Do you have adblock enabled?
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.

(Cover It Live) NewsFlash Supreme Court summarily reverses Montana's Citizens United challenge, continues to believe that unlimited soft money is a good thing   (coveritlive.com ) divider line 505
    More: NewsFlash, Citizens United  
•       •       •

13924 clicks; posted to Main » on 25 Jun 2012 at 11:29 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-06-25 10:10:04 AM  
Well, of course they did. This is America, if rich people can't use their wealth to subvert the idea of democracy, what's the point in even having it?

/vomits
 
2012-06-25 10:13:26 AM  
I would just love it if Montana just up and defied them anyway.
 
2012-06-25 10:14:55 AM  
It's not like Anthony Kennedy has been proven totally wrong about his majority decision:

"The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate."
 
2012-06-25 10:15:19 AM  
FTFDO:Moreover, even if I were to accept Citizens United, this
Court's legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Supreme
Court's finding, made on the record before it, that
independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead
to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana.
Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that
court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in
limiting independent expenditures by corporations.
2011
MT 328, ¶¶ 36-37, 363 Mont. 220, 235-236, 271 P. 3d 1,
2

36-37. Thus, Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so.


Whoa! a states rights argument against Citizens United! interesting play
 
2012-06-25 10:15:50 AM  
 
2012-06-25 10:17:54 AM  
Every $1 is a little bit of freedom. If you have more $1s, you have more freedom.

This is established law here in the United States of AWESOME!
 
2012-06-25 10:21:33 AM  
So after seeing the deleterious consequences of Citizens united, the SCOTUS has decided to rectify the situation by reaffirming it.

Welcome to the United Corporations of America.
 
2012-06-25 10:22:37 AM  
 
2012-06-25 10:23:10 AM  
What's more disturbing (re: Arizona v. US): "Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto."
 
2012-06-25 10:23:40 AM  
10:23
Amy Howe: We do not expect any additional opinions today, so NO health care today.
 
2012-06-25 10:26:54 AM  

zedster: Subby was on an iphone, here is the webpage link. bit easier on the eyes


You are correct. Didn't realize it was a separate link, sorry
 
2012-06-25 10:32:34 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What's more disturbing (re: Arizona v. US): "Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto."


I noticed. What a douche.
 
2012-06-25 10:35:27 AM  

vygramul: Scalia


Sounds kinda foreign. Better check his papers out the next time he sets foot outside the courtroom..
 
2012-06-25 10:37:36 AM  

vygramul: Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What's more disturbing (re: Arizona v. US): "Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto."

I noticed. What a douche.

Amy Howe: As part of Scalia's statement in dissent, he is commenting on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- something that was not part of the case.


Sometimes it feels like Scalia's trying to set up a shadow government.
 
2012-06-25 10:41:31 AM  
These are supposed to be the wisest and most sage of our leaders. So esteemed that their appointments are for life, and they are not subject to the whims of politics

/we are so f*cked
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-06-25 10:50:35 AM  

markie_farkie: vygramul: Scalia

Sounds kinda foreign. Better check his papers out the next time he sets foot outside the courtroom..


I haven't seen his birth certificate.
 
2012-06-25 11:30:37 AM  
 
2012-06-25 11:31:54 AM  
I think we need to re-think this "Supreme Court Justice for life" bullshiat. Time to get rid of some of these farkers, starting with Scalia.
 
2012-06-25 11:32:42 AM  
I skimmed, but the Court is ruling on capital punishment, immigration, and healthcare.

Do the math.

/Can't wait until paved roads become illegal
 
2012-06-25 11:32:48 AM  
It's not news, it's a blog.
 
2012-06-25 11:33:13 AM  
Antonin Scalia is the weirdest strict constitutionalist known to man
 
2012-06-25 11:33:15 AM  
Dinki: Welcome to the United Corporations of America.

Yes, although already most of the soft corporate money is from multinationals or foreign corporations, which often means foreign governments.

Why we spend money on defense, I'm not sure. We use the military to 'defend' ourselves against countries too poor to buy us, and meanwhile we sell the government, for pennies on the dollar, to countries that can afford it.

At this point, the conspiracy buffs should logically be arguing that we invaded Iraq to secure oil for China.
 
2012-06-25 11:33:35 AM  
this decision brought to you by small bundles of unmarked 'soft money'.
 
2012-06-25 11:33:42 AM  
WTF is up with this link? Gimme the Cliff's Notes.
 
2012-06-25 11:35:15 AM  
If they didn't have any favors to give away, they wouldn't get as much money. Solve that problem and you'll get "big money" out of politics. Until then, rich people are also rich enough to get around any law.
 
2012-06-25 11:35:20 AM  

bulldg4life: Antonin Scalia is the weirdest strict constitutionalist known to man


That's because he isn't a strict constitutionalist at all. He simply rules with what the GOP wants him to do.
 
2012-06-25 11:35:34 AM  
It isn't the Supreme Court's job to rule if something is a "good thing".

It's their job to rule if it's a "legal thing".
 
2012-06-25 11:36:06 AM  
How about a national strike until we have term limits for Supreme Court justices? Say like four years and you're out? I'm sick and tired of these assholes, too.
 
2012-06-25 11:36:13 AM  

sweetmelissa31: "The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate."


The f*ck it wont.. The f*ck it isn't. Are you assmonkeys serious? You foist this gymnastic crapola off on the country which, in brief, states "hey, just because rich people are buying politicians, that don't mean they're actually buying them"? Why don't you just flip your robes up and take it up the ass from a pack of drooling CEOs live on S-SPAN? Hypocrites. Thieves. Liars. Fools.
 
