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.

(The New York Times)   Not content with drug dogs and civil rights, SCOTUS to take on whether we can buy our right to vote   (nytimes.com) divider line 47
    More: Scary, drug dog, U.S. Supreme Court, civil rights, campaign contributions, Florida Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, Montana Supreme Court, independent political  
•       •       •

2804 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Feb 2013 at 9:45 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread
 
2013-02-20 08:35:27 AM  
There is significant outrage there. Why not work for a constitutional amendment to give the Gov the power to control this shiat?
 
2013-02-20 09:03:23 AM  

cman: There is significant outrage there. Why not work for a constitutional amendment to give the Gov the power to control this shiat?


What, to control corruption? I'm pretty certain that's already in their purview.
 
2013-02-20 09:17:27 AM  
"Although we acknowledge the constitutional line between political speech and political contributions grows increasingly difficult to discern," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the court, "we decline plaintiffs' invitation to anticipate the Supreme Court's agenda."

Probably reaches for an apple when she wants an orange, too.
 
2013-02-20 09:32:21 AM  
don't screw this one up guys...it's important!
 
2013-02-20 09:48:09 AM  

Weaver95: don't screw this one up guys...it's important!


They don't screw up.  They screw the electorate.
 
2013-02-20 09:49:42 AM  
Ah, another SCOTUS ruling with the potential to significantly increase the already wildly disproportionate influence the wealthy have on our political system. According to these clowns, speech comes from the mouth and the wallet. I wonder (ha!) how they will rule.

With this SCOTUS, the sure bet is on any ruling which helps the rich get richer and more powerful.

They are a big problem.
 
2013-02-20 09:50:03 AM  
If Scalia's involved, we already know the ruling will favor big business interests through any convoluted logic possible.
 
2013-02-20 09:51:52 AM  
Can we go to publicly funded campaigns yet?

Each race gets a certain dollar amount set aside for it; if you get enough people to sign a petition supporting your candidacy then you get an equal share of that pie.  No donations to politicians, no PACs.  You want to support your candidate then you volunteer and you vote - that's it.
 
2013-02-20 09:57:55 AM  

Generation_D: If Scalia's involved, we already know the ruling will favor big business interests through any convoluted logic possible.


well yeah...I mean the guy is pretty clear about how he decides a case: he figures out how the case best suits his personal political ideology, then works backwards to warp and corrupt the law to suit his agenda.
 
2013-02-20 10:03:43 AM  
Now, now, I've been assured by Farkers many times that advertising has no affect on people.

Therefore, there's no reason whatsoever to worry about campaign contributions.
 
2013-02-20 10:03:56 AM  
does this even matter after Citizen's united? It seems like anyone who wants can spend as much as they want already through Super Pacs. This might eliminate some pesky red tape for them though. Anything to make like easier for the rich
 
2013-02-20 10:04:27 AM  
effect, even.
 
2013-02-20 10:16:10 AM  
You guys are just overly cynical. The SCOTUS has already determined that allowing certain groups to give unlimited amounts of money to political candidates does not cause corruption or the appearance of corruption. I mean, really, do we have so little faith in our selfless public servants that we would believe that they would actually grant favor to someone simply because they are given huge amounts of cash? Exchanging money for political favors? That's so absurd I don't even think there's a word for it. These great patriots simply care so MUCH about their country that they want to make sure that the political process is well funded, and they give generously and selflessly to see that it gets done. To even suggest that they may want some sort of special consideration just because they give a candidate or a party millions of dollars is just insulting. You people need to grow up! The Job Creators and the politicians are the noblest and purest among us, and they spend their lives sacrificing themselves for the common good, and then undeserving leeches like you people come along and accuse them of somehow colluding against you. It's shameful, really.
 
2013-02-20 10:21:01 AM  

ModernPrimitive01: does this even matter after Citizen's united? It seems like anyone who wants can spend as much as they want already through Super Pacs. This might eliminate some pesky red tape for them though. Anything to make like easier for the rich


That is the point here.  CU opened the floodgates for corporations, unions or other groups to buy control of the government.  This case, once ruled in a similar fashion will open the floodgates for individuals.  There is little reason to think they won't follow the same course and maintain that money=speech so if you want to be equal to the rich you'd better hurry up and get rich.

