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 63
    More: Fail, Citizens United, supreme courts, Chief Justice John Roberts, McCain-Feingold, friend of the courts, Arlen Specter, corporate campaign, foreign corporation  
•       •       •

6649 clicks; posted to Politics » on 18 Jun 2012 at 10:57 AM (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



Voting Results (Smartest)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Archived thread
2012-06-18 10:03:16 AM
10 votes:
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 11:31:30 AM
5 votes:
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 11:01:06 AM
5 votes:
Casting one vote? Government picture ID required

Buying 5 million votes? No problem, anonymity protected

What the fark?
2012-06-18 10:00:12 AM
4 votes:
So they're just finally realizing what the rest of us figured out the moment we heard about the decision?
Morons.
2012-06-18 11:21:47 AM
3 votes:

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 10:07:16 AM
3 votes:

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 09:51:27 AM
3 votes:
Yes. PLEASE revisit this decision. It's been a freaking nightmare.
2012-06-18 01:30:37 PM
2 votes:

snowshovel: lennavan: MyRandomName: How does it favor them. The same ruling legitimized unions running ads.

Here's the deal. For the sake of argument, we'll pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. They aren't. They make up 3 of the top 10. But for the sake of argument, right now, we will pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. Deal?

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 509x359]

Okay. So both sides are equal. Both sides can spend equal amounts on elections because one side has unions and the other has corporations. Don't you find that kinda sad though? Corporations versus unions of people? I mean, it's corporations versus people, how funny is that?

Now let's return back to that agreed equal spending amount for the sake of argument. Corporations versus unions, equal in spending. R's versus D's, equal in political spending power. Seems fair, right? Now lets add two more pieces of information, the SCOTUS protected corporate political power in Citizens United, while the Republicans have attacked and destroyed Unions across the country a-la Wisconsin and will continue to do so. Things are not going to be so equal anymore, are they?

Great discussion we had. We started from a place where we assumed both sides were equal. Then we threw in some recent legislation and realized they were not both equal. I now return you to, things did not start equal in the first place.

But carry on thinking both sides are equal and everything's fair.

I don't see you adding in the variable of union thuggery outside of polling places. I've never seen a supposedly-evil Koch brother doing that.


It's so pervasive that I've had to see the same f'ing picture of it for 3 years straight now, because I'm sure there are millions of others... why I practically body surfed amongst the black panthers, commies, and Iron Workers to get to my polling station.

If you're serious about not having voter intimidation at polling places, how about not having so many polling places inside of churches?
2012-06-18 12:45:46 PM
2 votes:

randomjsa: Still crying about the loss of a fund raising advantage? Must be a day that ends in Y.


Yes, because when the little people actually get a say in government, your masters need to balance that out by being able to pump billions into the political process.

Do you get your KY in bulk to take their repeated reamings. How do you deal with the taste of dick in your mouth 24/7?
2012-06-18 12:33:39 PM
2 votes:
Citizen's United was a straight-up reaction to Obama's grass roots fundraising. It scared the crap out of the fascists. Of course, they will dismantle it after they get to abuse it.
2012-06-18 12:20:29 PM
2 votes:

MyRandomName: How does it favor them. The same ruling legitimized unions running ads.


Here's the deal. For the sake of argument, we'll pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. They aren't. They make up 3 of the top 10. But for the sake of argument, right now, we will pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. Deal?

lh4.googleusercontent.com

Okay. So both sides are equal. Both sides can spend equal amounts on elections because one side has unions and the other has corporations. Don't you find that kinda sad though? Corporations versus unions of people? I mean, it's corporations versus people, how funny is that?

Now let's return back to that agreed equal spending amount for the sake of argument. Corporations versus unions, equal in spending. R's versus D's, equal in political spending power. Seems fair, right? Now lets add two more pieces of information, the SCOTUS protected corporate political power in Citizens United, while the Republicans have attacked and destroyed Unions across the country a-la Wisconsin and will continue to do so. Things are not going to be so equal anymore, are they?

Great discussion we had. We started from a place where we assumed both sides were equal. Then we threw in some recent legislation and realized they were not both equal. I now return you to, things did not start equal in the first place.

But carry on thinking both sides are equal and everything's fair.
2012-06-18 11:24:38 AM
2 votes:
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 11:21:56 AM
2 votes:

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 11:20:57 AM
2 votes:

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 11:17:20 AM
2 votes:

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 11:15:03 AM
2 votes:

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 11:11:10 AM
2 votes:

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 11:11:05 AM
2 votes:
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 11:08:10 AM
2 votes:

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 11:03:52 AM
2 votes:
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 11:03:48 AM
2 votes:
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 11:01:30 AM
2 votes:
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 10:38:15 AM
2 votes:
In other news, Stephen Colbert has been voted the most influential Supreme Court Justice.
2012-06-18 10:15:50 AM
2 votes:

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 10:14:39 AM
2 votes:

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 10:03:06 AM
2 votes:
Yes, the Supreme Court is clearly about to send out a mea culpa and reverse its decision.
2012-06-18 01:50:44 PM
1 votes:

mainsail: And why not? Their guy, Romney, now has a money advantage, so why would they let the Dems benefit next time?


