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.

(Think Progress)   SCOTUS: "Richard Milhous Nixon was a stand-up fella, and nothing he did amounted to corruption or even looked like a distant cousin of corruption"   ( thinkprogress.org) divider line
    More: Obvious, Richard Nixon, U.S. Supreme Court, Nixon White House, corruption, Latin phrases, Nixonian, stand-up, Chief Justice John Roberts  
•       •       •

3288 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Apr 2014 at 12:13 PM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



155 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2014-04-07 10:35:20 AM  
Well, he endorsed Obamacare, so yeah, it naturally follows...
 
2014-04-07 10:40:17 AM  
richard farthous nixon
 
2014-04-07 10:42:47 AM  
That's a stretch.
 
2014-04-07 10:45:57 AM  
I'll admit to only reading the article until this part, but it wasn't SCOTUS. It was CJoSCOTUS.
 
2014-04-07 10:47:12 AM  
thewackydeli.com
 
2014-04-07 10:49:11 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: I'll admit to only reading the article until this part, but it wasn't SCOTUS. It was CJoSCOTUS.


Circle Jerk of SCOTUS?
 
2014-04-07 10:54:48 AM  

RedPhoenix122: Circle Jerk of SCOTUS?


Often times, yes.
 
2014-04-07 10:55:51 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: I'll admit to only reading the article until this part, but it wasn't SCOTUS. It was CJoSCOTUS.


Roberts was the one who wrote the opinion, yes. Scalia, Kennedy, and Alito signed it however, which means they fully endorse the contents of the opinion. Thomas also wrote a concurring opinion that agreed with the ends of the opinion if not the means. That makes a majority, which means the opinion's outcome speaks for the court as an institution.

/pedantic subby
 
2014-04-07 10:57:16 AM  
I think they just changed the writing on the barn.

Also sadly, Nixon is worlds better than what his party puts out today.
 
2014-04-07 11:02:23 AM  
Mmm...I think I have to disagree.

Or rather, I think that, if you believe the underlying logic behind  Citizens United was valid (I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's run with it), then the logic of the majority in  McCutcheon was more or less inevitable. All it really does it allow the small guy the same freedom that has already been allowed to the big groups.

I know that, as a practical matter, all this did was give the big guys even more license, but the decision isn't nearly the stretch that  Citizens  was. Nor, to be honest, is Citizens all that untenable. I don't LIKE it, but that doesn't make me automatically right. I certainly hope some sort of campaign finance amendment is shoved through sooner rather than later, but in the interim...at least  McCutcheon laid the rules out clearly and unambiguously.

Nor, I should note, are the Democrats and the left helpless babes before the financial might of the GOP. Yes, the right is the primary beneficiary of the ruling is currently the right, but there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that they can't hustle and level the playing field. I'll agree it's a shiatty field, but at least it is actually still an even one.

Unless you're the small guy. Then you get f*cked.
 
2014-04-07 11:02:26 AM  

Makh: I think they just changed the writing on the barn.

Also sadly, Nixon is worlds better than what his party puts out today.


The Bush cabinet just WAS a lot of the Nixon cabinet.

"Hey maybe these shiatbags will behave differently this time"
 
2014-04-07 11:19:11 AM  

Gecko Gingrich: I'll admit to only reading the article until this part, but it wasn't SCOTUS. It was CJoSCOTUS.


If you're going to be picky, you gotta be pedantic. John Roberts' title is not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States", it is "Chief Justice of the United States".
 
2014-04-07 11:25:36 AM  

whistleridge: Mmm...I think I have to disagree.

Or rather, I think that, if you believe the underlying logic behind  Citizens United was valid (I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's run with it), then the logic of the majority in  McCutcheon was more or less inevitable. All it really does it allow the small guy the same freedom that has already been allowed to the big groups.

I know that, as a practical matter, all this did was give the big guys even more license, but the decision isn't nearly the stretch that  Citizens  was. Nor, to be honest, is Citizens all that untenable. I don't LIKE it, but that doesn't make me automatically right. I certainly hope some sort of campaign finance amendment is shoved through sooner rather than later, but in the interim...at least  McCutcheon laid the rules out clearly and unambiguously.

Nor, I should note, are the Democrats and the left helpless babes before the financial might of the GOP. Yes, the right is the primary beneficiary of the ruling is currently the right, but there's absolutely no reason whatsoever that they can't hustle and level the playing field. I'll agree it's a shiatty field, but at least it is actually still an even one.

Unless you're the small guy. Then you get f*cked.


That's the kicker here. In order for McCutcheon v. FEC to be correctly decided, Citizens United v. FEC also had to be correctly decided. And going further back, Buckley v. Valeo had to be correctly decided.

All of these cases hinged on the definition of the word "corruption" as SCOTUS has agreed consistently that Congress has the power to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. The plurality opinion and concurring opinion both said that the aggregate limits did nothing to address quid pro quo corruption, meaning outright bribery, so they were unconstitutional. They also said quid pro quo corruption was the only kind of corruption that Congress has the power to prevent.

There are two problems with this thought. One, the Framers of the Constitution clearly didn't intend for quid pro quo corruption to be the only kind of behavior they found to be corruption. There's contemporaneous evidence that the Framers thought the British Parliament was corrupt because they were improperly dependent on the King rather than the people. That suggests the conservatives err with the originalist argument that bribery is the only thing to combat. Two, quid pro quo corruption is basically impossible to police in the federal government thanks to the Speech or Debate Clause and a split in circuit court rulings that SCOTUS has refused to resolve, making it seem like the federal government officially is not corrupt in any way.
 
2014-04-07 11:38:03 AM  
So Nixon really wasn't a crook?
 
2014-04-07 11:41:30 AM  

Serious Black: That's the kicker here. In order for McCutcheon v. FEC to be correctly decided, Citizens United v. FEC also had to be correctly decided. And going further back, Buckley v. Valeo had to be correctly decided.

All of these cases hinged on the definition of the word "corruption" as SCOTUS has agreed consistently that Congress has the power to prevent corruption or the appearance of corruption. The plurality opinion and concurring opinion both said that the aggregate limits did nothing to address quid pro quo corruption, meaning outright bribery, so they were unconstitutional. They also said quid pro quo corruption was the only kind of corruption that Congress has the power to prevent.

There are two problems with this thought. One, the Framers of the Constitution clearly didn't intend for quid pro quo corruption to be the only kind of behavior they found to be corruption. There's contemporaneous evidence that the Framers thought the British Parliament was corrupt because they were improperly dependent on the King rather than the people. That suggests the conservatives err with the originalist argument that bribery is the only thing to combat. Two, quid pro quo corruption is basically impossible to police in the federal government thanks to the Speech or Debate Clause and a split in circuit court rulings that SCOTUS has refused to resolve, making it seem like the federal government officially is not corrupt in any way.


A couple of objections:

1. The idea of originalist arguments is just as silly when the left uses it as when the right does. Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist then, political parties were seen as a bad thing, and the unspoken code of gentlemanly behavior was that it simply wasn't 'done' to campaign. What the Framers did or didn't think is immaterial in this situation.

2. The Framers knew that, which is why they gave Congress such broad powers, AND they made the Constitution itself amendable. The courts should act as a brake/check, but they shouldn't be able to completely buck the system. 

3. 'Corruption' is not a thing defined by the Constitution. It's a floating term, and you can hardly blame the court for identifying and finessing that.
 
2014-04-07 11:42:22 AM  
So twisted he screwed his pants on every morning.
 
2014-04-07 11:46:08 AM  

whistleridge: 1. The idea of originalist arguments is just as silly when the left uses it as when the right does. Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist then, political parties were seen as a bad thing, and the unspoken code of gentlemanly behavior was that it simply wasn't 'done' to campaign. What the Framers did or didn't think is immaterial in this situation.


