're as literalist as that.


Correct me if I am wrong ..but there are noise ordinances and regulations for what you are talking about... there should be regulations on the money, substantial ones.
 
2012-06-14 02:49:31 PM  

DamnYankees: So you think every murder is a 5th amendment violation?


Sometimes if a murder conviction fails, the case will be tried in federal court and the charge will be "violation of civil rights."
 
2012-06-14 02:49:43 PM  

qorkfiend: What are you basing this assertion upon?


The English language.
 
2012-06-14 02:49:59 PM  

Slaves2Darkness: LectertheChef: Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.

You know why the US was great after WWII? Because WWII killed something like 400,000 Americans. Just think if we killed that percentage of our population again, why we could remove almost a third of the stupid from this country.


Eugenics - the liberal utopia.
 
2012-06-14 02:51:13 PM  

DamnYankees: The 5th amendment doesn't limit itself to government actors.


notsureifserious.jpg

Seriously, take a step back. You're arguing an interpretation of the commerce clause that would allow the killing of homeless people because it helps with the budget. If you need to fall back on the 5th Amendment to say that wanton killing isn't acceptable under the commerce clause, maybe you should shut up, sit down, and think up an interpretation that isn't dumber than anything I've seen NarrowCranium post today.
 
2012-06-14 02:51:20 PM  

Garet Garrett: I can't wait to hear how you run a presidential campaign for less than Let's Go says it takes to travel Subsaharan Africa.


Public financing
 
2012-06-14 02:52:25 PM  

sprawl15: You're arguing an interpretation of the commerce clause that would allow the killing of homeless people because it helps with the budget.


Except I'm not, and have explicitly said this would not be allowed. But go on.
 
2012-06-14 02:52:59 PM  

Perlin Noise: jigger: If I can take the megaphone out of your hand constitutionally, can I stop your printing press constitutionally?

The printing press is an actual medium for speech. Money is not.

The issue here is about opportunity, not censorship. If money is required, on the scale it is now, money effectively wins the argument regardless of what the argument was about. Policy is dictated by who has the most money. It really has nothing at all to do with what is actually being said.

It's very simple, if we don't want the argument/policy to be dictated by money, we have to take it out.



Hey, you brought up the megaphone thing.

Would it be constitutional to prevent you from spending money to print political pamphlets?

And can you support your assertion that "money wins the argument every time" with some examples.
 
2012-06-14 02:53:53 PM  
Health is not a right; Freedom is.
 
2012-06-14 02:53:54 PM  

DamnYankees: Except I'm not, and have explicitly said this would not be allowed.


sprawl15: If you need to fall back on the 5th Amendment to say that wanton killing isn't acceptable under the commerce clause, maybe you should shut up, sit down, and think up an interpretation that isn't dumber than anything I've seen NarrowCranium post today.


I can keep reposting things all day, eventually you'll read them, if only on accident.
 
2012-06-14 02:54:39 PM  

ImpendingCynic: SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.

Passing a law that gets struck down by the Supreme Court is not an illegal act. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.


Actually someone already told him that he can't possibly be that stupid and he replied with "oh yes I can".
 
2012-06-14 02:55:12 PM  

DamnYankees: qorkfiend: What are you basing this assertion upon?

The English language.


How? There's nothing in the amendment that says "This applies to everyone, not just government actors", even implicitly. This would be a radical departure from the rest of the Constitution, which sets restraints upon the government alone.
 
2012-06-14 02:55:20 PM  

George Walker Bush: Health is not a right; Freedom is.


Then why'd you push Medicare Part D?
 
2012-06-14 02:57:35 PM  

SkinnyHead: Dr Dreidel: In order to be a lawBREAKER, you have to have BROKEN an existing law. Point to the EXISTING law which Obama would have broken by signing PPACA.

// without violating 4th-dimension limitations

Well, the constitution is an existing law, isn't it? if Obamacare is found to be unconstitutional, that means it's against the law. Obama broke the law when he pushed for and signed a bill that is against the law.


If PPACA patently violated the Constitution, there's no way the Congressional Parliamentarians (the guys charged with making sure no "Jesus is the only deity Americans are allowed to pray to" bills ever make it to the floor, even with a functionally psychotic Chamber in session) would have let it go by.

In fact, the whole damned reason PPACA's gone to SCOTUS in the first place is that WE DON'T KNOW if it's Constitutional or not. Once SCOTUS rules, the law is struck, and its effects are declared unenforceable. Any attempts to use governmental power to enforce any provisions of PPACA AFTER the SCOTUS ruling would be illegal. Those enforcements that took place before the law was struck are not actionable, as they were legal right up until SCOTUS said they weren't.

The Constitution (not the Amendments, the other part) says that once both houses of Congress plus the president sign a piece of paper, it's law until SCOTUS says it's not (unless there's an injunction to stop implementation/enforcement). SCOTUS can't magically create an ex-post-facto crime out of a bad bill.
 
2012-06-14 02:57:47 PM  

SkinnyHead: if Obamacare is found to be unconstitutional, that means it's against the law. Obama broke the law when he pushed for and signed a bill that is against the law.


This just in: SkinnyHead has found a way to make political speech illegal.

Since completely outlawing abortion is unconstitutional. when a group says we should criminalize abortion, that group is doing something illegal.

Since flag burning is protected under the First Amendment, when someone says flag burning should be against the law, that person has broken the law.

/facepalm
 
2012-06-14 02:59:18 PM  

sprawl15: madgonad: Not true.

There is specific language in the annual funding bills that FORBID any use of money or resources for the purposes of moving prisoners at Gitmo to the US territory.

Again, you don't need to move prisoners to the US to try them. They can be prosecuted right where they are. I don't know what post you thought you read, but location of prisoners is - again - totally irrelevant.

The problem is not that there is a building called Gitmo, it is the treatment of the people within. Transferring prisoners only changes the name on the sign; I care much more about respecting basic human rights. I could care less where we keep them.


Some can. However, a lot of the people stuck in Gitmo won't be tried and have nowhere to go. They are effectively in Limbo. They can't go to any country, which leaves them stuck there.

And aren't you moving the goalposts? I thought the outrage was 'Turdbama hasn't closed Gitmo like he superdupersuper promised'. Congress is preventing the closure, period.
 
2012-06-14 02:59:52 PM  

Perlin Noise: Garet Garrett: I can't wait to hear how you run a presidential campaign for less than Let's Go says it takes to travel Subsaharan Africa.

Public financing


Ok, we get public financing but I get as much money as the other guys, right?
 
2012-06-14 03:01:27 PM  
Say what you want, but I'd rather have The People's Court take over. As their name implies, they're for the PEOPLE, not some kind of supreme thingamadoo.

I'll take a Doug Llewelyn over three Ruth Bader Ginsbergs any day of the week. The man has an unwavering top lip. You throw in Judge Wapner and Rusty Burrell, and you've got a team that can't be beat.

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com
 
2012-06-14 03:03:22 PM  

madgonad: However, a lot of the people stuck in Gitmo won't be tried and have nowhere to go. They are effectively in Limbo. They can't go to any country, which leaves them stuck there.


Which has nothing to do with closing Gitmo. If we could close Gitmo, we'd just leave them in limbo somewhere else. I'd rather take them out of limbo, regardless of where they're held.

madgonad: And aren't you moving the goalposts? I thought the outrage was 'Turdbama hasn't closed Gitmo like he superdupersuper promised'.


No. I couldn't care one whit if Gitmo stays open or not, though there's obvious symbolic benefit to closing the facility. I care about the people within Gitmo attaining SOME form of legal status. That some people care more for the symbolic benefit of closing the facility over the material issue of the United States Government refusing to respect the rights of detainees is not my problem.
 
2012-06-14 03:03:31 PM  

jigger: And can you support your assertion that "money wins the argument every time" with some examples.


How about Wisconsin?
 
2012-06-14 03:04:06 PM  

LectertheChef: Bontesla: LectertheChef: Christ on a dildo this country's retarded. We're the only industrialized nation on Earth to not be able to pull off universal healthcare. It's amazing that we, as a nation, ever manage to do anything other than wave flags, shoot each other, eat fried stuff, and drool on our erections while watching Megyn Kelly tell us how evil socialism is.

Hmmm. I think I'm going to need to see a picture of Christ on a dildo in order to evaluate your statement.

Please?

/I asked nicely.

For all your Christlike dildo needs.


Oh wow.

That is awesome.
 
2012-06-14 03:04:52 PM  
The hand wringing in here is funny.

The bill should be overturned as the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is what holds the whole collection of crap together.

Just because, in your opinion, the bill will help people, doesn't make it constitutional.
 
2012-06-14 03:06:06 PM  

George Walker Bush: Health is not a right; Freedom is.


I would argue that Life is... and it is our responsibility as citizens to keep our nation healthy and educated.
 
2012-06-14 03:06:34 PM  

Perlin Noise: jigger: And can you support your assertion that "money wins the argument every time" with some examples.

How about Wisconsin?


Well in Wisconsin a governor was reelected vs the same candidate he was elected just a year and a half before.

I don't think it was only money that got him reelected... maybe the voters liked him more than the other guy.
 
2012-06-14 03:07:45 PM  

CujoQuarrel: Ok, we get public financing but I get as much money as the other guys, right?


yes, but there must be a critical mass of constituent support through a fair/defined process
 
2012-06-14 03:07:55 PM  

jigger: George Walker Bush: Health is not a right; Freedom is.

Then why'd you push Medicare Part D?


The last Great Compromiser shall be held up as a martyr to the folly of bipartisanship between two diametrically opposed ideologies.
 
2012-06-14 03:08:07 PM  

MugzyBrown: The hand wringing in here is funny.

The bill should be overturned as the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is what holds the whole collection of crap together.

Just because, in your opinion, the bill will help people, doesn't make it constitutional.


If the mandate was obviously unconstitutional we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.
 
2012-06-14 03:09:17 PM  
Nice use of out of date CBO Reports TPM... You guys are so honest in reporting.

//freaking shills
 
2012-06-14 03:11:41 PM  
If the mandate was obviously unconstitutional we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.

Why would you think that?
 
2012-06-14 03:11:52 PM  
So, if I'm understanding this thread correctly, there are several Farkers who think that Citizens United was a good idea. Please tell me that I just need more coffee and that you're not really that migraine-inducingly stupid. Bloody hell.
 
2012-06-14 03:12:48 PM  
Garet Garrett

If money is speech, then money is also: food, shelter, taxes, labor, toys, charity, appliances, events, time...and subject to pretty much every sort of oversight and limitation we have in this country. Either that, or money is speech, and my bribing of a county official is a discussion of the relative pros and cons of a given matter.

Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class? A dollar in your hand represent an OPPORTUNITY to purchase $1 worth of goods/services. $1 worth of advertising is speech, but only because you've already converted it from an opportunity into a good/service (an ad).

Money is not speech. Don't they teach things in English class anymore? Speech is speech and money is money. Speech is protected under Amdt 1, opportunity is not.

Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.
 
2012-06-14 03:13:02 PM  

MugzyBrown: If the mandate was obviously unconstitutional we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.

Why would you think that?


Because my brain has the ability to process and interpret information.
 
2012-06-14 03:15:53 PM  
So, if I'm understanding this thread correctly, there are several Farkers who think that Citizens United was a good idea. Please tell me that I just need more coffee and that you're not really that migraine-inducingly stupid. Bloody hell.