The worst part of this is that we won't get those humorous stories about how the Kochs jump through multiple hoops in order to buy politicians.  Now they'll be able to just cut a check directly to the candidates.  I say that is the worst because CU already did the damage.  This will just reduce the money they have to spend on lawyers to get around the law by removing the law.
 
2013-02-20 10:25:47 AM  
TwoHead:
The worst part of this is that we won't get those humorous stories about how the Kochs jump through multiple hoops in order to buy politicians.  Now they'll be able to just cut a check directly to the candidates.  I say that is the worst because CU already did the damage.  This will just reduce the money they have to spend on lawyers to get around the law by removing the law.

one unintended side effect of the CU decision tho was pretty amusing - basically it also cleared the way for unions to donate unlimited funds to their chosen candidates as well.  when the corporations realized that the union bosses were essentially using the same advantages as the CEOs now had, that was when we saw a rise in GOP backed legislation to weaken collective bargaining rights around the country.  Gods know, we can't have UNIONS donating to pro-labor Democrats!  the very nerve of some people!
 
2013-02-20 10:27:55 AM  
We really, really just need to go to a full-on public finance system, where all candidates for a given race are assigned equal portions of the money in a given pool and no other advertising is allowed.  If someone wishes to make a third-party ad, great, but they have to get permission from the candidate and pay for at least the air-time from the pool.

Actual costs of shooting the ads and such can be on the unlimited-donation system, just the actual buying of ad-space needs to be restricted to the shared funding pool and candidate approval.  That'll fix the problem of equal access while still allowing people to spend a hojillion dollars on their guy if they really want.

//Bonus: fundraising dinners are a form of advertising, so by funding the pool you give your opponents the opportunity to refill their non-advertising campaign coffers too.
//I think this idea is rather clever, meaning it's probably actually stupid.
 
2013-02-20 10:29:48 AM  

Weaver95: TwoHead:
The worst part of this is that we won't get those humorous stories about how the Kochs jump through multiple hoops in order to buy politicians.  Now they'll be able to just cut a check directly to the candidates.  I say that is the worst because CU already did the damage.  This will just reduce the money they have to spend on lawyers to get around the law by removing the law.

one unintended side effect of the CU decision tho was pretty amusing - basically it also cleared the way for unions to donate unlimited funds to their chosen candidates as well.  when the corporations realized that the union bosses were essentially using the same advantages as the CEOs now had, that was when we saw a rise in GOP backed legislation to weaken collective bargaining rights around the country.  Gods know, we can't have UNIONS donating to pro-labor Democrats!  the very nerve of some people!


Um. Can you think of a time in the last 30+ years when the GOP was not attacking unions?
 
2013-02-20 10:30:25 AM  

Weaver95: TwoHead:
The worst part of this is that we won't get those humorous stories about how the Kochs jump through multiple hoops in order to buy politicians.  Now they'll be able to just cut a check directly to the candidates.  I say that is the worst because CU already did the damage.  This will just reduce the money they have to spend on lawyers to get around the law by removing the law.

one unintended side effect of the CU decision tho was pretty amusing - basically it also cleared the way for unions to donate unlimited funds to their chosen candidates as well.  when the corporations realized that the union bosses were essentially using the same advantages as the CEOs now had, that was when we saw a rise in GOP backed legislation to weaken collective bargaining rights around the country.  Gods know, we can't have UNIONS donating to pro-labor Democrats!  the very nerve of some people!


Well killing off evil unions is of course best for the country.  Once wages and benefits are reduced to subsistence levels the jobs will come rolling back.  No, really!

The sad part is that they have to kill off the USPS to kill their union because as much as people hate union thugs everyone likes to get mail and most people like their mail carriers.  The rural folks will just have to get used to driving in to town once a week to pick up their mail from a rental box.
 
2013-02-20 10:32:22 AM  
What I'm looking forward to is when citizens are allowed to sell their votes like shares.
 