I was using the originalist argument because Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts argue that what was intended with the original writing of the Constitution is the most important thing to interpreting its meaning in current court cases. If they're just making up arguments for what the original meaning of the Constitution was, then they're just making up their final opinion of what constitutes corruption.
 
2014-04-07 11:52:51 AM  

Serious Black: whistleridge: 1. The idea of originalist arguments is just as silly when the left uses it as when the right does. Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist then, political parties were seen as a bad thing, and the unspoken code of gentlemanly behavior was that it simply wasn't 'done' to campaign. What the Framers did or didn't think is immaterial in this situation.

I was using the originalist argument because Scalia, Thomas, Alito and Roberts argue that what was intended with the original writing of the Constitution is the most important thing to interpreting its meaning in current court cases. If they're just making up arguments for what the original meaning of the Constitution was, then they're just making up their final opinion of what constitutes corruption.


Ah. Valid point.
 
2014-04-07 12:14:19 PM  
You Dolt!
 
2014-04-07 12:15:07 PM  
Coming from the Roberts Court, this is no surprise.
 
2014-04-07 12:15:45 PM  
Makes sense considering republicans think corruption only occurs if you stain blue dresses or show pics of your junk.
 
2014-04-07 12:15:48 PM  
What's amusing/maddening about this is that we had an example of the corrosive effect of money on the system when Chris Christie went crawling on hands and knees to Sheldon Adelson to apologize for referring to Israel as "occupied territory."   It's plain to see that there guys sell their political positions to the highest bidder.  To anyone but Roberts, I guess.
 
2014-04-07 12:22:54 PM  

Prey4reign: So Nixon really wasn't a crook?


The people he employed sure were. You ask me, he just panicked.
 
2014-04-07 12:24:46 PM  
It's kind of sad that we live in an era where we fondly look back at Nixon and think that he really wasn't all that bad.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-04-07 12:25:17 PM  

Prey4reign: So Nixon really wasn't a crook?


well... compared to what we have now...

t1.gstatic.com

Even this guy thought that the Bush (2) administration was more corrupt than Nixon.
 
2014-04-07 12:25:33 PM  
List of quid pro quo corruption.

THE DECISSION MAKES THESE LEGAL.

The Decission, Quid pro quo is corrution (paraphrased.)
 
2014-04-07 12:26:20 PM  
The Roberts court: Prime example of why lifetime appointments for the SCOTUS is a bad idea.
 
2014-04-07 12:27:32 PM  
Wait a minute, Egon. I thought crossing the streams was bad.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-04-07 12:28:26 PM  

Lord_Baull: Makes sense considering republicans think corruption only occurs if you stain blue dresses or show pics of your junk.


Well, really this is exactly right.  When Tom Delay was shown to be absolutely and completely corrupt, he claimed that the case against his was the "Criminalization of Politics."  If what Delay did, which was to be wined and dined and put on private jets by his corporate buddies 100% of the time, was "politics" then we might as well give up now, because the average voter has totally lost his say and never even had one to begin with.
 
2014-04-07 12:28:49 PM  
The same Supreme Court that practically gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 thinks the same Richard Nixon that pioneered the Southern Strategy wasn't so bad? What a shock.

upload.wikimedia.org

I screwed you all, but thanks for blaming it on the black guy.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-04-07 12:29:01 PM  

Saiga410: List of quid pro quo corruption.

THE DECISSION MAKES THESE LEGAL.

The Decission, Quid pro quo is corrution (paraphrased.)


but constant gentle persuasion using cash is not.  *BUZZ*
 
2014-04-07 12:29:17 PM  
What's a guy gotta do to get convicted of bribery?
Videotape himself accepting a large cash donation and immediately saying "Good Lady Monsanto, I accept this BRIBE! It's a BRIBE! I'm being BRIBED! in exchange for switching my previously intended 'no' vote to a 'yes' vote on the 'Monsanto Can Pollute Wherever it Wants, Because Carbon is Freedom-Dust Act' because you are paying me this large sum of cash as a BRIBE! Still a BRIBE! and without reporting it on the disclosure forms, for some strange reason"?

// a repost, but I still think is sad but accurate
// we need a single word for that (I bet the Germans already have one)
 
2014-04-07 12:30:23 PM  

whistleridge: Or rather, I think that, if you believe the underlying logic behind  Citizens United was valid (I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's run with it), then the logic of the majority in  McCutcheon was more or less inevitable. All it really does it allow the small guy the same freedom that has already been allowed to the big groups.


I don't think this follows. The two cases were decided on very different grounds. McCutcheon has a long discussion on what corruption is. I don't think CU had that, but I could be wrong.
 
2014-04-07 12:30:55 PM  

d23: Saiga410: List of quid pro quo corruption.

THE DECISSION MAKES THESE LEGAL.

The Decission, Quid pro quo is corrution (paraphrased.)

but constant gentle persuasion using cash is not.  *BUZZ*


Cash donations = free speech then bribery is not a crime.
 
2014-04-07 12:31:53 PM  
Roberts has shown very consistently that he believes the court must rule to assure the right kind of people are favored.

Roberts is Catholic, but he exhibits a strict Calvinist belief in predestination, people with money and power are by definition the right kind of people.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-04-07 12:34:00 PM  

whistleridge: 1. The idea of originalist arguments is just as silly when the left uses it as when the right does. Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist then, political parties were seen as a bad thing, and the unspoken code of gentlemanly behavior was that it simply wasn't 'done' to campaign. What the Framers did or didn't think is immaterial in this situation.


This is only partially correct.  Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist, but the East India Company sure existed.  One thing that most people don't get when history is filtered through the public schools is that the framers *hated* the East India company.  King George was a shiat to be sure, but King George was *far* away and most of the decisions on how to rule were done at that level.  My reading of history leads me to believe that the framers didn't believe that we would be so stupid as country to start giving so much power to chartered entities... which, of course, is exactly what we did when the railroad barons started to grab power.
 
d23 [BareFark]
2014-04-07 12:35:07 PM  

jaytkay: Roberts has shown very consistently that he believes the court must rule to assure the right kind of people are favored.

Roberts is Catholic, but he exhibits a strict Calvinist belief in predestination, people with money and power are by definition the right kind of people.


This is the biggest objection against this court.  The cases are being judged based on who the outcome benefits, not what the law says.
 
2014-04-07 12:36:46 PM  

Bith Set Me Up: The same Supreme Court that practically gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 thinks the same Richard Nixon that pioneered the Southern Strategy wasn't so bad? What a shock.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 485x585]

I screwed you all, but thanks for blaming it on the black guy.


Implying he is a racist? The desegragation guy? Please read just even a tiny bit about what he did. You know aside from the watergate scandal you fixate upon.  You guys are as bad as the republicans are about Lewinski.  At least Nixon didn't perjure himself in a lawsuit against himself.
 
2014-04-07 12:37:44 PM  

DamnYankees: whistleridge: Or rather, I think that, if you believe the underlying logic behind  Citizens United was valid (I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's run with it), then the logic of the majority in  McCutcheon was more or less inevitable. All it really does it allow the small guy the same freedom that has already been allowed to the big groups.

I don't think this follows. The two cases were decided on very different grounds. McCutcheon has a long discussion on what corruption is. I don't think CU had that, but I could be wrong.


The focus of the public's ire with CU was that it equated corporations with people. But the meat of its logic was to equate spending money with free speech.

Once that linkage was made, McCutcheon was the obvious next step. Simply giving money in support of a candidate isn't corruption. It may be plutocracy, but it's not corruption. The two findings go hand in hand.
 