Yeah crazy shiat, standing up for freedom of speech.
 
2012-06-14 03:15:58 PM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: Except for the fact that this would never happen, you're exactly right.

That it would never happen is totally irrelevant. When you test the limits of potential inputs to a logical assertion, you don't just test what is expected. You see this in software: a question that asks for your birthday had better be able to handle an input of 'balloon intestine', or it's shiatty logic.

DamnYankees: I believe it, provisionally, because I can't think of any example which would violate it.

Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?


Because it doesn't actually regulate commerce.

sprawl15: DamnYankees: The reason the policeman can shoot a crazed gunman is a matter of common law, not constitutional law. I don't see the relevance.

How do you think the constitutional right to due process is satisfied in the case of the crazed gunman?


Simple: the crazed gunman is an actual threat to both officers and civilians. The officers would, barring any protections not provided to ordinary citizens, would be justified in shooting said crazyman by both self-defense and "defense of third parties" exemptions, assuming that a prosecutor, who would/should know of the circumstances of the case, even takes it to court.
 
2012-06-14 03:16:01 PM  
Wait, you mean the health care reform law that was written by the insurance companies that creates a law that says you have to buy their product is unconstitutional? Well I'll be.
 
2012-06-14 03:16:43 PM  

Babwa Wawa: The idea that the Court should consider budget when assessing the constitutionality of a law is completely asinine.


Came to say this.
 
2012-06-14 03:16:48 PM  

Perlin Noise: George Walker Bush: Health is not a right; Freedom is.

I would argue that Life is... and it is our responsibility as citizens to keep our nation healthy and educated.


Life is, and defending it is the only responsibility of our Federal Government. Fixing boo-boo's and coercing kids to crack a book is better and far cheaper if managed in local communities.
 
2012-06-14 03:17:33 PM  

CPennypacker: Because my brain has the ability to process and interpret information


Considering many were saying it was unconstitutional from the day it was passed, you don't process or interpret information very well.
 
2012-06-14 03:19:05 PM  

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: Because my brain has the ability to process and interpret information

Considering many were saying it was unconstitutional from the day it was passed, you don't process or interpret information very well.


Just because "a bunch of people" say it is unconstitutional doesn't make it so. I can understand that, because my brain has the ability to process and interpret information.
 
2012-06-14 03:19:14 PM  

Mentat: something something COMMERCE CLAUSE


The commerce clause is not carte blanc for the government to do anything and everything. I refer you specifically to:

Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.


No where does the Consitution give the Feds power of a person's health care, not even if you stretch the commerce clause beyond reason (which is your habit). So the simple and correct response from the Supreme Court is to toss the entire thing out. Yes, a state could implement a health insurance system (and some have) and it would be perfectly legal.
 
2012-06-14 03:19:33 PM  

Perlin Noise: Garet Garrett: Perlin Noise: DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech

So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.

I think the concept that money is speech makes as much sense as saying chocolate pudding is speech. None. Money itself says nothing. It allows some people to speak louder than others. A megaphone is not the speech itself.

//mmmmm pudding!

Of course you're right on what amounts to a completely irrelevant level. Under your theory, it wouldn't offend the 1st Amendment at all to ban the use of megaphones, since that's not speech. Well, then, we could prohibit the use of transponders or radio frequency transmission devices, too. Nothing to stop those politicians from standing on the street corner giving their stump speech to those within earshot!

How quickly the 1st Amendment becomes a token obstacle when you're as literalist as that.

Correct me if I am wrong ..but there are noise ordinances and regulations for what you are talking about... there should be regulations on the money, substantial ones.


Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent. Funny how the same people who criticize Roe as "judicial activism" have no problem here.
 
2012-06-14 03:20:38 PM  

madgonad: The cause of this problem is that hospitals and medical practitioners are now legally required to treat sick/injured people regardless of their ability to pay. That creates both the free riders (the really poor) and the bankruptcies (for people that want to pay, but can't pay THAT much).

There are three solutions:

1. Require payment. No money? Go die somewhere else.
2. Require insurance. This is the heart of ObamneyCare.
3. Single payer - which is really requiring insurance, but the government is the only vendor.

Personally, I have great insurance, but I would prefer #3. I wouldn't even mind making the tax burden a regressive one(sales or earnings). We all use it fairly equally, so we should probably all pay a similar percentage. It would take a huge burden off of business (and attract more jobs) and it would eliminate a horrible expense when people are between jobs. Unless you have a chronic condition, you don't pay for COBRA.


Yep, I've been saying it for years now, I would be willing to pay a National sales tax if it meant we got UHC.
 
2012-06-14 03:20:45 PM  

MugzyBrown: So, if I'm understanding this thread correctly, there are several Farkers who think that Citizens United was a good idea. Please tell me that I just need more coffee and that you're not really that migraine-inducingly stupid. Bloody hell.

Yeah crazy shiat, standing up for freedom of speech.


Because Corporations are People dammit!
 
2012-06-14 03:23:02 PM  

CPennypacker: MugzyBrown: The hand wringing in here is funny.

The bill should be overturned as the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is what holds the whole collection of crap together.

Just because, in your opinion, the bill will help people, doesn't make it constitutional.

If the mandate was obviously unconstitutional we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.


Even the most blatantly unconstitutional law has to go through the proper steps before the Supreme Court will even consider looking at the case. It has to start at the lowest court and work its way up to the top. A process that takes years. Attempting to shortcut this process will usually result in the Supreme Court ordering the case reviewed by the lower courts first. Going directly to the Supreme Court happens, but it is exceedingly rare.
 
2012-06-14 03:23:16 PM  

Perlin Noise: Garet Garrett: I can't wait to hear how you run a presidential campaign for less than Let's Go says it takes to travel Subsaharan Africa.

Public financing


Um, that's not taking the money out.
 
2012-06-14 03:24:13 PM  

Fart_Machine: Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent.


You bought that line? Try reading the opinion.
 
2012-06-14 03:24:21 PM  

OgreMagi: CPennypacker: MugzyBrown: The hand wringing in here is funny.

The bill should be overturned as the individual mandate is clearly unconstitutional.

The individual mandate is what holds the whole collection of crap together.

Just because, in your opinion, the bill will help people, doesn't make it constitutional.

If the mandate was obviously unconstitutional we wouldn't have gotten this far in the first place.

Even the most blatantly unconstitutional law has to go through the proper steps before the Supreme Court will even consider looking at the case. It has to start at the lowest court and work its way up to the top. A process that takes years. Attempting to shortcut this process will usually result in the Supreme Court ordering the case reviewed by the lower courts first. Going directly to the Supreme Court happens, but it is exceedingly rare.


That wasn't my point
 
2012-06-14 03:26:14 PM  
Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment
 
2012-06-14 03:26:46 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Garet Garrett

If money is speech, then money is also: food, shelter, taxes, labor, toys, charity, appliances, events, time...and subject to pretty much every sort of oversight and limitation we have in this country. Either that, or money is speech, and my bribing of a county official is a discussion of the relative pros and cons of a given matter.

Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class? A dollar in your hand represent an OPPORTUNITY to purchase $1 worth of goods/services. $1 worth of advertising is speech, but only because you've already converted it from an opportunity into a good/service (an ad).

Money is not speech. Don't they teach things in English class anymore? Speech is speech and money is money. Speech is protected under Amdt 1, opportunity is not.

Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.


I missed it where we had a federal law limiting the number of cheeseburgers I can buy.
 
2012-06-14 03:27:24 PM  

MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment


Corporations aren't people. They are property. Ease up you're going to hurt yourself.
 
2012-06-14 03:27:48 PM  

MugzyBrown: Perlin Noise: jigger: And can you support your assertion that "money wins the argument every time" with some examples.

How about Wisconsin?

Well in Wisconsin a governor was reelected vs the same candidate he was elected just a year and a half before.

I don't think it was only money that got him reelected... maybe the voters liked him more than the other guy.


This may be true, but the ratio of money spent (somewhere around 4 or 5:1) is certainly something that makes me go "hmmmm"
 
2012-06-14 03:28:47 PM  

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent.

You bought that line? Try reading the opinion.


What precedents are they following?
 
2012-06-14 03:30:42 PM  

George Walker Bush: Life is, and defending it is the only responsibility of our Federal Government. Fixing boo-boo's and coercing kids to crack a book is better and far cheaper if managed in local communities.


I don't entirely disagree ...but I do think the Federal Government (all citizens by proxy) should play a major role in the health and education of the nation.
 
2012-06-14 03:31:17 PM  

MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment


Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?
 
2012-06-14 03:31:42 PM  

Perlin Noise: jigger: And can you support your assertion that "money wins the argument every time" with some examples.

How about Wisconsin?


How about it? It was a redo of the same election held 16 months earlier between the same two candidates with pretty much the same outcome.
 
2012-06-14 03:32:53 PM  

MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment


People who insist that we can have a legal system that doesn't grant corporations basic rights as entities are either tilt-at-windmills libertarians or blinkered, foolish liberals. Rarely effective to try to convince them. In the latter's case, they'll laud Wikipedia for opposing SOPA and be outraged at the suggestion that the New York Times Co. should have no 1st Amendment rights while saying that Exxon should be muzzled, all without a trace of self-awareness.
 
2012-06-14 03:33:02 PM  

Garet Garrett: Um, that's not taking the money out.


I'm am not so stupid as to believe that money is not needed. Private interest money is obviously what I am talking about.
 
2012-06-14 03:34:21 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: So, if I'm understanding this thread correctly, there are several Farkers who

agree with the ACLU and think that Citizens United was a good idea. Please tell me that I just need more coffee and that you're not really that migraine-inducingly stupid. Bloody hell.

Why do you think the ACLU is so stupid?
 
2012-06-14 03:34:30 PM  

Fluorescent Testicle: So, if I'm understanding this thread correctly, there are several Farkers who think that Citizens United was a good idea. Please tell me that I just need more coffee and that you're not really that migraine-inducingly stupid. Bloody hell.


This thread is making me think I need crazy pills. CU is good, people should be able to shoot the homeless, Obama is a "lawbreaker" but shouldn't be arrested, and the occasional comment about PPACA.
 
2012-06-14 03:35:44 PM  

Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?


If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?
 
2012-06-14 03:37:05 PM  

Pincy: Yep, I've been saying it for years now, I would be willing to pay a National sales tax if it meant we got UHC.


So would I, and I HATE the idea of using a sales tax.

FYI - just for general knowledge. We could DOUBLE the Medicare portion of the payroll tax and extend Medicare to everyone. Seriously. 48% of all health spending in the US comes from the government (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). And with the government picking up the tab we can finally impose some cost controls. Yes, doctors and pharmaceutical sales reps will whine, but since they didn't protest when manufacturing compensation plummeted over time I don't see why anyone should care that they can't afford that $80k Lexus anymore.
 
2012-06-14 03:38:04 PM  

bdub77: The court is going to dump Obamacare for political purposes. The lawyer arguing Obamacare farked up big time.

Many people in this country will be pissed about losing what they had under Obamacare. But probably not the same ones who would vote Republican. The people voting Republican, mostly old people, don't care. They have theirs, it's called Medicare.

