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.

(Washington Post) NewsFlash US Supreme Court: The Constitution created a plutocracy, duh   (washingtonpost.com) divider line 815
    More: NewsFlash, Supreme Court, plutocracy  
•       •       •

18208 clicks; posted to Main » on 02 Apr 2014 at 12:07 PM (37 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»


Want to get NewsFlash notifications in email?

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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-04-02 10:32:54 AM  
goddammit motherfarker
 
2014-04-02 10:35:51 AM  
We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?
 
2014-04-02 10:36:48 AM  
It's not even a planet anymore.
 
2014-04-02 10:42:03 AM  

James!: It's not even a planet anymore.


Good. Because I don't want to live on this one anymore.
 
2014-04-02 10:42:22 AM  
Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers
 
2014-04-02 10:44:07 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


I presume.  I only see 4 on the opinion, but there has to be one more.
 
2014-04-02 10:44:48 AM  
Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

 
2014-04-02 10:45:18 AM  
Looks like the Republicans wanted to make it absolutely legal that that they can be bought by the higher contributor.

/Never thought the Roberts SCOTUS would be so liberal on conservative dreams.
 
2014-04-02 10:45:28 AM  

zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'


Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?
 
2014-04-02 10:46:26 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: Lemme guess... 5-4?

/Koch suckers


Yup, along the usual lines.  Being able to replace one of the conservative leaning justices with a more progressive one would do more good for this country than pretty much anything else.
 
2014-04-02 10:47:22 AM  
Jesus Christ. These justices should dress like NASCAR drivers.
 
2014-04-02 10:47:44 AM  

SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?


This country was unable to get child labor or equal rights amendments passed, there's no chance of an amendment on this passing. Not with everyone in Congress potentially having the chance to profit from this ruling.
 
2014-04-02 10:48:08 AM  
FTFA: Justice Clarence Thomas agreed with the outcome of the case, but wrote separately to say that he would have gone further and wiped away all contribution limits.

Justice Thomas desperately needs to go EABOD.
 
2014-04-02 10:48:19 AM  

SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?


Move to Amend.
 
2014-04-02 10:48:21 AM  

Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?



"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption - quid pro quo corruption - in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."
 
2014-04-02 10:48:44 AM  
And yet if I offer to sell my vote for 100 bucks, I get in trouble.
 
2014-04-02 10:49:53 AM  

Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?


Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).


http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf
 
2014-04-02 10:50:22 AM  

SphericalTime: Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?


"The government has a strong interest, no less critical to our democratic system, in combatting corruption and its appearance," Roberts wrote. "We have, however, held that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption - quid pro quo corruption - in order to ensure that the government's efforts do not have the effect of restricting the First Amendment right of citizens to choose who shall govern them."


Do I have a First Amendment right to kick John Roberts in the groin whilst wearing a steel-toed boot?
 
2014-04-02 10:50:23 AM  
FML.

Well, there's just no pretending this is a republic anymore is there?
 
2014-04-02 10:50:48 AM  

BunkoSquad: And yet if I offer to sell my vote for 100 bucks, I get in trouble.


It's because you aren't thinking big enough.  Steal a TV from Wal-Mart and you'll get thrown in the slammer.  Steal $100,000,000 from Medicare and you get elected as Governor of Florida.
 
2014-04-02 10:51:18 AM  
Speech is free, money is not
 
2014-04-02 10:52:28 AM  

zedster: Serious Black: zedster: Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts: 'We have made clear that Congress may not regulate campaign contributions to protect against corruption'

Are you goddamn serious? That was part of the opinion?

Pg 1, bottom. Gets worse

Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests,and Nazi parades-despite the profound offense such spectacles cause-it surely protects political campaignspeech despite popular opposition. See Texas v. Johnson, 491 U. S. 397 (1989); Snyder v. Phelps, 562 U. S. ___ (2011); National Socialist Party of America v. Skokie, 432
U. S. 43 (1977) (per curiam). Indeed, as we have emphasized, the First Amendment "has its fullest and most urgent application precisely to the conduct of campaigns for political office." Monitor Patriot Co. v. Roy, 401 U. S. 265, 272 (1971).

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13pdf/12-536_e1pf.pdf


Yeah, it may be time to mercy nuke the country to death now.
 
2014-04-02 10:54:17 AM  
John Roberts just said that money doesn't corrupt politics.

He sounds utterly corrupt.
 
2014-04-02 10:55:16 AM  

Serious Black: SphericalTime: We need a clear constitutional amendment, I guess.  Which groups are already working on this?  The ACLU?

Move to Amend.


Ah.  I've signed up.  And I don't really ever do that.
 
2014-04-02 10:55:45 AM  
Oh, I get now.

The more money you have, the more speech you can afford.

/Just like justice, get it?
 
2014-04-02 10:57:43 AM  

Marcus Aurelius: John Roberts just said that money doesn't corrupt politics.

He sounds utterly corrupt.


He could just be an idiot.
 
2014-04-02 10:58:15 AM  

Irving Maimway: FML.

Well, there's just no pretending this is a republic anymore is there?


Well, maybe the Ferenghi republic
 
2014-04-02 11:00:36 AM  

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com

 

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com

 

i.imgur.comi.imgur.comi.imgur.com

 
2014-04-02 11:01:15 AM  

AirForceVet: Oh, I get now.

The more money you have, the more speech you can afford.

/Just like justice, get it?


Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.
 
2014-04-02 11:01:26 AM  
republicans know they cannot win a fair fight. one man, one vote doesn't work if you're the one percent.
 