2014-04-07 12:42:01 PM  

d23: whistleridge: 1. The idea of originalist arguments is just as silly when the left uses it as when the right does. Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist then, political parties were seen as a bad thing, and the unspoken code of gentlemanly behavior was that it simply wasn't 'done' to campaign. What the Framers did or didn't think is immaterial in this situation.

This is only partially correct.  Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist, but the East India Company sure existed.  One thing that most people don't get when history is filtered through the public schools is that the framers *hated* the East India company.  King George was a shiat to be sure, but King George was *far* away and most of the decisions on how to rule were done at that level.  My reading of history leads me to believe that the framers didn't believe that we would be so stupid as country to start giving so much power to chartered entities... which, of course, is exactly what we did when the railroad barons started to grab power.


Yes, dear. Both the VOC and the BEIC existed, along with a bunch of other minor players like the Hudson's Bay Company, etc.

Those companies had about as much in common with today's companies as a galleon does with the USS Ford. And regulations written with the one in mind do more or less nothing for the other.

We didn't regulate companies because the issue didn't come up. For that, you need to look Cleveland, TR, and the other leaders of the Industrial Age.
 
2014-04-07 12:42:58 PM  

whistleridge: The focus of the public's ire with CU was that it equated corporations with people. But the meat of its logic was to equate spending money with free speech.


That wasn't really the meat of the logic. The meat of the logic was to equate corporations with the free association clause of the first amendment. That permitted the court to say that corporations have the same rights re: political donations as people. It wasn't decided based on the money = speech equivalence.

whistleridge: Once that linkage was made, McCutcheon was the obvious next step. Simply giving money in support of a candidate isn't corruption. It may be plutocracy, but it's not corruption. The two findings go hand in hand.


You've skipped a step though, since even conservatives argue that quid-pro-quo corruption is illegal. Giving money to a candidate *can be* corruption, and even the conservative majority said so in their decision. The issue is drawing a line where it crosses from a protected right to not.

I don't like McCutcheon or CU, but lets argue based on what the justices said.
 
2014-04-07 12:45:15 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Bith Set Me Up: The same Supreme Court that practically gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 thinks the same Richard Nixon that pioneered the Southern Strategy wasn't so bad? What a shock.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 485x585]

I screwed you all, but thanks for blaming it on the black guy.

Implying he is a racist? The desegragation guy? Please read just even a tiny bit about what he did. You know aside from the watergate scandal you fixate upon.  You guys are as bad as the republicans are about Lewinski.  At least Nixon didn't perjure himself in a lawsuit against himself.


remember racist means more than being against black people then go look up Nixon's comments on Jews and come back with your defense of his open mindedness.
 
2014-04-07 12:45:42 PM  

whistleridge: DamnYankees: whistleridge: Or rather, I think that, if you believe the underlying logic behind  Citizens United was valid (I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's run with it), then the logic of the majority in  McCutcheon was more or less inevitable. All it really does it allow the small guy the same freedom that has already been allowed to the big groups.

I don't think this follows. The two cases were decided on very different grounds. McCutcheon has a long discussion on what corruption is. I don't think CU had that, but I could be wrong.

The focus of the public's ire with CU was that it equated corporations with people. But the meat of its logic was to equate spending money with free speech.

Once that linkage was made, McCutcheon was the obvious next step. Simply giving money in support of a candidate isn't corruption. It may be plutocracy, but it's not corruption. The two findings go hand in hand.


Let's look at a small but specific example. A group of university students were unwittingly invited into a psychological experiment when half were given a coffee mug valued at $6 by the bookstore and half were given nothing. The students who got nothing valued the coffee mug at $2.25. The students who got the mug for free valued it at $5.25. Even tiny gifts corrupt how you think.
 
2014-04-07 12:47:43 PM  

monoski: Tricky Chicken: Bith Set Me Up: The same Supreme Court that practically gutted the Voting Rights Act of 1965 thinks the same Richard Nixon that pioneered the Southern Strategy wasn't so bad? What a shock.

[upload.wikimedia.org image 485x585]

I screwed you all, but thanks for blaming it on the black guy.

Implying he is a racist? The desegragation guy? Please read just even a tiny bit about what he did. You know aside from the watergate scandal you fixate upon.  You guys are as bad as the republicans are about Lewinski.  At least Nixon didn't perjure himself in a lawsuit against himself.

remember racist means more than being against black people then go look up Nixon's comments on Jews and come back with your defense of his open mindedness.


Ok where are the goalposts now? OP implied he was anti-black.  I countered with deseg.  You introduce anti-semitism? Why?
 
2014-04-07 12:49:37 PM  

DamnYankees: I don't like McCutcheon or CU, but lets argue based on what the justices said.


On fark if you want an agruement based on what the justices said, you would probably end up with a possible audience of 5 people.  Somehow this case has broken even the most even minded legal eagle on fark.
 
2014-04-07 12:51:26 PM  
Nixon was fairly progressive in much of his politics and also corrupt as hell. He didn't even hide most of it. Supposedly there's a toll bridge in the Caribbean that was in his name that made his millions every year and it was his payback for allowing some gold dealers to cash out early before he took the country off the gold standard.

I mean, Nixon's corruption was at least old-school legit, not NASCAR style sponsored by pigs like the Koch brothers. If you don't think Nixon was corrupt, I literally have a bridge to sell you.
 
2014-04-07 12:53:07 PM  

Serious Black: whistleridge: DamnYankees: whistleridge: Or rather, I think that, if you believe the underlying logic behind  Citizens United was valid (I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's run with it), then the logic of the majority in  McCutcheon was more or less inevitable. All it really does it allow the small guy the same freedom that has already been allowed to the big groups.

I don't think this follows. The two cases were decided on very different grounds. McCutcheon has a long discussion on what corruption is. I don't think CU had that, but I could be wrong.

The focus of the public's ire with CU was that it equated corporations with people. But the meat of its logic was to equate spending money with free speech.

Once that linkage was made, McCutcheon was the obvious next step. Simply giving money in support of a candidate isn't corruption. It may be plutocracy, but it's not corruption. The two findings go hand in hand.

Let's look at a small but specific example. A group of university students were unwittingly invited into a psychological experiment when half were given a coffee mug valued at $6 by the bookstore and half were given nothing. The students who got nothing valued the coffee mug at $2.25. The students who got the mug for free valued it at $5.25. Even tiny gifts corrupt how you think.


Not in a legal sense they don't. It's like the difference between being guilty and having actually done it. The two are only somewhat related.
 
2014-04-07 12:53:40 PM  

Tricky Chicken: Ok where are the goalposts now? OP implied he was anti-black.


You can't make an honest assessment of Nixon's record on race without the Southern Strategy.
 
2014-04-07 12:55:39 PM  
Well I will admit that he was the last competent Republican president at least.
 
2014-04-07 12:56:29 PM  
In comparison to Bush and Cheney, et al?  Absolutely true.  In comparison to the rest of the world?  Damn, pass me what you're smoking.
 
2014-04-07 01:00:55 PM  
I bet Nixon is Palin's favorite president. Because he quit.
 
2014-04-07 01:01:25 PM  
Both Citizen's United and McCutcheon ignore the obvious. That while people have the right to spend their money backing up their beliefs, people running for office don't have a right to accept a penny. Had Roberts wanted to rule on these two cases with the same logic he ruled on the ACA -- that if it looks like a tax, it's a tax, and the government has a right to tax -- we wouldn't be having this discussion. The object of campaign finance laws isn't to cripple free speech. The object is to prevent corruption. There's no right to corruption. There's no right for office-seekers to get within sniffing distance of corruption.
 
2014-04-07 01:05:39 PM  
Any of those justices showing signed of age?  Maybe one of them will die soon.