This is one of the worst Supreme Courts in history, make no mistake.


Lets see the court pull a Citizens united, answer a question not presented, and make all federal medical care programs unconstitutional.

I will laugh and cry at the same time.

And welcome the amendment for universal healthcare that would follow about 5 years later as people, especially the elderly, die in their homes due to lack of affordable care....

/A pipe dream that the tragedy that is the US HC system leads to something good.
 
2012-06-14 03:38:30 PM  

MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment


That would suggest that the corporation acts as a group in unanimous agreement. As far as I know, only sole proprietorships can do that.

Corporations exist as THIRD PARTIES formed by a person or by people. They do not inherit their creators' rights to speech, association, to be secure in their persons, etc - mostly because the people keep those rights for themselves, and granting a corporation the right to be secure in its person is a ludicrous concept.

If anything, a corporation is like a child with thousands of parents, but if you've ever sued one, you know that corporations are orphans - no one takes responsibility for them and their farkups.

A group of people is allowed to act how it wants, provided they use their own money to do it. Unless and until a corporation can prove that 100% of its shareholders (and employees?) agree with a political expenditure, corporate speech represents coercion by the company of those shareholders who do not agree with the corporate position. A misappropriation of funds, or fraud (presenting a misleading version of the shareholders' actual opinions), or a violation of civil rights (by compelling the shareholders' support of Candidate X or Issue Y) - call it what you want, but it's still wrong.
 
2012-06-14 03:38:39 PM  

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?

If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?


No, because that is completely different from what you are implying it is exactly the same as.
 
2012-06-14 03:39:48 PM  

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?

If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?


Actually no unless you believe that every individual shareholder is in favor of what the corporation spends its finance dollars on.
 
2012-06-14 03:41:17 PM  

DamnYankees: Babwa Wawa: Otherwise, any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable. And that's not a correct interpretation of the commerce clause.

It's not? Sounds like it would be to me. What's wrong with that interpretation?


Fiscal efficiency is not a generally accepted test of constitutionality.

If it were, there would be some fairly perverse regulatory incentives.
 
2012-06-14 03:43:01 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class?


No, its not. Money is a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of accounting in economics. No idea where you got this "Money is Opportunity" thing.
 
2012-06-14 03:43:05 PM  

Fart_Machine: Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent.

You bought that line? Try reading the opinion.

What precedents are they following?


Here's a sampling:
1st Nat'l Bank v. Belotti (corporations have 1st amendment rights) (1978)
NAACP v. Button (extending corporate 1st amendment rights to political speech) (1963)
Buckley v. Valeo (rejecting as unconstitutional prohibition of direct expenditures in political speech) (1976)

Yes, they overruled Austin, but that was a 1990 case, and an outlier among 1st Amendment cases. The "100 years of precedent" line was horsehockey.
 
2012-06-14 03:44:09 PM  

Perlin Noise: Garet Garrett: Um, that's not taking the money out.

I'm am not so stupid as to believe that money is not needed. Private interest money is obviously what I am talking about.


Ah, yes. Taking the people out of politics. Good idea.
 
2012-06-14 03:46:05 PM  

Garet Garrett: Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.

I missed it where we had a federal law limiting the number of cheeseburgers I can buy.


I missed the part where that addresses the substance of my argument.

Money is not speech, it is opportunity. Once converted from opportunity into speech, the results of that conversion ("speech") are protected by the First, just as when I convert it into a cheeseburger, I retain ownership rights of said cheeseburger.
 
2012-06-14 03:46:57 PM  

CPennypacker: No, because that is completely different from what you are implying it is exactly the same as.


How is a group of people, or a single person, spending loads of money on a campaign more appealing than a corporation spending loads of money on a campaign?

Dr Dreidel: Unless and until a corporation can prove that 100% of its shareholders (and employees?) agree with a political expenditure


Does a campaign need to prove that 100% of its donors agree with a political expenditure?

Does a shareholder need to sign off on a new product?

No, when you purchase a share in a company, you do so with certain contractual rights. One of which is not approving every expenditure of the company. If you do not agree with the political spending of the company, one of the rights is to try and remove the board of directors and replace them.
 
2012-06-14 03:48:35 PM  

Perlin Noise: SkinnyHead: Of course it is. Passing an illegal law is illegal. It's illegal to do that.

You are an idiot and you should stop typing.

Wait, did I just get trolled?


No you did not get trolled. The guy is an idiot and should stop typing.
 
2012-06-14 03:49:19 PM  

derpdeederp: Dr Dreidel: Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class?

No, its not. Money is a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of accounting in economics. No idea where you got this "Money is Opportunity" thing.


Thanks for answering your own question. Money is a placeholder for other things; it is not those other things.

Money is money and speech is speech. Let's not try and play rhetorical games with a simple concept.
 
2012-06-14 03:50:14 PM  

Fart_Machine: MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?

If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?

Actually no unless you believe that every individual shareholder is in favor of what the corporation spends its finance dollars on.


That's not how corporations work. Investing in a company necessarily cedes the control of finances, and other business judgments, to management. That includes operational decisions (should we open a plant in Cleveland?), PR (let's launch an ad campaign showing how green our products are!), and yes, even political activities (let's lobby the legislature for tax credits for the new enviro-friendly Cleveland plant - or, let's throw some money at the Green Plants in Cleveland PAC).

Don't like what they're doing? Unless you can convince a court they're violating the business judgment rule or prevail at a shareholder meeting, your option is to divest. Or buy control and do it yourself.
 
2012-06-14 03:51:11 PM  

MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment


Except they can also donate individually, effectively giving them TWO voices.
 
2012-06-14 03:51:53 PM  

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: No, because that is completely different from what you are implying it is exactly the same as.

How is a group of people, or a single person, spending loads of money on a campaign more appealing than a corporation spending loads of money on a campaign?

Dr Dreidel: Unless and until a corporation can prove that 100% of its shareholders (and employees?) agree with a political expenditure

Does a campaign need to prove that 100% of its donors agree with a political expenditure?

Does a shareholder need to sign off on a new product?

No, when you purchase a share in a company, you do so with certain contractual rights. One of which is not approving every expenditure of the company. If you do not agree with the political spending of the company, one of the rights is to try and remove the board of directors and replace them.


So purchasing a share isn't the same as individually donating to a campaign. I'm glad we agree.
 
2012-06-14 03:52:25 PM  

Garet Garrett: Don't like what they're doing? Unless you can convince a court they're violating the business judgment rule or prevail at a shareholder meeting, your option is to divest. Or buy control and do it yourself.


Whining doesn't work?

SWAT-ing?
 
2012-06-14 03:53:38 PM  

Garet Garrett: MugzyBrown: Because Corporations are People dammit!

Corporations are people who have come together to form a legal entity.

Would it make you feel better if the corporation itself didn't spend money on a candidate, but instead the stockholders just got in a big room, collected money from everybody and then spent it? Or do you feel people assembling is also not protected by the 1st amendment

People who insist that we can have a legal system that doesn't grant corporations basic rights as entities are either tilt-at-windmills libertarians or blinkered, foolish liberals. Rarely effective to try to convince them. In the latter's case, they'll laud Wikipedia for opposing SOPA and be outraged at the suggestion that the New York Times Co. should have no 1st Amendment rights while saying that Exxon should be muzzled, all without a trace of self-awareness.


It's always funny to see how limiting vast amounts of money or removing transparency is considered "muzzling".
 
2012-06-14 03:53:43 PM  

DamnYankees: Babwa Wawa: The uncompensated seizure and resale of private property would have a positive impact of government balance sheet. Doesn't make it constitutional.

But that's because there's a specific provision in the constitution you can point to which it would violate. The same can't be said of Obamacare.


You are so daft in constitutional interpretation. The constitution defines government powers, the government has to justify its action. The constitutional does not merely state what the government can't do. It was a GRANTING of enumerated powers. the impetus is on government to show legality of their actions.
 
2012-06-14 03:54:06 PM  

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: No, because that is completely different from what you are implying it is exactly the same as.

How is a group of people, or a single person, spending loads of money on a campaign more appealing than a corporation spending loads of money on a campaign?


Because a corporation is not a "group of like minded people," it is property. A corporation is a favorable legal structure that businesses form to protect the individual stakeholders from personal liabiliy for the actions of the business. That legal entity operates based on the whims of its management and governing structure, and all stakeholders do not get equal say in its operations or finances. Therefore, a corporation donating to a politician is donating stakeholder money without their consent or knowledge.
 
2012-06-14 03:54:27 PM  

Dr Dreidel: derpdeederp: Dr Dreidel: Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class?

No, its not. Money is a medium of exchange, a store of value and a unit of accounting in economics. No idea where you got this "Money is Opportunity" thing.

Thanks for answering your own question. Money is a placeholder for other things; it is not those other things.

Money is money and speech is speech. Let's not try and play rhetorical games with a simple concept.


Not sure what the original question was. Probably a different poster.
 
2012-06-14 03:55:00 PM  

Fart_Machine: So purchasing a share isn't the same as individually donating to a campaign. I'm glad we agree.


You can't read obviously.

1) Of course they're not the same, but not for the reasons you think you scored some debate point on.

2) They are the same for the reason you think you scored some debate point on. Once you give a corporation your money or a capaign your money, you don't get to overrule the business/campaign strategy just because you put money in.
 
2012-06-14 03:56:22 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Garet Garrett: Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.

I missed it where we had a federal law limiting the number of cheeseburgers I can buy.

I missed the part where that addresses the substance of my argument.

Money is not speech, it is opportunity. Once converted from opportunity into speech, the results of that conversion ("speech") are protected by the First, just as when I convert it into a cheeseburger, I retain ownership rights of said cheeseburger.


In the political context, money looks a lot more like speech than some abstract concept like "opportunity." I give $100 to my local candidate for town council, that's my means of advocating for him to win. I'm not likely to take out an ad myself, or buy the gas for his bandwagon, so I give money instead.

I guess you were trying to say that money represents a medium of exchange and has no intrinsic value until it is exchanged for something that does have intrinsic value, like a cheeseburger or a 30-second radio spot. I guess that's true on some pointless level. But my point crediting your apparent point - why do we limit how people will spend their money on political speech, but not on cheeseburgers? Difficulty: In light of a constitutional provision that expressly prohibits limits on such speech?
 
2012-06-14 03:56:48 PM  

EighthDay: Babwa Wawa: While I believe the legislation is constitutional, it is a unprecedented interpretation of the commerce, and thus SCOTUS does need to rule on it.

What about the mandatory hospital insurance that was done by the US government of the 1790s?


Seriously, that has been explained so many farking times. It was attached to a condition of mercantile trade. It was by a catch all by virtue of being alive. One pro-actively entered into commerce with known requirements. It would be akin to commercial insurance for truck drivers. Stop with your idiocy.
 
2012-06-14 03:56:51 PM  

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?

If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?

Actually no unless you believe that every individual shareholder is in favor of what the corporation spends its finance dollars on.

That's not how corporations work. Investing in a company necessarily cedes the control of finances, and other business judgments, to management. That includes operational decisions (should we open a plant in Cleveland?), PR (let's launch an ad campaign showing how green our products are!), and yes, even political activities (let's lobby the legislature for tax credits for the new enviro-friendly Cleveland plant - or, let's throw some money at the Green Plants in Cleveland PAC).