2013-02-20 10:34:58 AM  

qorkfiend: What I'm looking forward to is when citizens are allowed to sell their votes like shares.


Or when candidates no longer have to spend the money on campaign-related costs and account for it.
 
2013-02-20 10:37:12 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: qorkfiend: What I'm looking forward to is when citizens are allowed to sell their votes like shares.

Or when candidates no longer have to spend the money on campaign-related costs and account for it.


Now you're thinking!  If money=speech why not car=speech, house=speech and of course hookers=speech?  The rich shouldn't be forced to bribe in cash if they prefer to use other currencies.  It is unamerican!
 
2013-02-20 10:46:11 AM  

Karac: Can we go to publicly funded campaigns yet?

Each race gets a certain dollar amount set aside for it; if you get enough people to sign a petition supporting your candidacy then you get an equal share of that pie.  No donations to politicians, no PACs.  You want to support your candidate then you volunteer and you vote - that's it.


No, that would be far too expensive, and it reeks of socialism. I have a better idea: Direct auctions for every seat in Congress. We keep the same number of senators and representatives, but instead of an election, we have a public auction. Each seat goes to the highest bidder, and the winner can appoint whomever they wish to the seat for a term of 1 year. It's basically what we do now, but the money would be going directly to the government and the terms would be shorter, which helps maximize profits and ensures a focus on short-term profits/solutions. As a bonus, the 9 highest overall bidders get to each select 1 supreme court justice in addition to their purchased senator/representative.

To help even things out, the presidency will be given to whoever submits the YouTube video with the most hits in the previous year. Individuals only, of course, and no corporate sponsors. We need to maintain some dignity and legitimacy to the process. After all, this is a democracy.
 
2013-02-20 10:46:14 AM  

Weaver95: well yeah...I mean the guy is pretty clear about how he decides a case: he figures out how the case best suits his personal political ideology, then works backwards to warp and corrupt the law to suit his agenda.


That was the Founding Father's original intent.
 
2013-02-20 11:24:37 AM  

Lenny_da_Hog: qorkfiend: What I'm looking forward to is when citizens are allowed to sell their votes like shares.

Or when candidates no longer have to spend the money on campaign-related costs and account for it.


Yup. Disclosure is next.
 
2013-02-20 11:31:05 AM  
I'm a liberal and Obama supporter. I have no issue with Citizens United allowing people or groups of people to spend their money to promote their agendas. That is a part of our political life going back to pre-constitutional times. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are examples, as are all the outright lies and slander pamphlets printed by politicians and their followers. The whole point of the 1st amendment is that in a free marketplace of ideas the truth will win out. I know it doesn't always happen like that, but that's the idea.

The problem with CU isn't the decision - it's the extreme economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The Super PACs and ridiculous spending by people like the Kochs are a symptom of that disparity - not the problem itself. If you have such extraordinary amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of such a small group of people, the relative strength of their voices is proportionally extraordinary.

Fix the economic imbalance and you'll fix the issues people have with CU as well.
 
2013-02-20 11:42:08 AM  

Deneb81: I'm a liberal and Obama supporter. I have no issue with Citizens United allowing people or groups of people to spend their money to promote their agendas. That is a part of our political life going back to pre-constitutional times. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are examples, as are all the outright lies and slander pamphlets printed by politicians and their followers. The whole point of the 1st amendment is that in a free marketplace of ideas the truth will win out. I know it doesn't always happen like that, but that's the idea.

The problem with CU isn't the decision - it's the extreme economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The Super PACs and ridiculous spending by people like the Kochs are a symptom of that disparity - not the problem itself. If you have such extraordinary amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of such a small group of people, the relative strength of their voices is proportionally extraordinary.

Fix the economic imbalance and you'll fix the issues people have with CU as well.


If the law won't level the playing field, what will?
 
2013-02-20 11:49:51 AM  

Generation_D: Deneb81: I'm a liberal and Obama supporter. I have no issue with Citizens United allowing people or groups of people to spend their money to promote their agendas. That is a part of our political life going back to pre-constitutional times. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are examples, as are all the outright lies and slander pamphlets printed by politicians and their followers. The whole point of the 1st amendment is that in a free marketplace of ideas the truth will win out. I know it doesn't always happen like that, but that's the idea.