Sandra Day O'Conner quitting prematurely and handing BushII an extra justice definitely turned this court too far right.
 
2014-04-07 01:07:25 PM  

jaytkay: Tricky Chicken: Ok where are the goalposts now? OP implied he was anti-black.

You can't make an honest assessment of Nixon's record on race without the Southern Strategy.


the southern strategy does not require a dislike for blacks.  It was a short sighted political strategy playing upon the hatred others had for blacks.  You just point out to the racists that the Democrats are pro-black.  It isn't necessary to be a racist yourself.  You are just trying to carve out political blocks.  And while it worked to some extent for a while, it was inevitably a losing idea in the long run.  Once the republicans bought into pandering to the racists, they put themselves on a path that would insure that racists would eventually control the party.  It set up a long term death spiral.  You can agree with the Republicans on almost every issue, but be completely put off by the racism.  Then if you want to vote republican, but dont want to vote for a racist, you just dont vote.
 
2014-04-07 01:10:40 PM  

yakmans_dad: Both Citizen's United and McCutcheon ignore the obvious. That while people have the right to spend their money backing up their beliefs, people running for office don't have a right to accept a penny. Had Roberts wanted to rule on these two cases with the same logic he ruled on the ACA -- that if it looks like a tax, it's a tax, and the government has a right to tax -- we wouldn't be having this discussion. The object of campaign finance laws isn't to cripple free speech. The object is to prevent corruption. There's no right to corruption. There's no right for office-seekers to get within sniffing distance of corruption.


That's all fine and good buddy but that doesn't allow the more partisan Justices to rule in ways that favor the GOP.
 
2014-04-07 01:28:35 PM  

Dr Dreidel: What's a guy gotta do to get convicted of bribery?
Videotape himself accepting a large cash donation and immediately saying "Good Lady Monsanto, I accept this BRIBE! It's a BRIBE! I'm being BRIBED! in exchange for switching my previously intended 'no' vote to a 'yes' vote on the 'Monsanto Can Pollute Wherever it Wants, Because Carbon is Freedom-Dust Act' because you are paying me this large sum of cash as a BRIBE! Still a BRIBE! and without reporting it on the disclosure forms, for some strange reason"?

// a repost, but I still think is sad but accurate
// we need a single word for that (I bet the Germans already have one)


I think a better videotape would be of a Supreme Court Justice saying, "If you hire my wife as one of your lobbyist on healthcare you can count on my vote to keep your industry alive and well and not allow a socialist president to enforce a law that would hurt your industry. Oh and put everything in my wifes name so that when I file my financial disclosure statements I can conveniently forget to list all of her income. "

Would that be quid pro quo corruption?
 
2014-04-07 01:32:35 PM  
You know it occurred to me the other day if George Bush had only been as corrupt as Nixon or as incompetent as Carter we would have counted ourselves lucky.
 
2014-04-07 01:33:03 PM  

Triple Oak: I bet Nixon is Palin's favorite president. Because he quit.


I don't she knows who he is.

"Who's your favorite President?"

"All of them!"
 
2014-04-07 01:40:19 PM  

Tricky Chicken: the southern strategy does not require a dislike for blacks. It was a short sighted political strategy playing upon the hatred others had for blacks.


If racism is the core of your strategy, you're a racist.
 
2014-04-07 01:46:38 PM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-04-07 01:48:04 PM  

whistleridge: Serious Black: whistleridge: DamnYankees: whistleridge: Or rather, I think that, if you believe the underlying logic behind  Citizens United was valid (I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's run with it), then the logic of the majority in  McCutcheon was more or less inevitable. All it really does it allow the small guy the same freedom that has already been allowed to the big groups.

I don't think this follows. The two cases were decided on very different grounds. McCutcheon has a long discussion on what corruption is. I don't think CU had that, but I could be wrong.

The focus of the public's ire with CU was that it equated corporations with people. But the meat of its logic was to equate spending money with free speech.

Once that linkage was made, McCutcheon was the obvious next step. Simply giving money in support of a candidate isn't corruption. It may be plutocracy, but it's not corruption. The two findings go hand in hand.

Let's look at a small but specific example. A group of university students were unwittingly invited into a psychological experiment when half were given a coffee mug valued at $6 by the bookstore and half were given nothing. The students who got nothing valued the coffee mug at $2.25. The students who got the mug for free valued it at $5.25. Even tiny gifts corrupt how you think.

Not in a legal sense they don't. It's like the difference between being guilty and having actually done it. The two are only somewhat related.


Actually, in a legal sense, yes they do. SCOTUS didn't say anything about whether the individual contribution caps are constitutional or not. They're still there today under the presumption that giving more than $5,200 to a candidate in a single cycle raises the spectre of corruption.
 
2014-04-07 01:57:24 PM  

Serious Black: whistleridge: Serious Black: whistleridge: DamnYankees: whistleridge: Or rather, I think that, if you believe the underlying logic behind  Citizens United was valid (I don't, but for the sake of the argument let's run with it), then the logic of the majority in  McCutcheon was more or less inevitable. All it really does it allow the small guy the same freedom that has already been allowed to the big groups.

I don't think this follows. The two cases were decided on very different grounds. McCutcheon has a long discussion on what corruption is. I don't think CU had that, but I could be wrong.

The focus of the public's ire with CU was that it equated corporations with people. But the meat of its logic was to equate spending money with free speech.

Once that linkage was made, McCutcheon was the obvious next step. Simply giving money in support of a candidate isn't corruption. It may be plutocracy, but it's not corruption. The two findings go hand in hand.

Let's look at a small but specific example. A group of university students were unwittingly invited into a psychological experiment when half were given a coffee mug valued at $6 by the bookstore and half were given nothing. The students who got nothing valued the coffee mug at $2.25. The students who got the mug for free valued it at $5.25. Even tiny gifts corrupt how you think.

Not in a legal sense they don't. It's like the difference between being guilty and having actually done it. The two are only somewhat related.

Actually, in a legal sense, yes they do. SCOTUS didn't say anything about whether the individual contribution caps are constitutional or not. They're still there today under the presumption that giving more than $5,200 to a candidate in a single cycle raises the spectre of corruption.


(Sorry...phone = no quote trims)

Which was my whole point. Giving a LOT to any one candidate raises the possibility of buying someone's vote or unduly pressuring a candidate. Giving a lot to a LOT of candidates is just supporting the party.

The GOP should be ecstatic about this. It will allow them to entirely kill off the Tea Party, likely this November, and certainly well in advance of 2016. After all, no matter how much they get roughed up, it's not like those idiots will ever take their votes to Hillary instead...
 
2014-04-07 01:58:16 PM  

Tricky Chicken: jaytkay: Tricky Chicken: Ok where are the goalposts now? OP implied he was anti-black.

You can't make an honest assessment of Nixon's record on race without the Southern Strategy.

the southern strategy does not require a dislike for blacks.  It was a short sighted political strategy playing upon the hatred others had for blacks.


If your political strategy is built around exploiting racial divides you're a racist. The notion of 'like' or 'dislike' doesn't enter into it.
 
2014-04-07 01:58:59 PM  

whistleridge: Giving a lot to a LOT of candidates is just supporting the party.


What about giving a lot of money to both parties?
 
2014-04-07 02:03:57 PM  

DamnYankees: whistleridge: Giving a lot to a LOT of candidates is just supporting the party.

What about giving a lot of money to both parties?


Also just supporting the parties.

Again, this isn't MY logic. It's just the obvious offshoot of Citizens. I'm not trying to defend it, just to say it's not inconsistent.
 