Don't like what they're doing? Unless you can convince a court they're violating the business judgment rule or prevail at a shareholder meeting, your option is to divest. Or buy control and do it yourself.


So his example was a poor one. I'm glad we agree.
 
2012-06-14 03:56:54 PM  

CPennypacker: Therefore, a corporation donating to a politician is donating stakeholder money without their consent or knowledge.


Is a corporation buying a new property doing it without the consent or knowledge of the shareholders? By your definition yes. ILLEGAL!
 
2012-06-14 03:57:51 PM  

MugzyBrown: Once you give a corporation your money or a capaign your money, you don't get to overrule the business/campaign strategy just because you put money in.


For customers, sure. Shareholders, on the other hand, are nominal owners of said corporation.
 
2012-06-14 03:58:04 PM  

MugzyBrown: CPennypacker: Therefore, a corporation donating to a politician is donating stakeholder money without their consent or knowledge.

Is a corporation buying a new property doing it without the consent or knowledge of the shareholders? By your definition yes. ILLEGAL!


A corporation buying property is presumably doing so to conduct business at the behest of its stakeholders.
 
2012-06-14 03:58:12 PM  

Fart_Machine: It's always funny to see how limiting vast amounts of money or removing transparency is considered "muzzling".


Oh, I must've misunderstood. Is your position that there is some non-vast amount of money that a corporation may spend that is protected by the constitution? Out of curiosity, what's that figure?
 
2012-06-14 03:59:19 PM  

MugzyBrown: Dr Dreidel: Unless and until a corporation can prove that 100% of its shareholders (and employees?) agree with a political expenditure

Does a campaign need to prove that 100% of its donors agree with a political expenditure?


Do I really need to answer this question? By donating to a campaign, it's sort of implied that the donator supports that campaign/candidate.

Does a shareholder need to sign off on a new product?

No, when you purchase a share in a company, you do so with certain contractual rights. One of which is not approving every expenditure of the company. If you do not agree with the political spending of the company, one of the rights is to try and remove the board of directors and replace them.


No, because that's the raison d'etre for the company - making products. I guess for PACs which are (essentially) political corporations, the rule holds, but that doesn't mean PACs have to be legal. Besides which, we're talking about corporations that fund PACs, not the PACs themselves.

I suppose that I see investing in a company to be investing in the corporate space that entity has carved out - health insurance, auto parts, baby furniture - and political playing by a corporation to be outside that corporate space.

I can agree that I want my shares of Exxon/Mobil to do well without agreeing with E/M's decision to keep fighting against repaying the good people of Prince William Sound. My desire for the company to do well sits apart from my belief that the E/M lobbying to have environmental catastrophe damages capped by law so they don't owe $3,000,000,000 to fishermen is wrong. One is solely a corporate matter (Should E/M have to pay for farking up?), the other is political (Should E/M get to lobby the Alaskan/Federal government to have their potential liability reduced?).

One is lensed as a shareholder, the other as a voting citizen.
 
2012-06-14 04:02:04 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Garet Garrett: Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.

I missed it where we had a federal law limiting the number of cheeseburgers I can buy.

I missed the part where that addresses the substance of my argument.

Money is not speech, it is opportunity. Once converted from opportunity into speech, the results of that conversion ("speech") are protected by the First, just as when I convert it into a cheeseburger, I retain ownership rights of said cheeseburger.


Like someone else said up above, money is a unit of value. It provides opportunity, but it doesn't guarantee it.

I could have a million dollars and want a Bugatti Veyron, but there are only so many Veyrons. If one isn't available, then I don't have an opportunity to buy it, even though I have the money.

with speech, money has the value of buying more means of expressing speech. It isn't necessarily the opportunity to express speech. If anything, the opportunity to all to express speech should be as protected as the speech itself, regardless of how much money they have.

I don't know how that wasn't apparent to the SCOTUS though.

/Money isn't speech
//Speech is speech
///Expression should be available to all
////Money just means you can possibly express louder and more often, if the opportunity exists.
 
2012-06-14 04:02:07 PM  

CPennypacker: A corporation buying property is presumably doing so to conduct business at the behest of its stakeholders


Actually, everything the corporation does is presumably in furtherance of its corporate purpose. Including political activities. A presumption that can be overcome by a showing that its acts are ultra vires.
 
2012-06-14 04:02:36 PM  

Generation_D: I think its becoming consensus you'd have to go back to the 1800s to find one that is on a par with this one.


Rufus Peckham would like to have a word with you.
 
2012-06-14 04:02:53 PM  

verbaltoxin: I could have a million dollars and want a Bugatti Veyron


You can't afford it.
 
2012-06-14 04:03:30 PM  
For customers, sure. Shareholders, on the other hand, are nominal owners of said corporation.

Shareholders cannot stop the executives from spending money or anything. Part of the deal is you're giving control of your money to the Board and Officers of the company.

A corporation buying property is presumably doing so to conduct business at the behest of its stakeholders.

So is a corporation donating to a political campaign.


In fact, being a shareholder is more "fair" than donating to a campaign. If you don't like the candidates your company is donating to, you can sell your shares and divest. If you don't like the direction the campaign is going, you can't ask for your money back.
 
2012-06-14 04:03:41 PM  

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: Which is not the same as an individual person. And limiting funding by corporate entities is same as restricting freedom of assembly? LOLWUT?

If 100 like-minded people got into a room and each put $500,000 into a bag and then took that money to the local ABC affiliate and dropped $50mm into the lap of the head of advertising to run $50mm worth of ads for Obama, should that be illegal?


Yes. Let them donate their money directly to their candidate of choice (and get a personal income tax deduction). Using corporate fronts, whether for profit or non-profit, has turned elections into "buy a politican" yard sales for corporate entities and makes the desires of the People obsolete and unimportant.

However, I'm willing to compromise. Let's make all political donations 100% anonymous to the candidate. Donate all you want, but the money goes through a blind proxy and it is a felony for the candidate to attempt to obtain the identity or for the donor to tell the candidate. You get a receipt for tax purposes, but it will not indicate who the money was donated to. PACs must also work through a blind proxy.
 
2012-06-14 04:06:15 PM  

Dr Dreidel: I can agree that I want my shares of Exxon/Mobil to do well without agreeing with E/M's decision to keep fighting against repaying the good people of Prince William Sound. My desire for the company to do well sits apart from my belief that the E/M lobbying to have environmental catastrophe damages capped by law so they don't owe $3,000,000,000 to fishermen is wrong. One is solely a corporate matter (Should E/M have to pay for farking up?), the other is political (Should E/M get to lobby the Alaskan/Federal government to have their potential liability reduced?).


Right, and you have deferred, by law, to management as to the decision how management should go about dealing with those good people.
 
2012-06-14 04:06:37 PM  

Garet Garrett: Ah, yes. Taking the people profit out of politics. Good idea.

 
2012-06-14 04:06:39 PM  

Garet Garrett: ultra vires.


I'm pretty sure a company attempting to buy itself favorable legislation is ultra vires
 
2012-06-14 04:08:16 PM  

SkinnyHead: Well, what I'm hearing from Obama and his toadies is that nothing is ever Obama's fault. Not even Obamacare.


here's a hint, einstein: not everybody thinks obamacare is a bad thing. in fact, when you break it into its constituent parts, most americans are for it.
 
2012-06-14 04:11:46 PM  
The sheer mass of stupidity in this thread is distorting space and time.

Respect to the brave souls who are trying to add some reason to it; you're better men than I, Gunga Din.
 
2012-06-14 04:11:59 PM  

Garet Garrett: why do we limit how people will spend their money on political speech, but not on cheeseburgers? Difficulty: In light of a constitutional provision that expressly prohibits limits on such speech?


Why do we limit how people spend their money on nuclear weaponry, in light of a Constitutional protection of my (individual) right to "keep and bear arms"?
 
2012-06-14 04:12:00 PM  

OgreMagi: Let's make all political donations 100% anonymous to the candidate. Donate all you want, but the money goes through a blind proxy and it is a felony for the candidate to attempt to obtain the identity or for the donor to tell the candidate


It's a fun idea, but a waste of time & money. Do you really think candidates wouldn't know? How about I call my candidate... I'm sending $1mm today. I circumvented the $10 billion dollar Federal Electron Proxy System with a phone call.

OgreMagi: Using corporate fronts, whether for profit or non-profit, has turned elections into "buy a politican" yard sales for corporate entities and makes the desires of the People obsolete and unimportant.


So you're fine with one of the Koch brothers donating $100m, but not Koch Industries, because that would be buying a politician?
 
2012-06-14 04:15:30 PM  

Garet Garrett: Dr Dreidel: I can agree that I want my shares of Exxon/Mobil to do well without agreeing with E/M's decision to keep fighting against repaying the good people of Prince William Sound. My desire for the company to do well sits apart from my belief that the E/M lobbying to have environmental catastrophe damages capped by law so they don't owe $3,000,000,000 to fishermen is wrong. One is solely a corporate matter (Should E/M have to pay for farking up?), the other is political (Should E/M get to lobby the Alaskan/Federal government to have their potential liability reduced?).

Right, and you have deferred, by law, to management as to the decision how management should go about dealing with those good people.


Again you missed the point. What I take issue with is not that Exxon/Mobil wants to shirk their responsibility - that's expected behavior for penny-pinching sociopaths (which all corporations essentially are). What I take issue with is Exxon/Mobil lobbying the referees to change the rules.

If Exxon/Mobil's CEO-the-Hutt (I know, former CEO) wants to lobby Juneau or Washington, I wish him all the luck in the world. I take exception to Exxon/Mobil lobbying Juneau or Washington.
 
2012-06-14 04:20:57 PM  

MugzyBrown: OgreMagi: Let's make all political donations 100% anonymous to the candidate. Donate all you want, but the money goes through a blind proxy and it is a felony for the candidate to attempt to obtain the identity or for the donor to tell the candidate

It's a fun idea, but a waste of time & money. Do you really think candidates wouldn't know? How about I call my candidate... I'm sending $1mm today. I circumvented the $10 billion dollar Federal Electron Proxy System with a phone call.

OgreMagi: Using corporate fronts, whether for profit or non-profit, has turned elections into "buy a politican" yard sales for corporate entities and makes the desires of the People obsolete and unimportant.

So you're fine with one of the Koch brothers donating $100m, but not Koch Industries, because that would be buying a politician?


That phone call would be a felony on my proposed system and both parties would be guilty (unless the candidate immediately reported the call to the proper agency). Yes, I know catching them would be difficult, but it's better than the current system. As for the Koch brothers making huge donations, I don't have a problem with that. They are people and have rights. Koch Industries is a "thing" and does not have rights (I don't care what they say in Citizens United). It may be pure symantecs, but the concept is important.
 
2012-06-14 04:23:54 PM  

Garet Garrett: it wouldn't offend the 1st Amendment at all to ban the use of megaphones


It wouldn't.

What, you think it would?
 
2012-06-14 04:37:41 PM  

friday13: sprawl15: DamnYankees: Except for the fact that this would never happen, you're exactly right.

That it would never happen is totally irrelevant. When you test the limits of potential inputs to a logical assertion, you don't just test what is expected. You see this in software: a question that asks for your birthday had better be able to handle an input of 'balloon intestine', or it's shiatty logic.