...wanna lay money that if the Republicans flip the Senate (which, with 33 seats up for election, 21 of which being Democrats, 2 of which being Independents who caucus with dems, and only10 of which being Republicans, is a possible consequence) the very first thing they do is rewrite filibuster and cloture rules?
2012-06-18 01:42:25 PM
1 votes:
And why not? Their guy, Romney, now has a money advantage, so why would they let the Dems benefit next time?
2012-06-18 01:27:27 PM
1 votes:

that bosnian sniper: Serious Black: Such a ruling would still have been far narrower than simply saying that there's no way any amount of independent expenditures on political advocacy can ever result in corruption or the appearance of corruption, and it might have been able to swing into a unanimous opinion.

Well, the entirely insidious aspect when it comes to the anti-distortion rationale in Citizens United is that Kennedy argued in no way the anti-distortion rationale was poorly-founded or that the consequences of independent campaign expenditure aren't as dire as ruled in previous cases. Kennedy completely dodged applying strict scrutiny in this case, failing to address whether there is compelling government interest in regulating distortion or that finance restrictions are the least-restrictive methods, instead jumping to the conclusion that any finance restriction in this regard is an untenable restriction to the First Amendment.

What Kennedy didn't say is just as telling as what he did say. It's as if he concedes the argument, but concludes anyway by saying no consequences matter by mere merit of it being speech.

...and in doing so, actually juxtaposed independent campaign expenditure against practically every other speech trajectory, which universally focus on the consequences of speech as the basis for whether or not a form of speech is protected.


Yelling FIRE in a crowded theater can't be protected speech, because of the possible negative consequences, yet subverting the democratic process with untraceable cash is somehow a sacred right.
2012-06-18 12:54:44 PM
1 votes:

balloot: The problem here is that much of the Citizens United spending has nothing to do with "corporations" in the sense that we think of them. Most of the real harm comes from the Super PACs that exist solely to funnel anonymous money from the very rich to candidates. I feel like all the arguments concerning the "rights" of corporations are semi-tangential to the point. My real problem is letting Sheldon Adelson spend tens of millions trying to buy the presidency for his side. If Rmoney wins, the amount of corrupting influence Adelson can have will be staggering.


Especially given how Adelson has basically said he wants Israel to nuke Iran and for there to be absolutely no space between America's and Israel's foreign policies.
2012-06-18 12:52:04 PM
1 votes:

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: andrewagill: Last time this came around on the gitar, we had some farkers saying that we should ban soft money entirely. Here are some questions for those who advocate that:

[i158.photobucket.com image 560x341]

Is this soft money? What if Google linked to a list of politicians that supported SOPA? I ask because they did.

Should the NRA or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence be required to give up their member list before they can air ads suggesting people do or do not own handguns?

I think a big part of the difference is that you KNOW the entity responsible for the message. Google. In the case of most Super PACs, yes, they have a name, but it's usually a meaningless name attached to a PO box in a rural post office, where you can only find the box if you go down into the basement where the power is off and it's in a broom closet marked "beware of the leopard". I don't mind if people spend money to get their opinions out there, but I wanna know who is doing it.


Heh. Yeah, I know. But really, do you want to ban the Sierra Club or the Boy Scouts from running ads that might touch on political subjects unless they post complete rosters of their members and donors?

I have some rules that I think seem sensible, but let me know what you think.

- Corporations may not give hard money contributions or soft money contributions to groups allowed to give money to candidates' campaigns
- Ads that focus on a politician or group of politicians must have full disclosure of donors. If you want an ad to mention only the sponsors or cosponsors of a particular bill, or only the supporters/opposers/uncommited of a bill, we do not need full disclosure. Corporations must identify the source of the message.
- Ads that use ``magic words'' like vote, elect, endorse, support, defeat, &c. must have full disclosure of donors.

Also, my pet peeve:

- No person or corporation may donate to a candidate running for an office outside of the district or state that they reside or are incorporated in. I doubt this will ever see any backers, though.
2012-06-18 12:47:48 PM
1 votes:

lennavan: MyRandomName: How does it favor them. The same ruling legitimized unions running ads.