2014-04-07 02:07:15 PM  

Serious Black: Let's look at a small but specific example. A group of university students were unwittingly invited into a psychological experiment when half were given a coffee mug valued at $6 by the bookstore and half were given nothing. The students who got nothing valued the coffee mug at $2.25. The students who got the mug for free valued it at $5.25. Even tiny gifts corrupt how you think.


Yeah, but everyone knows bookstores way overcharge for everything, and the students who weren't given a coffee mug were probably just angry they didn't get one.  So really it's the lack of a gift that's the problem here--those who were given a mug were making the correct assessment and the others were just bitter.
 
2014-04-07 02:07:26 PM  
The worst thing about Nixon, like Reagan, is that he was buried with honors and is officially considered a hero of this country despite the very bad things he did.

Says a lot about being condemned to repeat history.
 
2014-04-07 02:08:01 PM  
Compared to what Clinton, Bush and Obama have done, Nixon looks quite innocent.
 
2014-04-07 02:08:01 PM  

whistleridge: Also just supporting the parties.


But that undermines the point, right? If you're supporting both parties, doesn't that sort of prove that what's occurring is not 'speech', but is in fact 'commerce'? By supporting both parties, you can't really be engaging in any sort of advocacy in any coherent sense; that's paradoxical. Rather, its evidence that donors are buying access.
 
2014-04-07 02:08:15 PM  
techintranslation.com

Come on you stupid hippies... I'm trying to meet you half way here...

*BARK*

img2.wikia.nocookie.net

Shutup, Checkers, damn it!
 
2014-04-07 02:08:24 PM  

dwrash: Compared to what Clinton, Bush and Obama have done, Nixon looks quite innocent.


hurr
 
2014-04-07 02:12:28 PM  

whidbey: dwrash: Compared to what Clinton, Bush and Obama have done, Nixon looks quite innocent.

hurr


hurr derpity derp?

You know its true!
 
2014-04-07 02:13:30 PM  

dwrash: whidbey: dwrash: Compared to what Clinton, Bush and Obama have done, Nixon looks quite innocent.

hurr

hurr derpity derp?

You know its true!


That you're spewing derp? Absolutely.
 
2014-04-07 02:14:30 PM  

DamnYankees: whistleridge: Also just supporting the parties.

But that undermines the point, right? If you're supporting both parties, doesn't that sort of prove that what's occurring is not 'speech', but is in fact 'commerce'? By supporting both parties, you can't really be engaging in any sort of advocacy in any coherent sense; that's paradoxical. Rather, its evidence that donors are buying access.


It's not an either/or. I can be a Red Sox fan and buy a Yankees shirt too. It may make me a tool and a bad fan, but that's not corruption.

The ruling isn't about what *ought* to happen, or what does or does not constitute decency or responsible corporate citizenship. It's about what is and is not legal, and in the court's (heavily split) view, that's legal. And if it's legal for a corporation, why not for a person too?
 
2014-04-07 02:15:17 PM  

DamnYankees: whistleridge: Also just supporting the parties.

But that undermines the point, right? If you're supporting both parties, doesn't that sort of prove that what's occurring is not 'speech', but is in fact 'commerce'? By supporting both parties, you can't really be engaging in any sort of advocacy in any coherent sense; that's paradoxical. Rather, its evidence that donors are buying access.


No, no, you're just supporting the political process.  Really, donating to both parties is patriotism!  This way everyone gets to participate, and what could be more democratic than that?
 
2014-04-07 02:17:54 PM  

whistleridge: It's not an either/or. I can be a Red Sox fan and buy a Yankees shirt too. It may make me a tool and a bad fan, but that's not corruption.


Of course its an either or; the baseball analogy is a bad one. A more accurate analogy would be if you rooted for both the Yankees and Red Sox in a league where they were the only two teams. I hope you'd agree that this action is incoherent as a method of playing the game. Similarly in politics, if you simultaneously spend money advocate both sides of an opposing position, you are, by definition, not engaging in any sort of advocacy of that position either way. The question then becomes what it is you're actually doing by donating the money. The court decided that Congress is not permitted to ask that question, apparently.
 
2014-04-07 02:25:05 PM  

jaytkay: Tricky Chicken: the southern strategy does not require a dislike for blacks. It was a short sighted political strategy playing upon the hatred others had for blacks.

If racism is the core of your strategy, you're a racist.


I would disagree.  Racism isn't the core of the strategy.  Exploiting racists is. I think it is possible to sell out to racists and not actually be one.  Isn't the owner of Whole Foods a carnivoir? Yet he has sold out to Vegans. I think vegans are fools,  yet I would purchase Whole Foods stock in a minute if I traded in individual stocks.  You can exploit idiots without subscribing to their value system.
 
2014-04-07 02:25:26 PM  

DamnYankees: whistleridge: It's not an either/or. I can be a Red Sox fan and buy a Yankees shirt too. It may make me a tool and a bad fan, but that's not corruption.

Of course its an either or; the baseball analogy is a bad one. A more accurate analogy would be if you rooted for both the Yankees and Red Sox in a league where they were the only two teams. I hope you'd agree that this action is incoherent as a method of playing the game. Similarly in politics, if you simultaneously spend money advocate both sides of an opposing position, you are, by definition, not engaging in any sort of advocacy of that position either way. The question then becomes what it is you're actually doing by donating the money. The court decided that Congress is not permitted to ask that question, apparently.


You could still root for both teams in a league where there were only two teams. It is entirely legal to have a vested interest in both outcomes, so long as you don't try to extend that to voter fraud. At the end of the day, you are one person, and you have one vote. You can beg, plead, cajole, exhort, encourage, inspire, persuade, ask, and even convince people to vote the way you want, so long as you neither pay them for their vote nor try to pretend to be them in the vote.

Under this ruling, there's no difference between you earnestly trying to swing my vote here on Fark, or you dropping $200 million to earnestly try to sway the mindsets of people in 50 Congressional districts. You might argue that they have an edge, but they might argue I have an edge because of that TotalFark doohickey by my name. There's never going to be such a thing as 'entirely fair'; that's just the way this court sees it.
 
2014-04-07 02:25:37 PM  

DamnYankees: A more accurate analogy would be if you rooted for both the Yankees and Red Sox in a league where they were the only two teams. I hope you'd agree that this action is incoherent as a method of playing the game. Similarly in politics, if you simultaneously spend money advocate both sides of an opposing position, you are, by definition, not engaging in any sort of advocacy of that position either way. The question then becomes what it is you're actually doing by donating the money. The court decided that Congress is not permitted to ask that question, apparently.


1. While there are only two major political parties in the US, there are many more minor parties (there are more than two teams, even though one of those two wins every time). You can donate to candidates in all 900 of them, or only the two major ones. The First doesn't mean you only get to express one opinion at a time.

2. If you donate to issue campaigns, you're likely donating to PACs which do not have donation limits. That you can donate to both sides of an "issue campaign" ("Yes on 10" and "No on 10") is a given, since the First doesn't limit us to only rational opinions or expressions. (I think this was also cleared up in CU. Not that I agree with the ruling.)
 
2014-04-07 02:28:46 PM  

whistleridge: You could still root for both teams in a league where there were only two teams. It is entirely legal to have a vested interest in both outcomes, so long as you don't try to extend that to voter fraud. At the end of the day, you are one person, and you have one vote. You can beg, plead, cajole, exhort, encourage, inspire, persuade, ask, and even convince people to vote the way you want, so long as you neither pay them for their vote nor try to pretend to be them in the vote.

Under this ruling, there's no difference between you earnestly trying to swing my vote here on Fark, or you dropping $200 million to earnestly try to sway the mindsets of people in 50 Congressional districts. You might argue that they have an edge, but they might argue I have an edge because of that TotalFark doohickey by my name. There's never going to be such a thing as 'entirely fair'; that's just the way this court sees it.