DamnYankees: I believe it, provisionally, because I can't think of any example which would violate it.

Killing the homeless would save money. Why wouldn't that be allowed under the commerce clause?

Because it doesn't actually regulate commerce.


Exactly my point. DamnYankees was arguing that "any cost-saving measure that's not specifically prohibited by the constitution is allowable" by the commerce clause.
 
2012-06-14 04:46:20 PM  

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: It's always funny to see how limiting vast amounts of money or removing transparency is considered "muzzling".

Oh, I must've misunderstood. Is your position that there is some non-vast amount of money that a corporation may spend that is protected by the constitution? Out of curiosity, what's that figure?


I would argue that there isn't necessarily a hard number. Instead, I would argue that Congress and the states should have the power to regulate political donations and expenditures in spite of the fact that they are a form of free speech. Justice Kennedy's argument was that there is no way for these things to give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption, and thus there is no compelling state interest in establishing regulations that violate free speech. Can you honestly tell me you believe that when somebody like Sheldon Adelson spends what he calls a "limitless" amount of money to get Mitt Romney elected that there is no corrupting influence there, or that nobody could possibly think there is a corrupting influence there?

/and this says absolutely nothing about how judicially activist it was to take a simple statutory case and transform it into a far-reaching constitutional case
 
2012-06-14 04:49:22 PM  

Serious Black: Justice Kennedy's argument was that there is no way for these things to give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption


Whoa! Did he say that with a straight face?
 
2012-06-14 04:51:00 PM  

Serious Black: and this says absolutely nothing about how judicially activist it was to take a simple statutory case and transform it into a far-reaching constitutional case


Wut? If the statute is unconstitutional...
 
2012-06-14 04:54:37 PM  

OgreMagi: Serious Black: Justice Kennedy's argument was that there is no way for these things to give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption

Whoa! Did he say that with a straight face?


I don't remember if he orally delivered any part of his opinion from the bench, but I would assume so, yes.
 
2012-06-14 05:00:43 PM  
If corporations should not be allowed to donate to political campaigns, should unions be allowed to donate?
 
2012-06-14 05:01:32 PM  

jigger: Serious Black: and this says absolutely nothing about how judicially activist it was to take a simple statutory case and transform it into a far-reaching constitutional case

Wut? If the statute is unconstitutional...


The Court usually tries to tailor its decisions as narrowly as possible to the question before it. In the case of Citizens' United, the court's ruling went well beyond the issues argued by both sides in the case.
 
2012-06-14 05:02:48 PM  

jigger: Serious Black: and this says absolutely nothing about how judicially activist it was to take a simple statutory case and transform it into a far-reaching constitutional case

Wut? If the statute is unconstitutional...


The case originally asked whether BCRA Section 203, a part of the code that dealt exclusively with political ads aired on television, also applied to Hillary: The Movie, a 90-minute documentary airing on subscription satellite service. All Ted Olson, the attorney for Citizens United, was originally seeking was a ruling that this section did not apply to airing the movie. He's publicly admitted such since then. In fact, the original majority ruling that Chief Justice Roberts was writing initially was going to narrowly rule that the restriction did not apply to this documentary (and presumably similar movies). How is deciding a case on constitutional grounds when it could be decided on statutory grounds not judicial activism? It absolutely violates at least two of the Ashwander rules laid out by Justice Brandeis for ensuring SCOTUS practiced judicial restraint.
 
2012-06-14 05:06:18 PM  

derpdeederp: If corporations should not be allowed to donate to political campaigns, should unions be allowed to donate?


There are plenty of dirty libby-libtards like me who think that preventing unions from making massive donations would be a fair price to pay for preventing corporations from doing it.
 
2012-06-14 05:27:24 PM  

derpdeederp: If corporations should not be allowed to donate to political campaigns, should unions be allowed to donate?


Probably, but I'd trade unions not being able to for corps not being able to. Any day of the week.
 
2012-06-14 05:29:21 PM  

qorkfiend: jigger: Serious Black: and this says absolutely nothing about how judicially activist it was to take a simple statutory case and transform it into a far-reaching constitutional case

Wut? If the statute is unconstitutional...

The Court usually tries to tailor its decisions as narrowly as possible to the question before it. In the case of Citizens' United, the court's ruling went well beyond the issues argued by both sides in the case.


How so? I just googled the oral arguments.

PDF

PDF

Looking into it, they appellants are arguing that the law is unconstitutional.

Participation in the political process is the First Amendment's most fundamental guarantee. Yet that freedom is being smothered by one of the most complicated, expensive, and incomprehensible regulatory regimes ever invented by the administrative state. In the case that you consider today, it is a felony for a small, nonprofit corporation to offer interested viewers a 90-minute political documentary about a candidate for the nation's highest office, that General Electric, National Public Radio, or George Soros may freely broadcast. Its film may be shown in theaters, sold on DVDs, transmitted for downloading on the Internet, and its message may be distributed in the form of a book. But its producers face 5 years in prison if they offer it in the home through the vehicle of Video On Demand. Because the limitation on speech, political speech, is at the core of the First Amendment, the government has a heavy burden to establish each application of a restriction on that form of speech is a narrowly tailored response to a compelling governmental interest.

They argued that the law that prevents them from airing their movie on VOD is unconstitutional. They also seem to take a route that would give them the opportunity to have a more narrow ruling saying that the law didn't prohibit their particular nonprofit from showing the movie on VOD.

In the re-argument, it seems like they go looking for a very broad ruling indeed.


MR. OLSON: Mr. Chief Justice and may it please the Court: Robust debate about candidates for elective office is the most fundamental value protected by the First Amendment's guarantee of free speech. Yet that is precisely the dialogue that the government has prohibited if practiced by unions or corporations, any union or any corporation. The government claims it may do so based upon the Austin decision that corporate speech is by its nature corrosive and distorting because it might not reflected actual public support for the views expressed by the corporation. The government admits that that radical concept of requiring public support for the speech before you can speak would even authorize it to criminalize books and signs.

This Court needs no reminding that the government when it is acting to prohibit, particularly when it is acting to criminalize, speech that is at the very core of the First Amendment has a heavy burden to prove that there is a compelling governmental interest that -- that justifies that prohibition and that the regulation adopted, in this case a criminal statute, is the most narrowly tailored necessary to accomplish that compelling governmental interest.

JUSTICE GINSBURG: Mr. Olson, are you taking the position that there is no difference in the First Amendment rights of an individual? A corporation, after all, is not endowed by its creator with inalienable rights. So is there any distinction that Congress could draw between corporations and natural human beings for purposes of campaign finance?

MR. OLSON: What the Court has said in the First Amendment context, New York Times v. Sullivan, Rose Jean v. Associated Press, and over and over again, is that corporations are persons entitled to protection under the First Amendment.



I dunno. It sounds like they are looking for the Supreme Court to strike down an unconstitutional law.
 
2012-06-14 05:36:40 PM  

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent.

You bought that line? Try reading the opinion.

What precedents are they following?

Here's a sampling:
1st Nat'l Bank v. Belotti (corporations have 1st amendment rights) (1978)
NAACP v. Button (extending corporate 1st amendment rights to political speech) (1963)
Buckley v. Valeo (rejecting as unconstitutional prohibition of direct expenditures in political speech) (1976)

Yes, they overruled Austin, but that was a 1990 case, and an outlier among 1st Amendment cases. The "100 years of precedent" line was horsehockey.


It's funny that you should mention Austin as an outlier since it pertained to states rights which was much the same argument against Roe. You also failed to mention overruling McConnell that freed corporate entities from electioneering communications restrictions. Again, corporations are not individuals which is why limits were put in place to begin with. Not that they don't have any. The Supreme Court majority took that and ran with it to give them unlimited spending power.

Garet Garrett: Fart_Machine: It's always funny to see how limiting vast amounts of money or removing transparency is considered "muzzling".

Oh, I must've misunderstood. Is your position that there is some non-vast amount of money that a corporation may spend that is protected by the constitution? Out of curiosity, what's that figure?


So you're argument is that unless they can spend unlimited amounts of money their speech is being limited. Certainly they have more rights then than the average person if that is the case.

MugzyBrown: Fart_Machine: So purchasing a share isn't the same as individually donating to a campaign. I'm glad we agree.

You can't read obviously.

1) Of course they're not the same, but not for the reasons you think you scored some debate point on.

2) They are the same for the reason you think you scored some debate point on. Once you give a corporation your money or a capaign your money, you don't get to overrule the business/campaign strategy just because you put money in.


I can read fine. Your point is retarded. It isn't about dictating a campaign strategy. As a shareholder I don't get to say which campaign gets the money. If I put the money in as an individual I do.
 
2012-06-14 05:38:15 PM  

jigger: [snip]


More than anyone, Scalia was responsible for transforming the dynamics of oral arguments at the Supreme Court. When Scalia became a Justice, in 1986, the Court sessions were often somnolent affairs, but his rapid-fire questioning spurred his colleagues to try to keep pace, and, as Roberts said, in a tribute to Scalia on his twenty-fifth anniversary as a Justice, "the place hasn't been the same since." Alternately witty and fierce, Scalia invariably made clear where he stood.

He had long detested campaign-spending restrictions, frequently voting to invalidate such statutes as violations of the First Amendment. For this reason, it seemed, Scalia was disappointed by the limited nature of Olson's claim.

"So you're making a statutory argument now?" Scalia said.

"I'm making a-" Olson began.

"You're saying this isn't covered by it," Scalia continued.

That's right, Olson responded. All he was asking for was a ruling that the law did not prohibit this particular documentary by this nonprofit corporation during those thirty days. If the Justices had resolved the case as Olson had suggested, today Citizens United might well be forgotten-a narrow ruling on a remote aspect of campaign-finance law.

From this report by Jeffrey Toobin about how John Roberts changed Citizens United v. FEC from a narrow statutory case to a broad constitutional case.
 
2012-06-14 05:40:06 PM  

Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: and this says absolutely nothing about how judicially activist it was to take a simple statutory case and transform it into a far-reaching constitutional case

Wut? If the statute is unconstitutional...

The case originally asked whether BCRA Section 203, a part of the code that dealt exclusively with political ads aired on television, also applied to Hillary: The Movie, a 90-minute documentary airing on subscription satellite service. All Ted Olson, the attorney for Citizens United, was originally seeking was a ruling that this section did not apply to airing the movie. He's publicly admitted such since then. In fact, the original majority ruling that Chief Justice Roberts was writing initially was going to narrowly rule that the restriction did not apply to this documentary (and presumably similar movies). How is deciding a case on constitutional grounds when it could be decided on statutory grounds not judicial activism? It absolutely violates at least two of the Ashwander rules laid out by Justice Brandeis for ensuring SCOTUS practiced judicial restraint.



To get the narrow result they wanted, the court had to rule more broadly. Constitutional avoidance says that the court should shouldn't on a constitutional issue if the case can be decided on a statutory basis. In this case, it couldn't.
 
2012-06-14 05:42:09 PM  

jigger: They argued that the law that prevents them from airing their movie on VOD is unconstitutional.


That is very different from arguing that limits on campaign donations are unconstitutional.

In re-argument, the court was looking for a broad ruling, and there's some evidence to suggest that the court asked for re-argument precisely so they could issue a broader ruling.
 