Here's the deal. For the sake of argument, we'll pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. They aren't. They make up 3 of the top 10. But for the sake of argument, right now, we will pretend unions are equal to the Republican corporate Super PACs. Deal?

[lh4.googleusercontent.com image 509x359]

Okay. So both sides are equal. Both sides can spend equal amounts on elections because one side has unions and the other has corporations. Don't you find that kinda sad though? Corporations versus unions of people? I mean, it's corporations versus people, how funny is that?

Now let's return back to that agreed equal spending amount for the sake of argument. Corporations versus unions, equal in spending. R's versus D's, equal in political spending power. Seems fair, right? Now lets add two more pieces of information, the SCOTUS protected corporate political power in Citizens United, while the Republicans have attacked and destroyed Unions across the country a-la Wisconsin and will continue to do so. Things are not going to be so equal anymore, are they?

Great discussion we had. We started from a place where we assumed both sides were equal. Then we threw in some recent legislation and realized they were not both equal. I now return you to, things did not start equal in the first place.

But carry on thinking both sides are equal and everything's fair.


-----------------

I think that is the wrong argument. It seems pretty reasonable to say a corporation, in the sense that we normally think of them, is a "union of people".

The problem here is that much of the Citizens United spending has nothing to do with "corporations" in the sense that we think of them. Most of the real harm comes from the Super PACs that exist solely to funnel anonymous money from the very rich to candidates. I feel like all the arguments concerning the "rights" of corporations are semi-tangential to the point. My real problem is letting Sheldon Adelson spend tens of millions trying to buy the presidency for his side. If Rmoney wins, the amount of corrupting influence Adelson can have will be staggering.
2012-06-18 12:46:59 PM
1 votes:

Gyrfalcon: Cue up all the Fark GED lawyers to tell us how this is or is not a violation of some constitutional principle they know nothing about.


It's a pretty clear violation of the 2nd amendment.
2012-06-18 12:37:12 PM
1 votes:

andrewagill: Last time this came around on the gitar, we had some farkers saying that we should ban soft money entirely. Here are some questions for those who advocate that:

[i158.photobucket.com image 560x341]

Is this soft money? What if Google linked to a list of politicians that supported SOPA? I ask because they did.

Should the NRA or the Coalition to Stop Gun Violence be required to give up their member list before they can air ads suggesting people do or do not own handguns?


I believe the offered solution was for organizations such as unions/NRA/NAACP to set up a second bank account for use with political ads. That way, you could donate to the organization itself and stay anonymous, or you could donate to the political ads run by the group un-anonymously. That way you could continue to support things like promoting firearm safety without disclosing your identity, but putting your money up for political use would mean you have to let your identity become public.
2012-06-18 12:25:06 PM
1 votes:

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.


I think he woke up and realized that his security team will be useless against a mob with flaming torches and pitchforks.

/Less optimistic
//But hey, it might end well
2012-06-18 12:24:49 PM
1 votes:

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


To the center? His track record so far says otherwise. A lesbian, a Hispanic? Every pick has been a pandering to specific liberal groups. If Obamao gets his next term, who knows, we might actually get a Muslim on the bench and before you know it, Sharia Law will be forced on us all. Citizens United will be a footnote in history after Burquas United gets codified.
2012-06-18 11:42:12 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-06-18 11:39:30 AM
1 votes:
Didn't part of the decision entrust Congress with making transparency laws?

Oops.
2012-06-18 11:33:45 AM
1 votes:

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 11:31:23 AM
1 votes:

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 11:31:21 AM
1 votes:

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 11:30:50 AM
1 votes:
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 11:27:08 AM
1 votes:

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 11:19:28 AM
1 votes:

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 11:19:19 AM
1 votes:
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 11:19:08 AM
1 votes:

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 11:19:07 AM
1 votes:

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 11:15:59 AM
1 votes:

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 11:14:48 AM
1 votes:

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 11:14:44 AM
1 votes:

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.
2012-06-18 11:08:17 AM
1 votes:
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 11:06:45 AM
1 votes:

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 11:06:08 AM
1 votes:

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


Could you give us a "fer instance" please?
2012-06-18 11:04:49 AM
1 votes:
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 11:03:59 AM
1 votes:
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 11:03:39 AM
1 votes:
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 11:02:24 AM
1 votes:
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 11:01:33 AM
1 votes:

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 10:59:26 AM
1 votes:

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


Liberals don't get money from Super PACs?
2012-06-18 10:35:20 AM
1 votes:

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 10:26:04 AM
1 votes:

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


such as?
2012-06-18 10:12:54 AM
1 votes:

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 10:01:46 AM
1 votes:
Gee, maybe you geniuses should have given it a bit more thought before the original ruling...
 
Displayed 63 of 63 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report