The problem with CU isn't the decision - it's the extreme economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The Super PACs and ridiculous spending by people like the Kochs are a symptom of that disparity - not the problem itself. If you have such extraordinary amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of such a small group of people, the relative strength of their voices is proportionally extraordinary.

Fix the economic imbalance and you'll fix the issues people have with CU as well.

If the law won't level the playing field, what will?


Bootstraps. Lots and lots of bootstraps.
 
2013-02-20 11:54:15 AM  

Generation_D: Deneb81: I'm a liberal and Obama supporter. I have no issue with Citizens United allowing people or groups of people to spend their money to promote their agendas. That is a part of our political life going back to pre-constitutional times. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are examples, as are all the outright lies and slander pamphlets printed by politicians and their followers. The whole point of the 1st amendment is that in a free marketplace of ideas the truth will win out. I know it doesn't always happen like that, but that's the idea.

The problem with CU isn't the decision - it's the extreme economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The Super PACs and ridiculous spending by people like the Kochs are a symptom of that disparity - not the problem itself. If you have such extraordinary amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of such a small group of people, the relative strength of their voices is proportionally extraordinary.

Fix the economic imbalance and you'll fix the issues people have with CU as well.

If the law won't level the playing field, what will?


Laws are a big part. You have to get at the source though, not the symptom.

Tax rates that don't promote lower rates for the wealthy, laws that promote/protect actual small/local businesses (not GOP "small businesses"), protecting labor, more aggressive financial industry watch dogging, more aggressive price-fixing and monopoly laws.

You have to support American workers and not just international businesses and financial schemes.
 
2013-02-20 11:57:55 AM  

Snarcoleptic_Hoosier: Generation_D: Deneb81: I'm a liberal and Obama supporter. I have no issue with Citizens United allowing people or groups of people to spend their money to promote their agendas. That is a part of our political life going back to pre-constitutional times. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are examples, as are all the outright lies and slander pamphlets printed by politicians and their followers. The whole point of the 1st amendment is that in a free marketplace of ideas the truth will win out. I know it doesn't always happen like that, but that's the idea.

The problem with CU isn't the decision - it's the extreme economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The Super PACs and ridiculous spending by people like the Kochs are a symptom of that disparity - not the problem itself. If you have such extraordinary amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of such a small group of people, the relative strength of their voices is proportionally extraordinary.

Fix the economic imbalance and you'll fix the issues people have with CU as well.

If the law won't level the playing field, what will?

Bootstraps. Lots and lots of bootstraps.


Bootstraps. When applied to the asses of the right people. Mostly those that don't recognize extreme wealth inequality as a systemic issue that can corrupt otherwise positive systems like free speech.
 
2013-02-20 12:04:03 PM  

Generation_D: Deneb81: I'm a liberal and Obama supporter. I have no issue with Citizens United allowing people or groups of people to spend their money to promote their agendas. That is a part of our political life going back to pre-constitutional times. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are examples, as are all the outright lies and slander pamphlets printed by politicians and their followers. The whole point of the 1st amendment is that in a free marketplace of ideas the truth will win out. I know it doesn't always happen like that, but that's the idea.

The problem with CU isn't the decision - it's the extreme economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The Super PACs and ridiculous spending by people like the Kochs are a symptom of that disparity - not the problem itself. If you have such extraordinary amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of such a small group of people, the relative strength of their voices is proportionally extraordinary.

Fix the economic imbalance and you'll fix the issues people have with CU as well.

If the law won't level the playing field, what will?


well if history is any guide at all, eventually the imbalance DOES correct itself...but the time honored solution tends to be really bad for local property values.  not to mention hell on the carpets.
 