2012-06-14 05:43:12 PM  

jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: and this says absolutely nothing about how judicially activist it was to take a simple statutory case and transform it into a far-reaching constitutional case

Wut? If the statute is unconstitutional...

The case originally asked whether BCRA Section 203, a part of the code that dealt exclusively with political ads aired on television, also applied to Hillary: The Movie, a 90-minute documentary airing on subscription satellite service. All Ted Olson, the attorney for Citizens United, was originally seeking was a ruling that this section did not apply to airing the movie. He's publicly admitted such since then. In fact, the original majority ruling that Chief Justice Roberts was writing initially was going to narrowly rule that the restriction did not apply to this documentary (and presumably similar movies). How is deciding a case on constitutional grounds when it could be decided on statutory grounds not judicial activism? It absolutely violates at least two of the Ashwander rules laid out by Justice Brandeis for ensuring SCOTUS practiced judicial restraint.


To get the narrow result they wanted, the court had to rule more broadly. Constitutional avoidance says that the court should shouldn't on a constitutional issue if the case can be decided on a statutory basis. In this case, it couldn't.


That sure wasn't the opinion of Ted Olson when he originally argued the case. He believed all SCOTUS had to do was rule that Section 203 only applied to television ads rather than feature-length movies. See my previous comment with the story from Jeffrey Toobin.
 
2012-06-14 05:46:12 PM  

Serious Black: That's right, Olson responded. All he was asking for was a ruling that the law did not prohibit this particular documentary by this nonprofit corporation during those thirty days. If the Justices had resolved the case as Olson had suggested, today Citizens United might well be forgotten-a narrow ruling on a remote aspect of campaign-finance law.


But it couldn't be resolved that way. The case was about restriction of speech.
 
2012-06-14 05:48:23 PM  

qorkfiend: jigger: They argued that the law that prevents them from airing their movie on VOD is unconstitutional.

That is very different from arguing that limits on campaign donations are unconstitutional.


The latter is the consequence of the former. And citizens united HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH CAMPAIGN DONATIONS.

It has to do with independent spending on ads and other types of political speech.
 
2012-06-14 05:49:00 PM  

jigger: But it couldn't be resolved that way. The case was about restriction of speech.


Yes, it could have been resolved that way. "The Court finds that Section 203 does not apply to feature-length movies."
 
2012-06-14 05:50:50 PM  

jigger: Serious Black: That's right, Olson responded. All he was asking for was a ruling that the law did not prohibit this particular documentary by this nonprofit corporation during those thirty days. If the Justices had resolved the case as Olson had suggested, today Citizens United might well be forgotten-a narrow ruling on a remote aspect of campaign-finance law.

But it couldn't be resolved that way. The case was about restriction of speech.


Why couldn't it? Roberts's original draft of the majority opinion said precisely that the law in question only applied to television ads, and the whole damn reason they reargued the case was because they wanted to make Kennedy's concurrence that ultimately became the majority opinion seem like it didn't come from out of the blue.
 
2012-06-14 05:53:40 PM  

qorkfiend: jigger: But it couldn't be resolved that way. The case was about restriction of speech.

Yes, it could have been resolved that way. "The Court finds that Section 203 does not apply to feature-length movies."


But it does apply to books and pamphlets? or other "electioneering communications"? How many narrow rulings were they going to have to deliver before those parts of the law were thrown out altogether?

You're asking "How the hell did a case about government censorship end up being a constitutional question?"
 
2012-06-14 05:55:26 PM  

Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: That's right, Olson responded. All he was asking for was a ruling that the law did not prohibit this particular documentary by this nonprofit corporation during those thirty days. If the Justices had resolved the case as Olson had suggested, today Citizens United might well be forgotten-a narrow ruling on a remote aspect of campaign-finance law.

But it couldn't be resolved that way. The case was about restriction of speech.

Why couldn't it? Roberts's original draft of the majority opinion said precisely that the law in question only applied to television ads, and the whole damn reason they reargued the case was because they wanted to make Kennedy's concurrence that ultimately became the majority opinion seem like it didn't come from out of the blue.


You mean after they thought about it again, they said 'Holy shiat, you're right! We can't just narrowly rule on this. It only makes sense to rule more broadly.'
 
2012-06-14 05:55:53 PM  

jigger: qorkfiend: jigger: But it couldn't be resolved that way. The case was about restriction of speech.

Yes, it could have been resolved that way. "The Court finds that Section 203 does not apply to feature-length movies."

But it does apply to books and pamphlets? or other "electioneering communications"? How many narrow rulings were they going to have to deliver before those parts of the law were thrown out altogether?

You're asking "How the hell did a case about government censorship end up being a constitutional question?"


Not in the slightest. We're asking "Why did the court take a case that could have been decided narrowly on statutory grounds and deliberately make it a broader constitutional case?"
 
2012-06-14 06:00:25 PM  

jigger: Serious Black: jigger: Serious Black: That's right, Olson responded. All he was asking for was a ruling that the law did not prohibit this particular documentary by this nonprofit corporation during those thirty days. If the Justices had resolved the case as Olson had suggested, today Citizens United might well be forgotten-a narrow ruling on a remote aspect of campaign-finance law.

But it couldn't be resolved that way. The case was about restriction of speech.

Why couldn't it? Roberts's original draft of the majority opinion said precisely that the law in question only applied to television ads, and the whole damn reason they reargued the case was because they wanted to make Kennedy's concurrence that ultimately became the majority opinion seem like it didn't come from out of the blue.

You mean after they thought about it again, they said 'Holy shiat, you're right! We can't just narrowly rule on this. It only makes sense to rule more broadly.'


No, I'm saying that they decided they could rule narrowly on the case but later decided they wanted to rule broadly instead.
 
2012-06-14 06:06:21 PM  

qorkfiend: Not in the slightest. We're asking "Why did the court take a case that could have been decided narrowly on statutory grounds and deliberately make it a broader constitutional case?"


Because they couldn't rule narrowly and have it make sense.

Here's a clip from the Toobin piece.

"Well, suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book," Kennedy said. "Your position is that, under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the sixty- and thirty-day periods?"
Stewart's answer was a reluctant, qualified yes.
But neither Alito nor Kennedy had Roberts's instinct for the jugular. The Chief Justice wanted to make Stewart's position look as ridiculous as possible. Roberts continued on the subject of the government's censorship of books, leading Stewart into a trap.
"If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?" Roberts asked.
"That's correct," Stewart said.
"If it's a five-hundred-page book, and at the end it says, 'And so vote for X,' the government could ban that?" Roberts asked.
"Well, if it says 'vote for X,' it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the preëxisting Federal Election Campaign Act provisions," Stewart continued, doubling down on his painfully awkward position.
Through artful questioning, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts had turned a fairly obscure case about campaign-finance reform into a battle over government censorship. The trio made Stewart-and thus the government-take an absurd position: that the government might have the right to criminalize the publication of a five-hundred-page book because of one line at the end. Still, the Justices' questioning raised important issues. Based on the theory underlying McCain-Feingold, could Congress pass any law to ban a book? And was Stewart right to acknowledge that it did?


Well, you know, it was just artful questioning that boxed the government lawyer into an absurd position. If that's the way it became a constitutional question, then fark, that's a pretty good reason to me.

"Under this law can the government ban advertising for a book?"
"Yes."
"Well, shiat, maybe we need to take a broader look at this law, then."
 
2012-06-14 06:06:57 PM  

Serious Black: No, I'm saying that they decided they could rule narrowly on the case but later decided they wanted to rule broadly instead.


When they realized they were wrong.
 
2012-06-14 06:08:21 PM  

jigger: qorkfiend: Not in the slightest. We're asking "Why did the court take a case that could have been decided narrowly on statutory grounds and deliberately make it a broader constitutional case?"

Because they couldn't rule narrowly and have it make sense.

Here's a clip from the Toobin piece.

"Well, suppose it were an advocacy organization that had a book," Kennedy said. "Your position is that, under the Constitution, the advertising for this book or the sale for the book itself could be prohibited within the sixty- and thirty-day periods?"
Stewart's answer was a reluctant, qualified yes.
But neither Alito nor Kennedy had Roberts's instinct for the jugular. The Chief Justice wanted to make Stewart's position look as ridiculous as possible. Roberts continued on the subject of the government's censorship of books, leading Stewart into a trap.
"If it has one name, one use of the candidate's name, it would be covered, correct?" Roberts asked.
"That's correct," Stewart said.
"If it's a five-hundred-page book, and at the end it says, 'And so vote for X,' the government could ban that?" Roberts asked.
"Well, if it says 'vote for X,' it would be express advocacy and it would be covered by the preëxisting Federal Election Campaign Act provisions," Stewart continued, doubling down on his painfully awkward position.
Through artful questioning, Alito, Kennedy, and Roberts had turned a fairly obscure case about campaign-finance reform into a battle over government censorship. The trio made Stewart-and thus the government-take an absurd position: that the government might have the right to criminalize the publication of a five-hundred-page book because of one line at the end. Still, the Justices' questioning raised important issues. Based on the theory underlying McCain-Feingold, could Congress pass any law to ban a book? And was Stewart right to acknowledge that it did?

Well, you know, it was just artful questioning that boxed the government lawyer into an absurd position. If th ...


Question: should a foreign citizen be allowed to donate money to a political candidate or independently spend money airing a television ad advocating for a specific issue or candidate?
 
2012-06-14 06:10:54 PM  

Serious Black: Question: should a foreign citizen be allowed to donate money to a political candidate or independently spend money airing a television ad advocating for a specific issue or candidate?


Donating money to a political candidate, no.

Spending money on advertising, yes.
 
2012-06-14 06:12:52 PM  

SkinnyHead: ImpendingCynic: SkinnyHead: Nevermind impeachment, I just think that if Obamacare is declared illegal, voters should consider whether they should return a lawbreaker to office. Isn't the constitution supposed to be the supreme law of the land? If the president violates the constitution, voters have every right consider him a lawbreaker.

Passing a law that gets struck down by the Supreme Court is not an illegal act. You cannot possibly be that ignorant.

Of course it is. Passing an illegal law is illegal. It's illegal to do that.


Jesus Christ on a crutch, this is monumentally farking stupid, even for YOU.
 
2012-06-14 06:13:54 PM  

jigger: Serious Black: Question: should a foreign citizen be allowed to donate money to a political candidate or independently spend money airing a television ad advocating for a specific issue or candidate?

Donating money to a political candidate, no.

Spending money on advertising, yes.


The biggest expenditure candidates have is advertising. Why would that be less influential?
 
2012-06-14 06:17:48 PM  

Fart_Machine: jigger: Serious Black: Question: should a foreign citizen be allowed to donate money to a political candidate or independently spend money airing a television ad advocating for a specific issue or candidate?

Donating money to a political candidate, no.

Spending money on advertising, yes.

The biggest expenditure candidates have is advertising. Why would that be less influential?


Ah, you mean that someone spending their own money for advertising is just like a bribe.

Actually, it really doesn't farking matter if the ads are influential or not, whether they influence the retard voters out there or whether they influence the actions of the politician because the First Amendment prohibits any law from abridging free speech. You prohibit the advertisement, you are abridging free speech.
 
