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.

(NPR)   For some reason, the Supreme Court might be having second thoughts about its Citizens United decision. Can't imagine why. Truly baffling. Yup   (npr.org) divider line 184
    More: Fail, Citizens United, supreme courts, Chief Justice John Roberts, McCain-Feingold, friend of the courts, Arlen Specter, corporate campaign, foreign corporation  
•       •       •

6652 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2012 at 10:57 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-18 11:14:48 AM

Karac: The Citizen's United ruling, that people should be able to freely spend their money to produce political speech however they want would be an excellent ruling in a closed, theoretical environment where you assume that people are good and decent, and that politician's official actions will not be affected by the money spent by third parties to secure their election.


in that same environment, communism leads to utopia.
 
2012-06-18 11:14:58 AM

Dr Dreidel: Montana's Supreme Court, in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana, held that the Citizens United decision does not apply to Montana's state laws on campaign finance for state elections.


I thought that would be understood, since a state would have no powers to regulate federal elections.
 
2012-06-18 11:15:03 AM

sprawl15: In other news, Stephen Colbert has been voted the most influential Supreme Court Justice.


Took me a minute to get what you were saying but yeah, I can't imagine they see his antics without thinking, "man, that was stupid". Or, at the very least they are mad b/c they got caught. They probably didn't count on someone openly mocking the decision like Colbert has so masterfully done.
 
2012-06-18 11:15:30 AM

LarryDan43: Which side are you on?


Hah I wonder if you know what you did there
 
2012-06-18 11:15:59 AM

EvilEgg: FlashHarry: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

such as?

The laws that let dead people and illegal aliens vote, you only hear crying about the minorities and college kids.


I've never heard of such law, and even if one existed I don't think it'd be considered a campaign finance law.
 
2012-06-18 11:16:24 AM

keylock71: Gee, maybe you geniuses should have given it a bit more thought before the original ruling...


Thought? Roberts isn't paid to think. He's paid to follow orders.
 
2012-06-18 11:17:20 AM

that bosnian sniper: Serious Black: More likely is that SCOTUS will decide Article I, Clause 9, Section 8 does not apply to campaign contributions and independent expenditures, thus opening the doors for Queen Elizabeth, Angela Merkel, Yoshihiko Noda, Benjamin Netanyahu, and Hu Jintao GEORGE SOROS to buy America's government wholesale.

Fixed that for you.


I was unaware that George Soros is a dignitary of a foreign government. My mistake. I definitely should have included him in the list.

That said, I do love how tons of reactionary regressives love to complain about George Soros for trying to buy the 2004 election when Sheldon Adelson has already spent at least 50% more than Soros did that year and has plans to spend, in his own words, a "limitless" amount of money to ensure Mitt Romney wins.
 
2012-06-18 11:18:18 AM

sweetmelissa31: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?


i18.photobucket.com
 
2012-06-18 11:18:42 AM

Karac: The Citizen's United ruling, that people should be able to freely spend their money to produce political speech however they want would be an excellent ruling in a closed, theoretical environment where you assume that people are good and decent, and that politician's official actions will not be affected by the money spent by third parties to secure their election.

In other words, it would work perfectly in a law book, but in real life, it's a supremely shiatty decision that depends on the honesty and non-whorishness of american politicians. It reminds me of the scene in a Rodney Dangerfield film where he goes back to college, sits down in a business class, and then the teacher gets offended when Rodney asks why he doesn't include bribes and paying off the mob to avoid strikes in the expenses column.


No, it's cool.

They addressed this and decided that independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption." Just because they say so.
 
2012-06-18 11:19:07 AM

FlashHarry: Karac: The Citizen's United ruling, that people should be able to freely spend their money to produce political speech however they want would be an excellent ruling in a closed, theoretical environment where you assume that people are good and decent, and that politician's official actions will not be affected by the money spent by third parties to secure their election.

in that same environment, communism leads to utopia.


And worm farming to a life of wealth and ease.
 
2012-06-18 11:19:08 AM

IrateShadow: It's been brought up, but what can you do about it? It's almost impossible to discipline a justice.


Then scream about it in every interview, every day. Point out that a Justice ruled on a case in which the plaintiff paid his wife over a half million dollars for a no-show job. Make the American people know that not only is the Supreme Court for sale, how cheap it is and what politicians are protecting this.
 
2012-06-18 11:19:12 AM

jcooli09: Thought? Roberts isn't paid to think. He's paid to follow orders.