2013-02-20 12:05:53 PM  

Deneb81: Generation_D: Deneb81: I'm a liberal and Obama supporter. I have no issue with Citizens United allowing people or groups of people to spend their money to promote their agendas. That is a part of our political life going back to pre-constitutional times. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are examples, as are all the outright lies and slander pamphlets printed by politicians and their followers. The whole point of the 1st amendment is that in a free marketplace of ideas the truth will win out. I know it doesn't always happen like that, but that's the idea.

The problem with CU isn't the decision - it's the extreme economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The Super PACs and ridiculous spending by people like the Kochs are a symptom of that disparity - not the problem itself. If you have such extraordinary amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of such a small group of people, the relative strength of their voices is proportionally extraordinary.

Fix the economic imbalance and you'll fix the issues people have with CU as well.

If the law won't level the playing field, what will?

Laws are a big part. You have to get at the source though, not the symptom.

Tax rates that don't promote lower rates for the wealthy, laws that promote/protect actual small/local businesses (not GOP "small businesses"), protecting labor, more aggressive financial industry watch dogging, more aggressive price-fixing and monopoly laws.

You have to support American workers and not just international businesses and financial schemes.


Except that the peoples representatives, to hold on to their power, are beholden to a campaign finance system disincentivises any of those reforms.  You seem to be unaware of how allowing unlimited money to be thrown at politicians altered the political economy on a practical level, which started becoming clear to many people in the '80's.  The  18-80's.  This is thoroughly covered ground.  Politicians are not the the better angels of our nature.  Never have been. Never will be.
 
2013-02-20 12:15:29 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: Deneb81: Generation_D: Deneb81: I'm a liberal and Obama supporter. I have no issue with Citizens United allowing people or groups of people to spend their money to promote their agendas. That is a part of our political life going back to pre-constitutional times. The Federalist and Anti-Federalist papers are examples, as are all the outright lies and slander pamphlets printed by politicians and their followers. The whole point of the 1st amendment is that in a free marketplace of ideas the truth will win out. I know it doesn't always happen like that, but that's the idea.

The problem with CU isn't the decision - it's the extreme economic disparity between the wealthy and the poor. The Super PACs and ridiculous spending by people like the Kochs are a symptom of that disparity - not the problem itself. If you have such extraordinary amount of wealth concentrated in the hands of such a small group of people, the relative strength of their voices is proportionally extraordinary.

Fix the economic imbalance and you'll fix the issues people have with CU as well.

If the law won't level the playing field, what will?

Laws are a big part. You have to get at the source though, not the symptom.

Tax rates that don't promote lower rates for the wealthy, laws that promote/protect actual small/local businesses (not GOP "small businesses"), protecting labor, more aggressive financial industry watch dogging, more aggressive price-fixing and monopoly laws.

You have to support American workers and not just international businesses and financial schemes.

Except that the peoples representatives, to hold on to their power, are beholden to a campaign finance system disincentivises any of those reforms.  You seem to be unaware of how allowing unlimited money to be thrown at politicians altered the political economy on a practical level, which started becoming clear to many people in the '80's.  The  18-80's.  This is thoroughly covered ground.  Politicians are not the the better angels of our nature.  Never have been. Never will be.


No, they're not angels but you'll not fix an issue of bought politicians no matter the campaign finance reforms you put in place when you still have a small group of individuals worth more than half the country.

It's a catch-22 to be sure, but the bottom line cause is still the economic imbalance. Unfortunately it make take another economic collapse to motivate a population large enough to push through reforms. That's what happened in the 20's and 30's.
 
2013-02-20 12:28:30 PM  

Deneb81: No, they're not angels but you'll not fix an issue of bought politicians no matter the campaign finance reforms you put in place when you still have a small group of individuals worth more than half the country.


And you'll never prevent a small group of people from conglomerating an ever increasing share of the country's wealth when political powers are dependent upon retaining their favor.

We had 50 years where private money was heavily prevented from penetrating the political process, at all levels of government.  It was not coincidentally the 50 years with the most, in aggregate and most broad-based, economic growth that the world had ever seen.  That wasn't an accident.  It was a pre-condition.
 