2012-06-14 06:22:21 PM  

jigger: Fart_Machine: jigger: Serious Black: Question: should a foreign citizen be allowed to donate money to a political candidate or independently spend money airing a television ad advocating for a specific issue or candidate?

Donating money to a political candidate, no.

Spending money on advertising, yes.

The biggest expenditure candidates have is advertising. Why would that be less influential?

Ah, you mean that someone spending their own money for advertising is just like a bribe.

Actually, it really doesn't farking matter if the ads are influential or not, whether they influence the retard voters out there or whether they influence the actions of the politician because the First Amendment prohibits any law from abridging free speech. You prohibit the advertisement, you are abridging free speech.


And as the courts have consistently said over and over and over again, you can regulate fundamental rights if there is a compelling state interest behind the regulation, if the regulation is narrowly tailored to satisfy that interest, and if the regulation meets that interest through the least restrictive means possible. And I'm sorry, but if you think that campaign donations and independent expenditures through entities like Restore the Future don't skew how legislators act, you're not only wrong, but you disagree with several sitting and former Congressmen and Senators who all agree that the money has a significant influence on what they do and how they vote. I'll give you a simple example. If a Congressman gets home at the end of the day and has time to return one phone call out of a hundred he got, who is he going to call: one of the 99 calls from people who have not donated any money to his campaign, or the one call from a guy who donated a thousand bucks to his fund?
 
2012-06-14 06:24:55 PM  

jigger: Ah, you mean that someone spending their own money for advertising is just like a bribe.


You could say the same thing about any expenditure that goes towards the campaign. Why is advertising special? How about paying for the candidate's office space or lending them a campaign bus?
 
2012-06-14 06:25:55 PM  
The biggest problem for the administration, and really everyone, is that the Anti-Injunction Act really does seem on its face to require deferring the individual mandate question for a refund action after the government tries to collect tax/penalty. Sadly, the most honest thing for the Court to do is kick the can down the road.
 
2012-06-14 06:33:01 PM  

Serious Black: And as the courts have consistently said over and over and over again, you can regulate fundamental rights if there is a compelling state interest behind the regulation, if the regulation is narrowly tailored to satisfy that interest, and if the regulation meets that interest through the least restrictive means possible.


And in this case, no one is threatening violence (except the state) or any other thing that the state would have a compelling interest in.

You think it might be limiting corruption, but all you're doing it limiting the speech of people who want to pool their resources to get their message out.


And I'm sorry, but if you think that campaign donations and independent expenditures through entities like Restore the Future don't skew how legislators act, you're not only wrong, but you disagree with several sitting and former Congressmen and Senators who all agree that the money has a significant influence on what they do and how they vote.

Who said that donations weren't influential? Of course campaign donations skew how legislators act. That's why there is a compelling state interest to ban them altogether. The existence of these political offices in themselves are corrupting influences. They too should be abolished.

But the 1st amendment says that people have free speech and there's no compelling state interest to limit political ads.
 
2012-06-14 06:36:35 PM  

Fart_Machine: jigger: Ah, you mean that someone spending their own money for advertising is just like a bribe.

You could say the same thing about any expenditure that goes towards the campaign. Why is advertising special? How about paying for the candidate's office space or lending them a campaign bus?


A campaign donation is giving money directly to the candidate so that they may spend it as they wish. They control the money and the message.

The candidate himself cannot directly control the message of an independent ad. Maybe the party to which they are affiliated could. Maybe they could coordinate with the party. Maybe they could coordinate with the maker of the ads. Maybe political parties should be abolished. They have such controlling influence on the actions of the candidate and that's bad.
 
2012-06-14 06:37:26 PM  

jigger: You think it might be limiting corruption, but all you're doing it limiting the speech of people who want to pool their resources to get their message out.


Which is why you distinguish between treatment of corporations with primarily advocacy missions, and corporations with primarily commercial missions. Corporations formed for the purpose of advancing political causes should be free to engage in independent activity. Commerical corporations should not.

The interest here is not just in protecting the political process from corruption, but also protecting investors from misappropriation of their investment funds to promote the corporatists' favored political agenda.
 
2012-06-14 06:42:38 PM  

bugontherug: jigger: You think it might be limiting corruption, but all you're doing it limiting the speech of people who want to pool their resources to get their message out.

Which is why you distinguish between treatment of corporations with primarily advocacy missions, and corporations with primarily commercial missions. Corporations formed for the purpose of advancing political causes should be free to engage in independent activity. Commerical corporations should not.


Should a commercial corporation not be able to advertise? Should the government be able to regulate the content of those advertisements?

The interest here is not just in protecting the political process from corruption, but also protecting investors from misappropriation of their investment funds to promote the corporatists' favored political agenda.

When you buy common stock, you own the stock. It's the corporation's money. Your stock. You want money back? Sell the shares.
 
2012-06-14 06:43:12 PM  

Fart_Machine: jigger: Ah, you mean that someone spending their own money for advertising is just like a bribe.

You could say the same thing about any expenditure that goes towards the campaign. Why is advertising special? How about paying for the candidate's office space or lending them a campaign bus?


When the CEO decides to spend corporate money on politics, he's spending investor money, not his own. Money people invested not with the purpose to advance political causes, but with the purpose to return a dividend.

Allow anyone who wants to to form a separate corporation with the express purpose of advancing corporate interests. Anyone who wants to should be free to give their money to that corporation, and then that corporation can spend on politics all it wants.
 
2012-06-14 06:46:42 PM  

jigger: Should a commercial corporation not be able to advertise? Should the government be able to regulate the content of those advertisements?


Of course a commercial corporation should be allowed to advertise. And within permissible limits, yes, the government should be able to regulate the content of those advertisements. But a corporation with a primarily commercial mission should not be allowed to misappropriate shareholder funds the promote the CEO's Republican values.
 
2012-06-14 06:47:13 PM  

bugontherug: When the CEO decides to spend corporate money on politics, he's spending investor money, not his own.


He's spending the corporation's money. The investors' money was traded for stock in the company.

They own the stock. The corporation owns the money.

bugontherug: Allow anyone who wants to to form a separate corporation with the express purpose of advancing corporate interests. Anyone who wants to should be free to give their money to that corporation, and then that corporation can spend on politics all it wants.


Anyone who wants to is free to give their money to the other corporation.
 
2012-06-14 06:48:44 PM  

bugontherug: jigger: Should a commercial corporation not be able to advertise? Should the government be able to regulate the content of those advertisements?

Of course a commercial corporation should be allowed to advertise. And within permissible limits, yes, the government should be able to regulate the content of those advertisements. But a corporation with a primarily commercial mission should not be allowed to misappropriate shareholder funds the promote the CEO's Republican values.



I see.
 
2012-06-14 06:52:10 PM  

jigger: He's spending the corporation's money. The investors' money was traded for stock in the company.

They own the stock. The corporation owns the money.


Sure. And neither the CEO, nor its board of directors, nor any member of management owns the corporation or the treasury. Via their offices, they have even less of a claim of ownership than the shareholders. CEOs should keep their mitts off of shareholder money.


bugontherug: Allow anyone who wants to to form a separate corporation with the express purpose of advancing corporate interests. Anyone who wants to should be free to give their money to that corporation, and then that corporation can spend on politics all it wants.

Anyone who wants to is free to give their money to the other corporation.


Are you really this dense? This answer is non-responsive and inapposite. The problem isn't that people aren't currently allowed to form advocacy corporations. It's that their private investments aren't protected from corporatist misappropriation.

I have to go, but suffice it to say that however hard you try to spin it, all you are arguing for is the right of corporate officers to spend someone else's money on their politics. My system permits everyone who wants to to engage in all the free speech they want, while protecting shareholders. Your system fails in the latter.
 
2012-06-14 06:56:58 PM  

jigger: Should a commercial corporation not be able to advertise? Should the government be able to regulate the content of those advertisements?


I take it that you're not a fan of the advertising ban on tobacco companies.
 
2012-06-14 07:06:47 PM  

jigger: bugontherug: jigger: Should a commercial corporation not be able to advertise? Should the government be able to regulate the content of those advertisements?

Of course a commercial corporation should be allowed to advertise. And within permissible limits, yes, the government should be able to regulate the content of those advertisements. But a corporation with a primarily commercial mission should not be allowed to misappropriate shareholder funds the promote the CEO's Republican values.


I see.


You moron. He's not saying the government should be able to ban Republican advertisements. God damn, my fellow conservatives embarrass me. Truly, you are an idiot if you can't think at a sufficient level of abstraction to understand the difference between commercial advertising, and independent political activity. And god damn you're stupid if you don't understand that "Democratic values," "Green values," "anarchist values" or any other set of political values could stand in there for "Republican values."

Why is today's conservative movement filled with complete retards?
 
2012-06-14 07:07:55 PM  

DamnYankees: sprawl15: Due process does not mean criminal trial. Police can shoot crazed gunmen without a trial - and not violate due process - because they are killing the crazed gunman in accordance to the law. The law can be changed to include homeless people as valid targets.

Good luck with this. If you can convince a judge that planned murder is proper "due process", then the individual mandate is the least of your problems.


Drone strikes are argued under similar principles, simply authorized under war powers. No 5th amendment protections seen. Why not similar jurisprudence under commerce?
 
2012-06-14 07:08:45 PM  

Mrtraveler01: jigger: Should a commercial corporation not be able to advertise? Should the government be able to regulate the content of those advertisements?

I take it that you're not a fan of the advertising ban on tobacco companies.


Commercial speech and political speech have long been treated differently.
 
2012-06-14 07:12:29 PM  

Cataholic: Mrtraveler01: jigger: Should a commercial corporation not be able to advertise? Should the government be able to regulate the content of those advertisements?

I take it that you're not a fan of the advertising ban on tobacco companies.

Commercial speech and political speech have long been treated differently.


And corporations have long been treated differently than natural persons.
 
2012-06-14 07:19:38 PM  

lordofwar7777: Cataholic: Mrtraveler01: jigger: Should a commercial corporation not be able to advertise? Should the government be able to regulate the content of those advertisements?

I take it that you're not a fan of the advertising ban on tobacco companies.

Commercial speech and political speech have long been treated differently.

And corporations have long been treated differently than natural persons.


Then why, in 1978, did the Court state:

"If the speakers here were not corporations, no one would suggest that the State could silence their proposed speech. It is the type of speech indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation, rather than an individual. The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual."

First Nat'l Bank of Boston v. Bellotti
 
2012-06-14 07:21:55 PM  

jigger: A campaign donation is giving money directly to the candidate so that they may spend it as they wish. They control the money and the message.


In the examples I gave the foreign donor is providing specific donations such as rent or transportation. The candidate doesn't control the money. They get the benefit of negative advertising against their opponent as well as the luxury of distancing themselves from the attack.
 
2012-06-14 07:28:08 PM  

sprawl15: DamnYankees: Except I'm not, and have explicitly said this would not be allowed.

sprawl15: If you need to fall back on the 5th Amendment to say that wanton killing isn't acceptable under the commerce clause, maybe you should shut up, sit down, and think up an interpretation that isn't dumber than anything I've seen NarrowCranium post today.

I can keep reposting things all day, eventually you'll read them, if only on accident.


I hate to interrupt and ruin this fun, but perhaps Sprawl15 should be apprised that he is arguing constitutional law with someone who I believe got their law degree from NYU, one of the best schools in the country. And one of the smartest farkers here.