No offense, truly, but I'm going to disengage with this discussion. I find your perspective here genuinely confusing, as you seem to merely be trying to tell me what the court thinks, and that's not my goal here.
 
2014-04-07 02:30:10 PM  

whidbey: dwrash: whidbey: dwrash: Compared to what Clinton, Bush and Obama have done, Nixon looks quite innocent.

hurr

hurr derpity derp?

You know its true!

That you're spewing derp? Absolutely.


Nope.. no derp, just reality.

At least Nixon started getting us out of a war, while Clinton, Bush and Obama are the bomb strike/war mongers I despise.. and you can probably add Reagan to that list.

One small lie about a break in where no-one was hurt and the cover up was what sunk Nixon..  stack the more recent Presidents against that and he looks clean as can be... its all about perspective.

FYI, I'm not a Nixon fan... but I am a fan of the 1968 party platform.. it's much more sane and inclusive than any other party platform since.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25841
 
2014-04-07 02:32:08 PM  

dwrash: At least Nixon started getting us out of a war,


Give me a head's up when you're going to do stuff like that. I'm old.
 
2014-04-07 02:34:07 PM  

DamnYankees: whistleridge: You could still root for both teams in a league where there were only two teams. It is entirely legal to have a vested interest in both outcomes, so long as you don't try to extend that to voter fraud. At the end of the day, you are one person, and you have one vote. You can beg, plead, cajole, exhort, encourage, inspire, persuade, ask, and even convince people to vote the way you want, so long as you neither pay them for their vote nor try to pretend to be them in the vote.

Under this ruling, there's no difference between you earnestly trying to swing my vote here on Fark, or you dropping $200 million to earnestly try to sway the mindsets of people in 50 Congressional districts. You might argue that they have an edge, but they might argue I have an edge because of that TotalFark doohickey by my name. There's never going to be such a thing as 'entirely fair'; that's just the way this court sees it.

No offense, truly, but I'm going to disengage with this discussion. I find your perspective here genuinely confusing, as you seem to merely be trying to tell me what the court thinks, and that's not my goal here.


I'm trying to tell you that there's nothing illogical or difficult to conceive of in the position. The two rulings make perfect sense from the perspective of a certain worldview, and the one obviously flows from the other. This court has done stupid and inconsistent things - Kelo, for example - but this is not one of them. I may not agree with them, but I also don't think they're off in lala land somewhere either.
 
2014-04-07 02:36:37 PM  
Nixon was a shiatty president but I've never found anyone who can make a case that he was doing anything criminal. I got a list a mile long of Soebarkah's inarguable no-doubt-about-it crimes.
 
2014-04-07 02:36:50 PM  

Tigger: If your political strategy is built around exploiting racial divides you're a racist.


Or a cynic.
 
2014-04-07 02:37:48 PM  

DamnYankees: Similarly in politics, if you simultaneously spend money advocate both sides of an opposing position, you are, by definition, not engaging in any sort of advocacy of that position either way. T


Except perhaps in a meta sense? "This question is important; SPEAK LOUDER!"
 
2014-04-07 02:43:25 PM  

RminusQ: Gecko Gingrich: I'll admit to only reading the article until this part, but it wasn't SCOTUS. It was CJoSCOTUS.

If you're going to be picky, you gotta be pedantic. John Roberts' title is not "Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States", it is "Chief Justice of the United States".


members.modernvespa.net

Disagrees
 
2014-04-07 02:44:12 PM  

DamnYankees: whistleridge: It's not an either/or. I can be a Red Sox fan and buy a Yankees shirt too. It may make me a tool and a bad fan, but that's not corruption.

Of course its an either or; the baseball analogy is a bad one. A more accurate analogy would be if you rooted for both the Yankees and Red Sox in a league where they were the only two teams. I hope you'd agree that this action is incoherent as a method of playing the game. Similarly in politics, if you simultaneously spend money advocate both sides of an opposing position, you are, by definition, not engaging in any sort of advocacy of that position either way. The question then becomes what it is you're actually doing by donating the money. The court decided that Congress is not permitted to ask that question, apparently.


You need to prove corruption.  Is is corrupting if my criterion for donation is a candidates stance on left handed people's rights and a 1/4 of the dems and 1/4 of the repubs are all in for my cause, I should be unable to give to all of them because of some money cap or a restriction to only one team?
 
2014-04-07 02:48:10 PM  

Saiga410: You need to prove corruption.


Who is the "you" in this sentence? The actual issue here is Congress passing a law in order to prevent corruption from occurring. No one is being convicted of "corruption" here. It's 100% normal operating procedure for us to pass laws to prevent undesirable outcomes.
 
2014-04-07 02:55:15 PM  

DamnYankees: Saiga410: You need to prove corruption.

Who is the "you" in this sentence? The actual issue here is Congress passing a law in order to prevent corruption from occurring. No one is being convicted of "corruption" here. It's 100% normal operating procedure for us to pass laws to prevent undesirable outcomes.


Campaign contribution is considered speech under the 1st amendment and as such the govt is restricted under strict scrutinty.  To pass strict you need to prove there compelling govt interest, that it is narrowly tailored and the least restrictive.  Just saying that if you look at it at this angle the impropriety can kinda sorda be seen does not pass the 1st test.  You need to be able to say this action IS corrupting and not it might be.
 
2014-04-07 03:19:02 PM  
Nixon's dirty deeds are exceptionally well-documented, mostly as a result of his own actions. But he wasn't the first corrupt president and he won't be the last, and I doubt he's all that special among corrupt presidents.
 
2014-04-07 03:40:53 PM  
Did he declare this in his actual statement about the verdict, or was it just a comment he made during the course of the trial?

Essentially, does this actually alter the way people can prosecute corruption?
 
2014-04-07 03:43:11 PM  

DamnYankees: Who is the "you" in this sentence?


The government being challenged.  In this instance the Federal Government.
 
2014-04-07 03:50:09 PM  

Saiga410: You need to prove corruption. Is is corrupting if my criterion for donation is a candidates stance on left handed people's rights and a 1/4 of the dems and 1/4 of the repubs are all in for my cause, I should be unable to give to all of them because of some money cap or a restriction to only one team?


This is in fact the crux of the case - the court is not saying that quid pro quo is the only type of corruption that exists, its that the government hasn't shown either that preventing the other types is a compelling interest of government, or - more importantly - even if preventing such corruption is a legitimate and essential role of government, that the challenged law is the least restrictive means of reaching that end.

In first amendment jurisprudence this usually mans that the law is question is overly broad - by which we mean that the law scoops up a lot of legitimate expressive conduct in an attempt to preclude harmful expressive conduct.  This is why quid pro quo is usually seen as the only corruption that is an easy win for the government - because there is no legitimate form of bribery; there is no bribery like expression that is unharmful.

The trick is with the other forms of "corruption" discussed in this thread it is much harder to distinguish legitimate attempts to get people you really think will make America better elected and self serving attempts to elect cronies. I know many here feel that this is a foolish statement, that much like Potter Stewart's statement re: obscenity, "i know it when i see it" but the fundamental difference is that  obscenity is not covered by the First Amendment, while political expression is.  Thus while the court can have  a bit more leeway in the fuzzy test of what is obscene, when establishing rules for stifling what may be legitimate expressive conduct, the court will often err on the side of caution.
 
