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 09:51:27 AM
Yes. PLEASE revisit this decision. It's been a freaking nightmare.
 
2012-06-18 10:00:12 AM
So they're just finally realizing what the rest of us figured out the moment we heard about the decision?
Morons.
 
2012-06-18 10:01:46 AM
Gee, maybe you geniuses should have given it a bit more thought before the original ruling...
 
2012-06-18 10:03:06 AM
Yes, the Supreme Court is clearly about to send out a mea culpa and reverse its decision.
 
2012-06-18 10:03:16 AM
You mean dumping unlimited and untraceable money into elections might mean that some folks might try to buy officials?

I, for one, am shocked. Shocked and appalled. I mean, the next thing you know, we'll start looking at how charities are run. If Hannity's Support the Troops didn't organize his Freedom Concerts, how could he donate 8% of the profits to college funds for the children of vets? Yes, a good deal of that money goes to "administrative" costs, but some of it goes into scholarships, and that's money that wouldn't go to them at all, right? Next thing you know, folks will be looking at Zig Ziglar's events or other patriots like Michelle Bachmann or Newt Gingrich or even Sarah's PAC...

Shameful, really to doubt that patriots would use the flag to scam Americans. They put the flag right on their events, so if you doubt them, you doubt the flag, you Commies...
 
2012-06-18 10:04:56 AM
It's a "landmark" is it. So must be the Jolly Roger.
 
2012-06-18 10:05:12 AM
Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...
 
2012-06-18 10:07:16 AM

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.
 
2012-06-18 10:12:54 AM

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


Exactly. Who are we kidding?
 
2012-06-18 10:14:11 AM
TFA was a little weak on details. Does anyone have any info on what was meant by "revisit"?
 
2012-06-18 10:14:39 AM

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


This wasn't just a ruling. They actually structured the case in such away as to allow them to make a ruling that wasn't even asked of them.
 
2012-06-18 10:15:50 AM

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

This wasn't just a ruling. They actually structured the case in such away as to allow them to make a ruling that wasn't even asked of them.


So what you're saying is that they actively went out of their way to make a decision which overturned precedent?

I'm stunned. Staggered. Stupefied.
 
2012-06-18 10:26:04 AM

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


such as?
 
2012-06-18 10:35:20 AM

ginandbacon: TFA was a little weak on details. Does anyone have any info on what was meant by "revisit"?


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. So now that decision goes to the Supreme Court to determine whether to strike down the Montana Supreme Court's holdings, or to modify its earlier Citizen's United case.
 
2012-06-18 10:38:15 AM
In other news, Stephen Colbert has been voted the most influential Supreme Court Justice.
 
2012-06-18 10:52:41 AM

RexTalionis: ginandbacon: TFA was a little weak on details. Does anyone have any info on what was meant by "revisit"?

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. So now that decision goes to the Supreme Court to determine whether to strike down the Montana Supreme Court's holdings, or to modify its earlier Citizen's United case.


Huh. Okay. I guess I will tune back in later then.
 
2012-06-18 10:59:26 AM

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


Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?
 
2012-06-18 11:00:57 AM

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


May I trouble you for an example?
 
2012-06-18 11:01:06 AM
Casting one vote? Government picture ID required

Buying 5 million votes? No problem, anonymity protected

What the fark?
 
2012-06-18 11:01:30 AM
The only money that should be allowed in politics should be a small portion of taxpayer dollars to publicly fund elections. And while we are at it, lobbying should be banned as well.

Democracy and money shouldn't mix.
 
2012-06-18 11:01:33 AM

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

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?


The media is run by liberal elites, they make money off even conservative Super PACS because they control all the channels!

Except FOX, of course.

USA number 1, forever.
 
2012-06-18 11:02:24 AM
Roberts must have finally woken up and realized his legacy will be the destruction of America's faith in the political process, and possibly the destruction of the process.

Hell of a thing to have hanging over your head.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:37 AM

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.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:39 AM
Please god. If this does get reversed, i'll take back -most- of what i said about the insidiousness of our species, the inevitability of societal freefall into oligarchal tyranny, and the destruction of all hope for the future.

Most, not all.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:44 AM

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


Strawman argument is Straw

No one said it exclusively benefitted conservatives (but it does favor them more than liberals).

You're an unpatriotic shmuck if you don't see an issue with either party buying elections.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:48 AM
FTA: "Hasen predicts Citizens United will be overturned by a less conservative Supreme Court someday."

Which, thanks to Citizens United, we'll never get.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:52 AM
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 to buy America's government wholesale.
 
2012-06-18 11:03:59 AM
I have to be honest, I really wonder about Roberts. He is a smart guy and to some degree a politician. My guess is that he realizes that his legacy will be tainted by this case, as most people believe SCOTUS came down on the wrong side on this one. I think CU will be overturned, or at the very least weakened. I also think there's a chance Roberts is going to soften a little bit on his conservatism as time goes on. I don't think he is a diehard partisan like Scalia or (by proxy) Thomas. Obviously only time will tell. So far I haven't seen a softened stance on much, although some are arguing he might keep ACA.
 
2012-06-18 11:04:20 AM
This is backwards, they're looking forward to the Montana case to solidify the ruling.

We were all warned about Roberts.
 