2012-06-25 11:36:25 AM  

Codenamechaz: I would just love it if Montana just up and defied them anyway.


We're too lazy to do anything other than get drunk, smoke weed and gamble.
 
2012-06-25 11:36:38 AM  
What do you expect from a body that sits idly by while a Kenyan is inserted into the presidency? If you people stick your thumbs in your ears for that, this is what the f you - WE - get.
 
2012-06-25 11:36:50 AM  
It's not "good" or "bad" at stake. The question is: "is it constitutionally permissible to restrict political speech?"
 
2012-06-25 11:37:33 AM  
Rich people don't like taxing me to have children who will go up to kill me. Poor people love to do this. Therefore, I hope the rich get to spend money to their heart's content on politics.
 
2012-06-25 11:37:40 AM  

rocketpants: WTF is up with this link? Gimme the Cliff's Notes.


It was the only source of the breaking news when submitted 90 minutes ago. Sorry!
 
2012-06-25 11:39:27 AM  

Rincewind53: zedster: Subby was on an iphone, here is the webpage link. bit easier on the eyes

You are correct. Didn't realize it was a separate link, sorry


Ths is the Internet, serious business.......you better be sorry!

On topic, I feel for you folks, the citizens united ruling is a joke. That prick casino owner can donate almost $100 to his preferred candidate(s)? Where does that get fun?
 
2012-06-25 11:39:52 AM  

LawrencePerson: It's not "good" or "bad" at stake


Then we should just toss out the black letter and spirit of the laws, it's very raison d'être, cut the sh*t and hand everybody a loaded gun and a can of spam and say "Rotsa ruck. Whoever is left standing is the law."
 
2012-06-25 11:39:56 AM  
Actually, failmitter, SCOTUS made it clear that the government can't repeal the first amendment by criminalizing political speech-- a position that those wacky right-wingers at the ACLU support.
 
2012-06-25 11:41:17 AM  

Serious Black: Codenamechaz: I would just love it if Montana just up and defied them anyway.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states were bound by the Court's decisions and had to enforce them even if the states disagreed with them.


Two hundred and thirty-some odd years ago some brave people, who proved willing to suffer loss of life and limb, might have had a problem with this.
 
2012-06-25 11:41:47 AM  

sweetmelissa31: It's not like Anthony Kennedy has been proven totally wrong about his majority decision:

"The appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. By definition, an independent expenditure is political speech presented to the electorate that is not coordinated with a candidate."


Except for all those ads saying "call my opponent and ask him to stop killing babies/destroying jobs."
 
2012-06-25 11:42:38 AM  
 
2012-06-25 11:44:13 AM  

powhound: Serious Black: Codenamechaz: I would just love it if Montana just up and defied them anyway.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states were bound by the Court's decisions and had to enforce them even if the states disagreed with them.

Two hundred and thirty-some odd years ago some brave people, who proved willing to suffer loss of life and limb, might have had a problem with this.


No they wouldn't.
 
2012-06-25 11:45:25 AM  

Forced Perspective: Actually, failmitter, SCOTUS made it clear that the government can't repeal the first amendment by criminalizing political speech-- a position that those wacky right-wingers at the ACLU support.


What does the first amendment have to do with money? I still don't understand that part.
 
2012-06-25 11:45:38 AM  

powhound: Serious Black: Codenamechaz: I would just love it if Montana just up and defied them anyway.

Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958), was a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States, which held that the states were bound by the Court's decisions and had to enforce them even if the states disagreed with them.

Two hundred and thirty-some odd years ago some brave people, who proved willing to suffer loss of life and limb, might have had a problem with this.


You mean the same ones that put the Supremacy Clause in the US Constitution????
 
2012-06-25 11:45:46 AM  
God I love liberal butthurt. I have a feeling there there will be PLENTY to go around this week.
 
2012-06-25 11:45:59 AM  

Forced Perspective: Actually, failmitter, SCOTUS made it clear that the government can't repeal the first amendment by criminalizing political speech-- a position that those wacky right-wingers at the ACLU support.


Came here looking for the 'conservative' defense of this anti-states rights ruling. Leaving satisfied.

/money does not equal free speech. If I have 100000x more money than you the founding fathers did not want you to have 100000x more speach than you.
 
2012-06-25 11:46:50 AM  

Ball Sack Obama: God I love liberal butthurt. I have a feeling there there will be PLENTY to go around this week.


CRY MOAR.
 
2012-06-25 11:47:06 AM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: What's more disturbing (re: Arizona v. US): "Justice Scalia would uphold the Arizona statute in toto."


But soul he have upheld it in Oz?
 
2012-06-25 11:47:09 AM  

Coelacanth: How about a national strike until we have term limits for Supreme Court justices? Say like four years and you're out? I'm sick and tired of these assholes, too.


As bad as the court has become, having them up for periodic review would move
us from government gridlock to government glaciation.
 
2012-06-25 11:47:46 AM  

Forced Perspective: Actually, failmitter, SCOTUS made it clear that the government can't repeal the first amendment by criminalizing political speech-- a position that those wacky right-wingers at the ACLU support.


Remember when the left was proud to remind people that the First Amendment was designed to protect unpopular speech? Now they love the Constitution!--except for the First Amendment, the Second, parts of the Fourth and Fifth,...etc.
 
2012-06-25 11:48:16 AM  

Ball Sack Obama: God I love liberal butthurt. I have a feeling there there will be PLENTY to go around this week.


I think both liberals and conservatives should be outraged by this ruling...
 
Displayed 50 of 505 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report