2013-02-20 12:29:58 PM  

Lenny_da_Hog: Weaver95: TwoHead:
The worst part of this is that we won't get those humorous stories about how the Kochs jump through multiple hoops in order to buy politicians.  Now they'll be able to just cut a check directly to the candidates.  I say that is the worst because CU already did the damage.  This will just reduce the money they have to spend on lawyers to get around the law by removing the law.

one unintended side effect of the CU decision tho was pretty amusing - basically it also cleared the way for unions to donate unlimited funds to their chosen candidates as well.  when the corporations realized that the union bosses were essentially using the same advantages as the CEOs now had, that was when we saw a rise in GOP backed legislation to weaken collective bargaining rights around the country.  Gods know, we can't have UNIONS donating to pro-labor Democrats!  the very nerve of some people!

Um. Can you think of a time in the last 30+ years when the GOP was not attacking unions?


True.  Can you think of a time that unions didn't donate as much as they wanted to their chosen candidates?
 
2013-02-20 01:14:34 PM  
Well, we're boned.
 
2013-02-20 01:18:48 PM  

Karma Curmudgeon: Deneb81: No, they're not angels but you'll not fix an issue of bought politicians no matter the campaign finance reforms you put in place when you still have a small group of individuals worth more than half the country.

And you'll never prevent a small group of people from conglomerating an ever increasing share of the country's wealth when political powers are dependent upon retaining their favor.

We had 50 years where private money was heavily prevented from penetrating the political process, at all levels of government.  It was not coincidentally the 50 years with the most, in aggregate and most broad-based, economic growth that the world had ever seen.  That wasn't an accident.  It was a pre-condition.


There was also a smaller difference between the poor and the rich. You simply didn't have 'rich' people who had as much leverage as rich people and companies do now. Media wasn't conglomerated by those same interests.

It's no coincidence that increased political power by bankers, CEOs and the like coincided with laws and times that decreased the value of labor. They latched on to the disenfranchisement of the 70's to leverage themselves into positions of power in the 80's. That's when the real push in inequality started, and the widespread influence of multi-national corporate and large private donors hit its stride. It HAD always been there, but on a more local level. As big business got bigger, their pull expanded.

The core in their power is the money though, and the disproportionate money leads to disproportionate power and speech. The use of private funds for political speech is isn't bad - the amount of cash they have to amplify it is.
 
2013-02-20 01:30:50 PM  

Generation_D: If Scalia's involved, we already know the ruling will favor big business interests through any convoluted logic possible.


The formula is actually quite simple.  The tough part is coming up with language that disguises it:

Business Interests > Government

Government > Individuals

Business Interests > Individuals

Republicans > Democrats (but just this once while we decide who's going to be President, and please forget this ever happened)
 
2013-02-20 03:39:46 PM  
You know these fargon icehole corksuckers are going to deliver us to the abyss. Bopp has been fiighting for corruption for years and the Supreme Court has affirmed its Legality. If Gerrymandering is OK and corruption is OK, what chance do we have really? This is just another piece in the puzzle to grease the slide into becoming Mexixo. SCOTUS' conservatives  are lunatics and traitors - there I said it.
 
2013-02-20 04:18:16 PM  

Zeno-25: Ah, another SCOTUS ruling with the potential to significantly increase the already wildly disproportionate influence the wealthy have on our political system. According to these clowns, speech comes from the mouth and the wallet. I wonder (ha!) how they will rule.

With this SCOTUS, the sure bet is on any ruling which helps the rich get richer and more powerful.

They are a big problem.


The SCOTUS isn't the problem at all. Citizen's United was the right call for them to make, not because it is a good thing for the country but because that's how common law and the Constitution are being interpreted by our existent laws and constitutional amendments. What should then happen is for Congress to reverse the decisions de facto by passing a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the law.
 The court is not a legislative body, stop trying to make it one.
 
2013-02-20 04:25:06 PM  
The Institute For Ronald Reagan We Miss You has already released the data on this case and if corporations are liberated from campaign finance laws, unemployment will be as low as negative fifty percent.  Over one-hundred-million jobs could be created any month.  Do the right thing, Scalia.  You have a lot of my money riding on this.
 