2014-04-07 03:50:58 PM  

sdd2000: I think a better videotape would be of a Supreme Court Justice saying, "If you hire my wife as one of your lobbyist on healthcare you can count on my vote to keep your industry alive and well and not allow a socialist president to enforce a law that would hurt your industry. Oh and put everything in my wifes name so that when I file my financial disclosure statements I can conveniently forget to list all of her income. "


And when you DO get caught, just hold your hands out and say "What? What?" and "Those disclosure forms are confusing, even for a Supreme Court justice. Either that, or I must have forgotten to disclose the hundreds of thousands of  dollars that my wife received as a lobbyist."  FOR FIVE CONSECUTIVE YEARS
 
2014-04-07 03:59:18 PM  

Teiritzamna: The trick is with the other forms of "corruption" discussed in this thread it is much harder to distinguish legitimate attempts to get people you really think will make America better elected and self serving attempts to elect cronies.


That's why I prefer the Talmudic approach - ANY gift influences a jurist's opinions, so EVERY gift is outlawed. A judge who says to themselves: "I won't rule in his favor, even if he bought me a car! THAT's how un-bribe-able I am!" is still being swayed by the gift (maybe the dishonest man's claim is the more valid one).

Basically, that the mere appearance of corruption is enough for impeachment, as justice depends not only on the equitable resolution of disputes, but also on the trust we place in their decisions.
 
2014-04-07 04:02:00 PM  
It's not "free speech". It's realy "free squeak". If you're a wheel and  have enough money to buy the loudest squeak, you get the oil.

A handful of rich people who got their money by tranfer via low wages and high prices can swamp out all the millions of Americans who just want fair representation for the taxes they pay on their miserly wages and their ever-inflating purchases.

It's the American way. Defended by a corrupt SCOTUS and an even more corrupt Congress.

We're not the Sunis and the Shias. Don't believe anyone who says America is divided any way other than rich versus poor.
 
2014-04-07 04:06:54 PM  
SCROTUS's furious five are rogue ideologues whose sole mission is to hand the keys to the kingdom to the winners of economic Darwinism. You just became a blight in the eyes of a purer class of people. Enjoy your future. All that cheep money from the Fed sure has lead to a lot of consolidated power...hmmm.
 
2014-04-07 04:08:20 PM  

Teiritzamna: I know many here feel that this is a foolish statement, that much like Potter Stewart's statement re: obscenity, "i know it when i see it" but the fundamental difference is that obscenity is not covered by the First Amendment, while political expression is.


What if you make an obscene political statement?
 
2014-04-07 04:10:05 PM  

Dr Dreidel: That's why I prefer the Talmudic approach - ANY gift influences a jurist's opinions, so EVERY gift is outlawed. A judge who says to themselves: "I won't rule in his favor, even if he bought me a car! THAT's how un-bribe-able I am!" is still being swayed by the gift (maybe the dishonest man's claim is the more valid one).

Basically, that the mere appearance of corruption is enough for impeachment, as justice depends not only on the equitable resolution of disputes, but also on the trust we place in their decisions.


Which is fair to an extent - except that it pushes very very far into the realm of protected expression.  For example, advocating for someone, even if just verbally, tends to make people favor you as well.  Which means under your rubric volunteering and speaking on someone's behalf should also be precluded.  Soon basically any political advocacy could be excluded from the first amendment's ambit, meaning that we would have the perverse result wherein an amendment meant to protect political speech most would protect political speech not at all.
 
2014-04-07 04:10:11 PM  

Teiritzamna: I know many here feel that this is a foolish statement, that much like Potter Stewart's statement re: obscenity, "i know it when i see it" but the fundamental difference is that  obscenity is not covered by the First Amendment, while political expression is.


Literally nothing in the amendment makes any distinction at all between different kinds of speech; there's no special language in there about "political expression":

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So I don't really know what you're talking about.
 
2014-04-07 04:11:34 PM  

Serious Black: What if you make an obscene political statement?


The test for determining obscenity pretty much prevents such an occurrence as one of the prongs requires a finding that:

the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
 
2014-04-07 04:11:57 PM  

dwrash: whidbey: dwrash: whidbey: dwrash: Compared to what Clinton, Bush and Obama have done, Nixon looks quite innocent.

hurr

hurr derpity derp?

You know its true!

That you're spewing derp? Absolutely.

Nope.. no derp, just reality.


stream1.gifsoup.com

At least Nixon started getting us out of a war, while Clinton, Bush and Obama are the bomb strike/war mongers I despise.. and you can probably add Reagan to that list.

Citations needed. No, I don't expect you to show your work. You're one of those "both sides are bad/Obama is one of History's Greatest Monster" type lolbertarians/closeted "ex"-Republicans. I'm just humoring you at this point.

One small lie about a break in where no-one was hurt and the cover up was what sunk Nixon..  stack the more recent Presidents against that and he looks clean as can be... its all about perspective.

No, it's about your ignorance of history. While downplaying the Watergate crimes and not even acknowledging the things Nixon didn't caught doing, abuses of power which trump anything the other Presidents you mentioned did. Nixon is hands down is one of the worst we ever had, and almost brought the country to violence with his reckless paranoid bullshiat.

Now run along.
 
2014-04-07 04:13:51 PM  

DamnYankees: Teiritzamna: I know many here feel that this is a foolish statement, that much like Potter Stewart's statement re: obscenity, "i know it when i see it" but the fundamental difference is that  obscenity is not covered by the First Amendment, while political expression is.

Literally nothing in the amendment makes any distinction at all between different kinds of speech; there's no special language in there about "political expression":

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

So I don't really know what you're talking about.


Obscenity is one of the classic exceptions to the first amendment, mainly because we have the framers themselves passing laws banning obscenity and when questioned saying "oh obscenity isn't speech, its obscenity"

as to the political expression bit, the court has long held that political expression (especially expression critical of the government) gets the strongest baseline protections as a read of the federalist papers (and common sense) shows that that was the speech the framers were most afraid of being curtailed.
 
2014-04-07 04:15:45 PM  

Teiritzamna: Serious Black: What if you make an obscene political statement?

The test for determining obscenity pretty much prevents such an occurrence as one of the prongs requires a finding that:

the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value


So theoretically speaking, a video of a fully naked man and woman having sex with each other couldn't be considered obscene if the man and woman were discussing the merits of single-payer health care while having sex?
 
2014-04-07 04:16:17 PM  

Teiritzamna: Obscenity is one of the classic exceptions to the first amendment, mainly because we have the framers themselves passing laws banning obscenity and when questioned saying "oh obscenity isn't speech, its obscenity"


1) The Framers also passed the alien and sedition acts, and we don't think of those as carveouts to free speech.

2) Regardless of what the framers did, the distinction still isn't in the amendment, as you claimed.

Teiritzamna: as to the political expression bit, the court has long held that political expression (especially expression critical of the government) gets the strongest baseline protections as a read of the federalist papers (and common sense) shows that that was the speech the framers were most afraid of being curtailed.


This is a circular argument. You can't say that political expression deserves more protection from courts than obscenity because its in the first amendment, and then say that while its not actually in the first amendment, that's how courts have always interpreted it. Pick an argument.
 
2014-04-07 04:24:29 PM  

Serious Black: Teiritzamna: Serious Black: What if you make an obscene political statement?

The test for determining obscenity pretty much prevents such an occurrence as one of the prongs requires a finding that:

the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value

So theoretically speaking, a video of a fully naked man and woman having sex with each other couldn't be considered obscene if the man and woman were discussing the merits of single-payer health care while having sex?


I know it is obscene to bring up anything negative about the ACA (as would any discussion on the full merit of a policy) but no one has ever discussed the wholesale bannination of it.
 
2014-04-07 04:29:27 PM  

whidbey: Citations needed.


What, and give away Nixon's secret plan to end the war? I'll never talk.

whidbey: While downplaying the Watergate crimes and not even acknowledging the things Nixon didn't caught doing, abuses of power which trump anything the other Presidents you mentioned did. Nixon is hands down is one of the worst we ever had, and almost brought the country to violence with his reckless paranoid bullshiat.