You're gonna lose badly.
 
2012-06-14 07:32:37 PM  

Cataholic: Then why, in 1978, did the Court state:

"If the speakers here were not corporations, no one would suggest that the State could silence their proposed speech. It is the type of speech indispensable to decisionmaking in a democracy, and this is no less true because the speech comes from a corporation, rather than an individual. The inherent worth of the speech in terms of its capacity for informing the public does not depend upon the identity of its source, whether corporation, association, union, or individual."


Because the Court was delivering a wrongheaded opinion equating corporations to natural persons, and failing to understand the state's legitimate interests in protecting the integrity of the political processes, and shareholders.

So, since you've taken the position that corporations have the same rights as natural persons, explain to me why a corporation can be compelled to turn over records which have as their tendency to incriminate both the corporation in its corporate capacity, and the individuals composing the corporation?
 
2012-06-14 07:37:52 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Garet Garrett

If money is speech, then money is also: food, shelter, taxes, labor, toys, charity, appliances, events, time...and subject to pretty much every sort of oversight and limitation we have in this country. Either that, or money is speech, and my bribing of a county official is a discussion of the relative pros and cons of a given matter.

Money is opportunity. Isn't that what they teach in economics class? A dollar in your hand represent an OPPORTUNITY to purchase $1 worth of goods/services. $1 worth of advertising is speech, but only because you've already converted it from an opportunity into a good/service (an ad).

Money is not speech. Don't they teach things in English class anymore? Speech is speech and money is money. Speech is protected under Amdt 1, opportunity is not.

Speech is an action. Money is a concept (or a paper, if you're that way inclined). You can turn money into speech the same way I can turn it into a cheeseburger, but that doesn't make money speech any more than it makes money cheeseburgers.


The press was not defined as a corporate news during ratification and didn't exist for a few decades until after ratification. Many will argue, even Franklin himself, that the press protected in the first amendment refers to technology to amplify speech. Franklin had his own printing press, most did not. Was it unfair his voice was "louder"? How much does a website cost again?
 
2012-06-14 07:41:11 PM  

Fart_Machine: Perlin Noise: Garet Garrett: Perlin Noise: DamnYankees: Garet Garrett: I happen to believe the truism that money is, effectively, speech

So you believe bribing people should be legal? If money is speech, then a bribe is just an argument.

I think the concept that money is speech makes as much sense as saying chocolate pudding is speech. None. Money itself says nothing. It allows some people to speak louder than others. A megaphone is not the speech itself.

//mmmmm pudding!

Of course you're right on what amounts to a completely irrelevant level. Under your theory, it wouldn't offend the 1st Amendment at all to ban the use of megaphones, since that's not speech. Well, then, we could prohibit the use of transponders or radio frequency transmission devices, too. Nothing to stop those politicians from standing on the street corner giving their stump speech to those within earshot!

How quickly the 1st Amendment becomes a token obstacle when you're as literalist as that.

Correct me if I am wrong ..but there are noise ordinances and regulations for what you are talking about... there should be regulations on the money, substantial ones.

Citizens United also breaks 100 years of legal precedent. Funny how the same people who criticize Roe as "judicial activism" have no problem here.


Can always tell the idiots apart by them claiming 100 years. CU did not that. Speech around elections by private citizens was limited just over 40 years ago. The precedent you are thinking of is campaign finance which CU did not touch.
 
2012-06-14 07:43:03 PM  

madgonad: Pincy: Yep, I've been saying it for years now, I would be willing to pay a National sales tax if it meant we got UHC.

So would I, and I HATE the idea of using a sales tax.

FYI - just for general knowledge. We could DOUBLE the Medicare portion of the payroll tax and extend Medicare to everyone. Seriously. 48% of all health spending in the US comes from the government (Medicare, Medicaid, VA). And with the government picking up the tab we can finally impose some cost controls. Yes, doctors and pharmaceutical sales reps will whine, but since they didn't protest when manufacturing compensation plummeted over time I don't see why anyone should care that they can't afford that $80k Lexus anymore.


Lol. Price controls? On Medicaid or Medicare? Any time any reform is discussed liberals claim its the death of either. Good luck.
 
2012-06-14 07:46:31 PM  

bugontherug: Are you really this dense? This answer is non-responsive and inapposite. The problem isn't that people aren't currently allowed to form advocacy corporations. It's that their private investments aren't protected from corporatist misappropriation.


Who's dense? When you trade your money for common stock, it ain't yer munny no moar.

anindependent: You moron. He's not saying the government should be able to ban Republican advertisements. God damn, my fellow conservatives embarrass me.


I'm not a conservative, you limp pimpled dick.

Fart_Machine: jigger: A campaign donation is giving money directly to the candidate so that they may spend it as they wish. They control the money and the message.

In the examples I gave the foreign donor is providing specific donations such as rent or transportation. The candidate doesn't control the money. They get the benefit of negative advertising against their opponent as well as the luxury of distancing themselves from the attack.


And I already said before that direct campaign donations from foreigners would be a no-no.

Are you saying that independently placing an advertisement is a direct campaign donation?

If the candidate wants to distance himself from the ad, all he has to do is say that he doesn't agree with it. It's up to you to believe him or not.
 
2012-06-14 07:53:30 PM  

bronyaur1: sprawl15: DamnYankees: Except I'm not, and have explicitly said this would not be allowed.

sprawl15: If you need to fall back on the 5th Amendment to say that wanton killing isn't acceptable under the commerce clause, maybe you should shut up, sit down, and think up an interpretation that isn't dumber than anything I've seen NarrowCranium post today.

I can keep reposting things all day, eventually you'll read them, if only on accident.

I hate to interrupt and ruin this fun, but perhaps Sprawl15 should be apprised that he is arguing constitutional law with someone who I believe got their law degree from NYU, one of the best schools in the country. And one of the smartest farkers here.

You're gonna lose badly.


You are talking about damnyankees, the person who stated that if he was a judge he would put empathy over legal logic. Your assertion that he is one of the smartest is laughable. Sprawl logically won that argument, demonstrated by dy leaving.
 
2012-06-14 07:55:43 PM  

MyRandomName: Can always tell the idiots apart by them claiming 100 years. CU did not that. Speech around elections by private citizens was limited just over 40 years ago. The precedent you are thinking of is campaign finance which CU did not touch.


When people talk about "100 years," they're talking about Teddy Roosevelt and the Tillman Act of 1907. Said TR:

"All contributions by corporations to any political committee or for any political purpose should be forbidden by law."

The law enacted in response to his exhortations read as follows:

An Act to prohibit corporations from making money contributions in connection with political elections. Be it enacted, that it shall be unlawful for any national bank, or any corporation organized by authority of any laws of Congress, to make a money contribution in connection with any election to any political office. It shall also be unlawful for any corporation whatever to make a money contribution in connection with any election at which Presidential and Vice-Presidential electors or a Representative in Congress is to be voted for or any election by any State legislature of a United States Senator. Every corporation which shall make any contribution in violation of the foregoing provisions shall be subject to a fine not exceeding five thousand dollars, and every officer or director of any corporation who shall consent to any contribution by the corporation in violation of the foregoing provisions shall upon conviction be punished by a fine of not exceeding one thousand and not less than two hundred and fifty dollars, or by imprisonment for a term of not more than one year, or both such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court."

Nobody thought the Tillman Act was unconstitutional, and its language banning money "in connection with" politics was arguably broad enough to ban finance of independent political activity. CU certainly undermined the purposes underlying the Tillman Act. So no, people who talk about "100 years" really aren't "idiots."
 
2012-06-14 08:03:06 PM  

jigger: Who's dense? When you trade your money for common stock, it ain't yer munny no moar.


When you buy stock, you're not literally buying a piece of paper. That would be worthless. You're buying a property interest in the corporation's assets, symbolized by the stock certificate. As part owner, the shareholder has a more legitimate claim to the corporate treasury than do the corporate officers, who are mere agents of the corporation.
 
2012-06-14 08:26:46 PM  
In its totality, the Affordable Care Act is projected by the Congressional Budget Office to reduce 10-year deficits by about $200 billion compared to what would have happened if the law never existed.

We have a high level BS alert.

It is now an established fact that ObamaCare is going to cost far more than we were told and even if it it is held up totally by SCOTUS everyone knows that some of the 'cost cutting' measures are an absolute pipe dream that will not happen in anything resembling reality.

But okay, I'll call your bluff. The moment ObamaCare turns out to cost money than it saves liberals will admit they were completely wrong about it right? Right? I'll expect a hand written apology and admission each time it goes up another 1%.

Of course not.

Just as a helpful suggestion, you might want to consider that most social programs that liberals are oh so very fond of have anywhere from 2 to 10 times more cost today than they were ever projected to cost when they were passed.
 
2012-06-14 09:57:11 PM  

jigger: And I already said before that direct campaign donations from foreigners would be a no-no.


You seem to be under the belief that supporting the campaign through advertising is less influential to the candidate. It's a silly distinction. Do you really believe Joe Smith is going to have as much pull with the candidate as opposed to the guy who provided a million in SuperPAC ads?
 
2012-06-14 11:12:20 PM  

randomjsa: Just as a helpful suggestion, you might want to consider that most social programs that liberals are oh so very fond of have anywhere from 2 to 10 times more cost today than they were ever projected to cost when they were passed.


Well, let's start with your "liberals" and "oh so very fond" comments. For the moment, forget about financing. Why are you in favor of a public that is in poor health, homeless, malnourished, and under-educated?

Now back to the matter at hand. The fact that, say, Social Security is costing far more than originally projected is mostly due to people living longer. Again, why are you opposed to the rise in the nation's standard of living? I suppose we should let the elderly die in the streets, eh? Compassionate conservatism strikes again.
 
2012-06-14 11:31:20 PM  

ImpendingCynic: Well, let's start with your "liberals" and "oh so very fond" comments. For the moment, forget about financing. Why are you in favor of a public that is in poor health, homeless, malnourished, and under-educated?


Because socialism.

Seriously, that's about as much of a response as you're going to get out of him.
 
2012-06-14 11:40:15 PM  

jigger: Should a commercial corporation not be able to advertise? Should the government be able to regulate the content of those advertisements?


When is the last time you saw a cigarette ad on TV? Why is that?
 
2012-06-15 02:52:57 AM  
Why not remove the cap on medicare and ss taxes then delete the words "under 65" from the relevant medicare statutes? There, we have universal healthcare without eliminating the private option.
 
2012-06-15 02:59:04 AM  
The SCOTUS will do whatever it takes to get Mittens elected.
 
2012-06-15 03:00:47 AM  

FlyingLizardOfDoom: Why not remove the cap on medicare and ss taxes then delete the words "under 65" from the relevant medicare statutes? There, we have universal healthcare without eliminating the private option.


Mitt has promised to privatize Medicare so why bother?
 
2012-06-15 03:04:24 AM  

Bucky Katt: FlyingLizardOfDoom: Why not remove the cap on medicare and ss taxes then delete the words "under 65" from the relevant medicare statutes? There, we have universal healthcare without eliminating the private option.

Mitt has promised to privatize Medicare so why bother?


Thank Zod that Dubya never got around to privatizing SS.
 
Displayed 316 of 316 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report