2014-04-02 11:01:33 AM  
Everyone has free speech. The rich just have more of it and the ability to give to people in charge of regulating them.
 
2014-04-02 11:02:30 AM  
U$A Inc.?
 
2014-04-02 11:03:09 AM  

dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.


Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.
 
2014-04-02 11:05:32 AM  
upload.wikimedia.org
 
2014-04-02 11:05:56 AM  
This is disgusting:

"Moreover, the only type of corruption that Congress may target is quid pro quo corruption. Spending large sums of money in connection with elections, but not in connection with an effort to control the exercise of an officeholder's official duties, does not give rise to quid pro quo corruption. Nor does the possibility that an individual who spends large sums may garner "influence over or access to" elected officials or political parties. Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm'n, 558 U. S. 310, 359."

Really?  I think that's exactly what it farking means.
 
2014-04-02 11:06:55 AM  
more money equals better than

check mate, libtardatron 40k
 
2014-04-02 11:12:15 AM  

Irving Maimway: dr_blasto: Well, we've gotta ensure that the really wealthy and already really powerful don't get upset. They've worked hard for their money, they deserve more speech than you. Paris Hilton is more American than you, you silly serf.

Or being a Dupont heir helps you get probation when you are found guilty of raping a three year old.


Look, if money is one of the primary arbiters of whether one gets prison or freedom or some form of kindly understanding from the judicial system, why shouldn't it be the same for the electoral systems.

I look forward to a return to the days of our noble robber barons running the show. Maybe when it ends this time, we'll nationalize their shiat and take their fortunes to destroy all of those lingering plutocrat dynasties once and for all. In the end, I guess we get what we deserve.

People re-elect douchenozzles like Reagan, elect his VP and then elect the former VP's son. We get the SCOTUS we ask for. For shiat's sake, Reagan nominated farking Bork. We only narrowly dodged that shiat show and got the Alitos and Scalias and Thomas. farking Clarence Thomas. "OOH, there's NOT ENOUGH money."
 
2014-04-02 11:14:09 AM  
....

well then, I can't wait to see just how expensive 2014 is going to be then....

/on the bright side, we have proven that money doesn't necessarily buy an election
//see 2012
 
2014-04-02 11:14:48 AM  
That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.
 
2014-04-02 11:16:20 AM  
I am starting to feel that life sometimes just is not fair...

/starting
 
2014-04-02 11:16:44 AM  

James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.


if only the people they donated too would actually buy shiat in mass amounts and not horde it all
 
2014-04-02 11:16:47 AM  
i1151.photobucket.com
♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
Money changes everything
Money changes everything
We think we know what we're doin'
We don't pull the strings
It's all in the past now
Money changes everything
♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫ ♫
 
2014-04-02 11:17:40 AM  

James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.


It is rather amusing watching a congresscritter spit out a corporate dick to accuse the corporation of wrong-doing, though
 
2014-04-02 11:18:28 AM  

MaudlinMutantMollusk: James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.

It is rather amusing watching a congresscritter spit out a corporate dick to accuse the corporation of wrong-doing, though


Well that was just wrong

/thread fail... sorry
 
2014-04-02 11:18:34 AM  

somedude210: ....

well then, I can't wait to see just how expensive 2014 is going to be then....

/on the bright side, we have proven that money doesn't necessarily buy an election
//see 2012


Well, the cap on contributions to individual candidates is still in place. Same with the cap on contributions to the DNC and RNC. I suppose someone might contribute to one candidate in every House and Senate seat up for election in a given cycle, but that would seem like a real waste of money.
 
2014-04-02 11:20:19 AM  

Nabb1: Well, the cap on contributions to individual candidates is still in place. Same with the cap on contributions to the DNC and RNC. I suppose someone might contribute to one candidate in every House and Senate seat up for election in a given cycle, but that would seem like a real waste of money.


if we could donate the same amount to every race, to both candidates (or all for those crazy third-party critters) then we'd have election reform
 
2014-04-02 11:21:25 AM  

somedude210: James!: That's one way to get rich people to plow their money back into the economy.

if only the people they donated too would actually buy shiat in mass amounts and not horde it all


Sure, they pay telemarketers to do push polling.  They pay for print, TV and radio adds.  They pay for bloggers to update their sucky blogs. They hire shiatty statisticians and half retarded pundits.  Security staff at rallies and expensive dinners.

They hire some of the worst people in the world by the bucket full!
 
2014-04-02 11:22:55 AM  
In 2012,sixty percent of the Super PAC money donated by individuals came from just 91 people, and 97 percent came from just 1,900 donors. The total amount that PACs raised from small donors of $200 or less is roughly equivalent to the amount given by just 629 "megadonors," who each contributed $100,000 or more.
 
2014-04-02 11:27:25 AM  

somedude210: ....

well then, I can't wait to see just how expensive 2014 is going to be then....

/on the bright side, we have proven that money doesn't necessarily buy an election
//see 2012


It won't buy you the election, but it will buy you a chance at winning the election. To quote Robert Shrum, "You don't need the most money, but you do need enough."
 
2014-04-02 11:28:16 AM  

FlashHarry: In 2012,sixty percent of the Super PAC money donated by individuals came from just 91 people, and 97 percent came from just 1,900 donors. The total amount that PACs raised from small donors of $200 or less is roughly equivalent to the amount given by just 629 "megadonors," who each contributed $100,000 or more.


That's a completely separate issue from individual campaign contributions, though. And, I will grant, a much more complex problem than straightforward campaign contributions.
 
Displayed 50 of 815 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


Report