Blame Kennedy for that decision. He's the swing vote, and he wrote the opinion. The conservative wing's positions were already preordained.
 
2012-06-18 11:19:19 AM
Something about Priorities USA PAC running such nice ads on DC and Virginia TV stations.

Thank you Bill Maher, Stephen Spielberg. You're helping me decide how I'm going to vote in November, and it's not as you intended.
 
2012-06-18 11:19:28 AM

Weaver95: hinten: Yes, the Supreme Court is clearly about to send out a mea culpa and reverse its decision.

personally, I think they'll double down on the stupidity and openly legalize foreign money in US politics. just put a big old 'for sale' sign on Congress.


It's also possible that they'll determine that unions being able to contribute to campaigns causes undue influence and ban them from contributing to campaigns (corporations are still allowed to contribute though, since they are just about giving a collective voice to people and deserve to be treated as people themselves.)

I mean, might as well offer that option if we decide this is a troll move.
 
2012-06-18 11:20:14 AM

Fluorescent Testicle: ... what did they

they did ...

/FTFM.
//Five minutes later.
 
2012-06-18 11:20:24 AM
Should an individual be allowed to use the political process to go after corporations but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves? Wouldn't that pretty much lead to the abolishment of all corporations?

I think we all agree that we'd first need to purge the communists before changing that ruling.
 
2012-06-18 11:20:27 AM
This article is wishful thinking.

The USSC will not decide that the govt can ban political speech just because the source is incorporated. The FEC will not be given the authority to ban books, videos, or such. Suck it, Libs.
 
2012-06-18 11:20:57 AM

Satanic_Hamster: IrateShadow: It's been brought up, but what can you do about it? It's almost impossible to discipline a justice.

Then scream about it in every interview, every day. Point out that a Justice ruled on a case in which the plaintiff paid his wife over a half million dollars for a no-show job. Make the American people know that not only is the Supreme Court for sale, how cheap it is and what politicians are protecting this.


By and large, the American people don't care, as long as it benefits their team.
 
2012-06-18 11:21:47 AM

Noam Chimpsky: but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves?


Corporations are not people. They are things.
 
2012-06-18 11:21:56 AM

andersoncouncil42: This is probably the biggest reason to make sure Obama has a 2nd term. The court needs to move back to the center.


A 2nd term is not enough. Scalia/Thomas are probably not retiring within the next 4 years. You'll need a real centrist president in 2016 plus a less radical/obstructionist congress.
 
2012-06-18 11:23:10 AM

RexTalionis: Dr Dreidel: Montana's Supreme Court, in Western Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Attorney General of Montana, held that the Citizens United decision does not apply to Montana's state laws on campaign finance for state elections.

I thought that would be understood, since a state would have no powers to regulate federal elections.


MT might think they can legislate how Montanan businesses spend political cash or disclose donations (to both state and federal candidates/campaigns) for state tax purposes. I don't know - I just thought that needed specifying.

The CU ruling didn't touch state elections, right? So this time, SCOTUS could say that anyone can donate anything to any political campaign, rather than say "We may have overstepped this one a bit"? My feeling is that Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, Alito will have a tough time convincing Kennedy that the First Amendment's protection of speech and lobbying rights extends to in-kind donations to state-level political campaigns.

The again, Kennedy joined the majority the first time...
 
2012-06-18 11:23:19 AM

Cletus C.: A few million dollars in the right places might influence their ruling, if you get what I'm saying.


I think I hear you saying you want to have sex with them. Did I hear that correctly?
 
2012-06-18 11:23:22 AM

Noam Chimpsky: Should an individual be allowed to use the political process to go after corporations but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves? Wouldn't that pretty much lead to the abolishment of all corporations?

I think we all agree that we'd first need to purge the communists before changing that ruling.


Put down the pipe.
 
2012-06-18 11:24:38 AM
Stupidest ruling in American history. Truly farking idiotic. If the expenditure of money is a free speech, the commerce clause has no meaning. None. Might as well argue taxation itself is an abridgment of the 1st Amendment. Along with the FDA, Social Security, and prohibitions on outright bribery.
 
2012-06-18 11:24:42 AM
What, something wrong with foreigners funneling money into every single race in the country? Why you hate Amendment the First???
 
2012-06-18 11:24:53 AM

Jairzinho: EvilEgg: FlashHarry: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

such as?