2013-02-20 06:34:11 PM  

JollyMagistrate: Zeno-25: Ah, another SCOTUS ruling with the potential to significantly increase the already wildly disproportionate influence the wealthy have on our political system. According to these clowns, speech comes from the mouth and the wallet. I wonder (ha!) how they will rule.

With this SCOTUS, the sure bet is on any ruling which helps the rich get richer and more powerful.

They are a big problem.

The SCOTUS isn't the problem at all. Citizen's United was the right call for them to make, not because it is a good thing for the country but because that's how common law and the Constitution are being interpreted by our existent laws and constitutional amendments. What should then happen is for Congress to reverse the decisions de facto by passing a Constitutional Amendment clarifying the law.
 The court is not a legislative body, stop trying to make it one.


Yeah, I'm sure the SCOTUS was counting on the legislature to rectify that situation with a freaking constitutional amendment immediately after they opened the floodgates for monied interests to further buy-out our political system. No damage would be done to the wider political system or increasingly inequitable society in the meantime.

Just like I'm sure that the individual mandate being found constitutional had nothing to do with the likelihood that finding it unconstitutional would have eventually destroyed the health insurance industry as we know it by mandating the coverage of preexisting conditions, but not mandating that everyone must buy health insurance, healthy or not. Just like I'm sure Clarence Thomas's wife having a financial interest in opposing healthcare reform in no way influenced his judgement.

Ultimately SCOTUS are all human, and all of their rulings are in the interest of one party at the expense of another. Their rulings have been rather heavy-handed in favor of one side for quite a while now.
 
2013-02-20 07:07:44 PM  

Weaver95: Generation_D: If Scalia's involved, we already know the ruling will favor big business interests through any convoluted logic possible.

well yeah...I mean the guy is pretty clear about how he decides a case: he figures out how the case best suits his personal political ideology, then works backwards to warp and corrupt the law to suit his agenda.


I need to research how you go about starting a campaign to impeach a Supreme Court Justice. . . .
 
2013-02-20 09:23:12 PM  
Don't worry, they'll throw out the contribution limits. Further down the road I have no doubt they'll make it easy to directly buy votes while making it legal to prevent regular people from voting, too. It will happen, you might as well buckle up.
 
2013-02-21 02:01:35 AM  
"Although we acknowledge the constitutional line between political speech and political contributions grows increasingly difficult to discern," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the court,

IT IS NOT GODS DAMN DIFFICULT TO DISCERN YA JUMPING MAD RABID C00NT!!

It's as clear as the difference between night and day!!
 
2013-02-22 09:53:48 AM  

Kittypie070: "Although we acknowledge the constitutional line between political speech and political contributions grows increasingly difficult to discern," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the court,

IT IS NOT GODS DAMN DIFFICULT TO DISCERN YA JUMPING MAD RABID C00NT!!

It's as clear as the difference between night and day!!


One person's night is another person-on-the-other-side-of-the-planet's day. THE WORLD IS NOTHING BUT GRAY!
 
2013-02-22 09:55:04 AM  

mksmith: Weaver95: Generation_D: If Scalia's involved, we already know the ruling will favor big business interests through any convoluted logic possible.

well yeah...I mean the guy is pretty clear about how he decides a case: he figures out how the case best suits his personal political ideology, then works backwards to warp and corrupt the law to suit his agenda.

I need to research how you go about starting a campaign to impeach a Supreme Court Justice. . . .


Polonium?
 
2013-02-23 03:09:37 PM  

Dictatorial_Flair: Kittypie070: "Although we acknowledge the constitutional line between political speech and political contributions grows increasingly difficult to discern," Judge Janice Rogers Brown wrote for the court,

IT IS NOT GODS DAMN DIFFICULT TO DISCERN YA JUMPING MAD RABID C00NT!!

It's as clear as the difference between night and day!!


One person's night is another person-on-the-other-side-of-the-planet's day. THE WORLD IS NOTHING BUT GRAY!


Yeah, and it's booze o'clock somewhere on this farking planet too.

I should pour me a drink and chuck this whole thing

/growl, ears back
 
Displayed 47 of 47 comments

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