2012-06-18 11:04:49 AM
Hasen predicts Citizens United will be overturned by a less conservative Supreme Court someday.

I'm not so sure about that. The US government as we know it will have to survive that long.
 
2012-06-18 11:05:22 AM

sprawl15: sweetmelissa31: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?

The media is run by liberal elites, they make money off even conservative Super PACS because they control all the channels!

Except FOX, of course.

USA number 1, forever.


[notsureifserious.jpg], but the corporate media has indeed generally quite liked the part of Citizens United where they get paid a lot of money to run a lot of ads.
 
2012-06-18 11:05:39 AM

make me some tea: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

May I trouble you for an example?


May I troll you for a trolly troll?
 
2012-06-18 11:06:08 AM

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


Could you give us a "fer instance" please?
 
2012-06-18 11:06:45 AM

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

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?


Of course not. There are no such things as union thugs. Wait. Which side are you on?
 
2012-06-18 11:07:54 AM

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


Seems to me that because of Citizens United, a New England liberal was able to crush all of his conservative challengers to win the Republican nomination this year. That same man is now using Chinese casino profits to help him win the election.
 
2012-06-18 11:07:56 AM
A few million dollars in the right places might influence their ruling, if you get what I'm saying.
 
2012-06-18 11:08:10 AM

timswar: Roberts must have finally woken up and realized his legacy will be the destruction of America's faith in the political process, and possibly the destruction of the process.

Hell of a thing to have hanging over your head.


Possibly. Honestly, despite all the biatching about him, I still surprised that there hasn't been more attention to the blatant buying off of Justice Thomas.
 
2012-06-18 11:08:17 AM
Revisit it? shiat, we'll be lucky if they don't just decide to tie number of votes to dollars donated on a 1-1 basis.
 
2012-06-18 11:08:28 AM

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.
 
2012-06-18 11:08:35 AM

LarryDan43: sweetmelissa31: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?

Of course not. There are no such things as union thugs. Wait. Which side are you on?

Either that, or they mask it in "527 Groups"
Not to be confused with other giant donations that are somehow evil by comparison
 
2012-06-18 11:10:07 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Possibly. Honestly, despite all the biatching about him, I still surprised that there hasn't been more attention to the blatant buying off of Justice Thomas.


It's been brought up, but what can you do about it? It's almost impossible to discipline a justice.
 
2012-06-18 11:10:51 AM

LarryDan43: sweetmelissa31: adiabat: Funny how when campaign finance laws benefit liberals we hear crickets...

Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?

Of course not. There are no such things as union thugs. Wait. Which side are you on?


Let's post that graph of union money vs. corporate money, it is enlightening when folks make these sorts of comments.
 
2012-06-18 11:11:05 AM
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.
 
2012-06-18 11:11:10 AM

CPennypacker: Casting one vote? Government picture ID required

Buying 5 million votes? No problem, anonymity protected

What the fark?


It's all about limiting the influence of the working class.
 
2012-06-18 11:11:49 AM

ginandbacon: TFA was a little weak on details. Does anyone have any info on what was meant by "revisit"?


It means there's another truckload of cash backing up to Roberts' Cayman Islands bank account as we speak.
 
2012-06-18 11:11:55 AM

RexTalionis: ginandbacon: TFA was a little weak on details. Does anyone have any info on what was meant by "revisit"?

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. So now that decision goes to the Supreme Court to determine whether to strike down the Montana Supreme Court's holdings, or to modify its earlier Citizen's United case.


An important distinction.
 
2012-06-18 11:13:47 AM
This is probably the biggest reason to make sure Obama has a 2nd term. The court needs to move back to the center.
 
2012-06-18 11:14:04 AM
At his confirmation hearing nearly seven years ago, Roberts compared judges to umpires: They don't make the rules, he said, they apply them.

Good analogy. An umpire can throw a game any way they want to. An umpire can watch a pitcher bean the batter with the ball and call it a strike. If Roberts wants to be a neutral arbiter maybe he and the rest of the court should stop going to political activities and becoming highly involved in politics and issues that you are likely to be called-upon to rule on.
 
2012-06-18 11:14:30 AM

mrshowrules: This wasn't just a ruling. They actually structured the case in such away as to allow them to make a ruling that wasn't even asked of them.


I sort of hope that they were bribed into doing what did they, because the idea that they did it of their own free will is just embarrassing for the rest of humanity. Farking mind-boggling.
 
2012-06-18 11:14:44 AM

Satanic_Hamster: Possibly. Honestly, despite all the biatching about him, I still surprised that there hasn't been more attention to the blatant buying off of Justice Thomas.


This. So much this.

If I had the opportunity to get Barack Obama in private away from mics, the one thing I'd ask him is why in the blue blazes has he not ordered a Justice Department investigation into not only Thomas', but Scalia's and Roberts', vested interests into health care and campaign finance-related cases.

Judges, even SCOTUS justices, are obligated by federal law to recuse themselves in the event of conflicting interests. If they are not recusing themselves, then they are not exercising the good behavior required of them to maintain their seat. As far as I'm concerned, investigate them and if they can be indicted, impeach the bastards. Then rail on the House when they invariably refuse to impeach for being chock-full of Republicans.
 
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