The laws that let dead people and illegal aliens vote, you only hear crying about the minorities and college kids.

I've never heard of such law, and even if one existed I don't think it'd be considered a campaign finance law.


I think Citizen's United ruling allows foreign nationals (even if improperly in the country) and the estates of dead people to donate, so there is that.
 
2012-06-18 11:27:03 AM
The sad part of the decision to me is that it has pretty much solidified the BS assertion that money = speech. It's not like money is a concept invented after the 1st amendment was written. If the founders had wanted to say that congress could not abridge the freedom to spend money on speech, they would have done so.
 
2012-06-18 11:27:08 AM

qorkfiend: By and large, the American people don't care, as long as it benefits their team.


But only what, 1/3 of the population would be ok with this? But the rest of the country, including the hordes of my fellow uninformed moderates, might be slapped into realization that they actually do need to go out and vote.
 
2012-06-18 11:28:32 AM

FlashHarry: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

such as?


South Africa & the Iraq?
 
2012-06-18 11:28:48 AM

DarnoKonrad: Stupidest ruling in American history.


What, worse than Dred Scott v. Sandford? Plessy v. Ferguson? Korematsu v. US? Buck v. Bell?
 
2012-06-18 11:28:53 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: I think Citizen's United ruling allows foreign nationals (even if improperly in the country) and the estates of dead people to donate, so there is that.


www.pinkraygun.com

Zombies are people, my friend.
 
2012-06-18 11:28:53 AM
Not counting Bush v. Gore, Citizens United is the worst Supreme Court decision since the Dred Scot case. Have to include Bush v. Gore, because the Bush appointeess for the Supreme Court were so horny to legislate this from the bench.
 
2012-06-18 11:30:03 AM

Vlad_the_Inaner: Jairzinho: EvilEgg: FlashHarry: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

such as?

The laws that let dead people and illegal aliens vote, you only hear crying about the minorities and college kids.

I've never heard of such law, and even if one existed I don't think it'd be considered a campaign finance law.

I think Citizen's United ruling allows foreign nationals (even if improperly in the country) and the estates of dead people to donate, so there is that.


Even if they couldn't it's not like you couldn't funnel/launder money to those interests. Especially when you consider the anonymity of SuperPACs.
 
2012-06-18 11:30:49 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves?

Corporations are not people. They are things.


RACIST!!!one!
 
2012-06-18 11:30:50 AM
This book is a damning indictment of money's influence in American politics and it was published prior to Citizens United. Reading it recently, and knowing it only got (much) worse, was one of the more depressing things I've done lately.

tcfrank.com
 
2012-06-18 11:31:21 AM

Satanic_Hamster: qorkfiend: By and large, the American people don't care, as long as it benefits their team.

But only what, 1/3 of the population would be ok with this? But the rest of the country, including the hordes of my fellow uninformed moderates, might be slapped into realization that they actually do need to go out and vote.


If they haven't realized that by now, I don't think there's anything that can force it.
 
2012-06-18 11:31:23 AM

RexTalionis: DarnoKonrad: Stupidest ruling in American history.

What, worse than Dred Scott v. Sandford? Plessy v. Ferguson? Korematsu v. US? Buck v. Bell?



I stand by my assessment. We're only one year into the plutocratic shiatstorm.
 
2012-06-18 11:31:30 AM
Also, interesting timing, this.

Citizens United was handed down just in time to flip the House, break Democratic supermajority in the Senate, and attempt to flip the Senate and Presidency via cash avalanche in 2012. Just now in the eleventh hour is the Supreme Court apparently looking at maybe revisiting the case, after the damage is already done, and in such a timely manner that any resulting decision will come down after the 2012 election.

After a two-year stretch of record union busting and electoral disenfranchisement. And at a point after which liberal Justice appointments, should Obama win, be blocked by the Senate, and conservative Justice appointments, should Romney win, get the rubber stamp. During a Presidential term that could see two and perhaps three Supreme Court justice appointments, particularly to replace Justices of the liberal wing.
 
2012-06-18 11:33:45 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves?

Corporations are not people. They are things.


Corporations are not people. They are legal entities. FTFY.
 
2012-06-18 11:34:20 AM

DarnoKonrad: I stand by my assessment. We're only one year into the plutocratic shiatstorm.


So, a decision (a bad one, to be sure) on the role of Corporate money in campaigns is WORSE than decisions that said that people can be the property of another? Or that separate and equal is a good policy? Or that American citizens should be allowed to be rounded up and sent to detention camps? Or that the mentally feeble should undergo forced sterilization?

Christ. I don't even know where your perspective is coming from.
 
2012-06-18 11:34:46 AM

SilentStrider: So they're just finally realizing what the rest of us figured out the moment we heard about the decision?
Morons.



I bet Harriett Miers would have made a better decision.
 
2012-06-18 11:35:04 AM

Kevin72: cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves?

Corporations are not people. They are things.

Corporations are not people. They are legal entities. FTFY.


Corporations are property. Maybe they should have 3/5 speech.

OK now I feel bad
 
2012-06-18 11:35:21 AM
As much as I want to believe someone in the CU majority has changed his mind, most of the talk of the SCOTUS' concern on this case has come from people on the other side of the aisle. Do I believe Sheldon Whitehouse, Democratic Senator from Rhode Island, really is privy to what the conservative wing of the SCOTUS is thinking? No. Same goes with Sandra Day O'Connor, who would have clearly been in the minority on CU.

With that being said, the biggest SCOTUS nomination in the last 50 years was likely Dubya replacing O'Connor with Alito. That one move enabled all these 5-4 conservative majority decisions that have been aggressively reshaping the law in the last few years.

For all the "both sides are the same" idiots, future SCOTUS appointments should be proof enough that election results make a difference in people's lives. If Kerry wins in 2004, there's no Robers/Rehnquist and the landscape totally changes as far as the makeup of the SCOTUS.
 
2012-06-18 11:36:20 AM

CPennypacker: Corporations are property. Maybe they should have 3/5 speech.

OK now I feel bad


No. You should be proud of that one. It was funny.
 
2012-06-18 11:38:09 AM

cameroncrazy1984: Noam Chimpsky: but the corporations shouldn't be allowed to use the same process to defend themselves?

Corporations are not people. They are things.


Things can't use the process. Corporations are using the process. Therefore, corporations aren't things.

You'd have to ban the anti-corporatists from using the process to attack the corporatists before you could ban the corporatists from using the process to defend themselves.

What does need to happen is that the government must be banned from using the process to promote government. You start with abolishing all public parasite unions. Things are going in the right direction in that instance.
 
2012-06-18 11:38:09 AM

bdub77: Even if they couldn't it's not like you couldn't funnel/launder money to those interests. Especially when you consider the anonymity of SuperPACs.


Actually, foreign national money funneled through PAC's and used for the purpose of electioneering is completely legal. FEC regulations and campaign finance law only extends prohibition of foreign money in hard and soft money -- that is to say, contributions made directly to campaigns, or contributions made to parties.

Independent campaign expenditure via PAC's is totally okay. That is, so long as the foreign national uses an American shell corporation to channel the money.
 
2012-06-18 11:39:18 AM

that bosnian sniper: Also, interesting timing, this.

Citizens United was handed down just in time to flip the House, break Democratic supermajority in the Senate, and attempt to flip the Senate and Presidency via cash avalanche in 2012. Just now in the eleventh hour is the Supreme Court apparently looking at maybe revisiting the case, after the damage is already done, and in such a timely manner that any resulting decision will come down after the 2012 election.

After a two-year stretch of record union busting and electoral disenfranchisement. And at a point after which liberal Justice appointments, should Obama win, be blocked by the Senate, and conservative Justice appointments, should Romney win, get the rubber stamp. During a Presidential term that could see two and perhaps three Supreme Court justice appointments, particularly to replace Justices of the liberal wing.


It was also ordered to go through a second round of questioning to stop Justice Souter's dissent, about how Chief Justice Roberts engineered the shift from the case being decided on statutory grounds to constitutional grounds, from ever being aired. Roberts is a smart man, but he's also insane.
 
2012-06-18 11:39:30 AM
Didn't part of the decision entrust Congress with making transparency laws?

Oops.
 
2012-06-18 11:40:56 AM

meat0918: Didn't part of the decision entrust Congress with making transparency laws?

Oops.


Yep... and you can see how quick they were to do so.
 
2012-06-18 11:42:12 AM

Weaver95: hinten: Yes, the Supreme Court is clearly about to send out a mea culpa and reverse its decision.

personally, I think they'll double down on the stupidity and openly legalize foreign money in US politics. just put a big old 'for sale' sign on Congress.


This, book it, done.
 
Displayed 50 of 184 comments

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

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report