Well, let us see the scoreboard so far...

1  Nixon instructed his cabinet to obstruct investigations (Obamacare, quesitonable. IRS, not cabinet level, maybe)
2 Bombed Laos and Cambodia (drone attacks)
3 Wiretaps (NSA)
4 Campaign finance abuse (IRS scandal)
5 Nixon covered up illegal actions of others (IRS, Benghazi... ?)
 
2014-04-07 04:30:00 PM  

DamnYankees: Teiritzamna: Obscenity is one of the classic exceptions to the first amendment, mainly because we have the framers themselves passing laws banning obscenity and when questioned saying "oh obscenity isn't speech, its obscenity"

1) The Framers also passed the alien and sedition acts, and we don't think of those as carveouts to free speech.

2) Regardless of what the framers did, the distinction still isn't in the amendment, as you claimed.

Teiritzamna: as to the political expression bit, the court has long held that political expression (especially expression critical of the government) gets the strongest baseline protections as a read of the federalist papers (and common sense) shows that that was the speech the framers were most afraid of being curtailed.

This is a circular argument. You can't say that political expression deserves more protection from courts than obscenity because its in the first amendment, and then say that while its not actually in the first amendment, that's how courts have always interpreted it. Pick an argument.


Ah sorry - i was speaking as an attorney as if i was talking to one.

There is this thing called constitutional common law, wherein the courts of this country, especially the constitutional highest federal court, the Supreme Court interprets what the clauses of the constitution mean.  This interpretation should usually begin with the text of the constitution, here as you quoted:

"Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech . . . ."

The important question for the court is "what exactly is "the freedom of speech" as the clause itself is rather short and the constitution provides no definitions.  So courts have had to traditionally look about at what the framers wrote, what dictionaries of the time suggested and often for the liberal justices, what the modern idea of what, in this instance, "the freedom of speech" means. 

Based on this approach over the last few hundred years a large body of jurisprudence has arisen suggesting that "the freedom of speech" does not include certain forms of expressive conduct - obscenity being one, fighting words, incitement to immanent lawless action, criminal/tortious  expression (fraud defamation and the like) being some others.  These exceptions are pretty much universally understood by federal courts to not be encompassed within "the freedom of speech."

As to the gloss regarding political expression, that is mostly just the courts applying common sense.  Generally if you see an opinion regarding government suppression of speech, there will be a section where the court invariably says something along the lines of "well the first amendment was designed to protect expression and thus it shall be hard for the government to overcome the amendment's prohibition, but if the first amendment protects anything, it protects political speech."

Partially i suppose this is in contrast to commercial speech (a digression to be sure, but there is also a long jurisprudential history indicating that traditional and strong power of government to regulate commerce means that it has some role in regulating commercial speech that does not offend "the freedom of speech") but it is also an acknowledgement that the speech the government is most likley to be interested in manipulating is likely to be political speech, that the form of government meddling most hated by those who fought the revolution was meddling in political speech, and the most harmful form of government censorship is censorship of criticisms of the government itself that the courts must be extra vigilant to prevent such interference with political speech.
 
2014-04-07 04:34:29 PM  

Serious Black: So theoretically speaking, a video of a fully naked man and woman having sex with each other couldn't be considered obscene if the man and woman were discussing the merits of single-payer health care while having sex?


Pretty much yeah - doesn't mean it couldn't be regulated (for example age limits on porno are based on a different (if shaky) rationale), just means the government would have a much harder time.

As a further note, remember that an actual finding that material is obscene is rare as hell these days - given the rather lax community standards (hooray lax community standards) its very difficult to find that something is not protected by the first amendment because it is obscene.  I personally think this is a good thing, as 60 years ago 90% of the internet would be liable for bananating by the government.
 
2014-04-07 04:37:32 PM  

Destructor: whidbey: Citations needed.

What, and give away Nixon's secret plan to end the war? I'll never talk.

whidbey: While downplaying the Watergate crimes and not even acknowledging the things Nixon didn't caught doing, abuses of power which trump anything the other Presidents you mentioned did. Nixon is hands down is one of the worst we ever had, and almost brought the country to violence with his reckless paranoid bullshiat.

Well, let us see the scoreboard so far...

1  Nixon instructed his cabinet to obstruct investigations (Obamacare, quesitonable. IRS, not cabinet level, maybe)
2 Bombed Laos and Cambodia (drone attacks)
3 Wiretaps (NSA)
4 Campaign finance abuse (IRS scandal)
5 Nixon covered up illegal actions of others (IRS, Benghazi... ?)


Notsureifserious.jpg
 
2014-04-07 04:38:00 PM  

Teiritzamna: Dr Dreidel: That's why I prefer the Talmudic approach - ANY gift influences a jurist's opinions, so EVERY gift is outlawed. A judge who says to themselves: "I won't rule in his favor, even if he bought me a car! THAT's how un-bribe-able I am!" is still being swayed by the gift (maybe the dishonest man's claim is the more valid one).

Basically, that the mere appearance of corruption is enough for impeachment, as justice depends not only on the equitable resolution of disputes, but also on the trust we place in their decisions.

Which is fair to an extent - except that it pushes very very far into the realm of protected expression.


It certainly does; the Talmud didn't recognize a freedom of expression, but that rule is enlightening.

Teiritzamna: For example, advocating for someone, even if just verbally, tends to make people favor you as well. Which means under your rubric volunteering and speaking on someone's behalf should also be precluded. Soon basically any political advocacy could be excluded from the first amendment's ambit, meaning that we would have the perverse result wherein an amendment meant to protect political speech most would protect political speech not at all.


Well, it's limited to accepting items of value - ANY item, of ANY measurable value (IIRC, the smallest denomination of currency - in the US, that would be anything with market value equal to or greater than a penny [not "nominal value", like the 1/30th of a cent they claim a coupon is worth]).

Though (and this is probably better kept offline, if you're interested) the way a Talmudic trial runs, there is no "advocacy" - only statements from the accused and the accusers (two witnesses to the crime bring the accusation), followed by any other witnesses and questioning of all 3 parties by a panel of judges (3 in civil cases, 23 in capital cases*, 70 for matters of Canon**).

*and the rules for getting a conviction in capital cases are enough to set a modern American lawyer's teeth on edge
**only the 3-judge civil court is in use these days
 
2014-04-07 04:40:35 PM  

Mahhughes: SCROTUS's furious five are rogue ideologues whose sole mission is to hand the keys to the kingdom to the winners of economic Darwinism. You just became a blight in the eyes of a purer class of people. Enjoy your future. All that cheep money from the Fed sure has lead to a lot of consolidated power...hmmm.


Bwah! "SCROTUS" I love it. It is what you get when you insert an (R) into the Supreme Court!
 
2014-04-07 04:41:01 PM  

LordJiro: Destructor: whidbey: Citations needed.

What, and give away Nixon's secret plan to end the war? I'll never talk.

whidbey: While downplaying the Watergate crimes and not even acknowledging the things Nixon didn't caught doing, abuses of power which trump anything the other Presidents you mentioned did. Nixon is hands down is one of the worst we ever had, and almost brought the country to violence with his reckless paranoid bullshiat.

Well, let us see the scoreboard so far...

1  Nixon instructed his cabinet to obstruct investigations (Obamacare, quesitonable. IRS, not cabinet level, maybe)
2 Bombed Laos and Cambodia (drone attacks)
3 Wiretaps (NSA)
4 Campaign finance abuse (IRS scandal)
5 Nixon covered up illegal actions of others (IRS, Benghazi... ?)

Notsureifserious.jpg


No kidding. The moment Obama is mentioned in the company of Nixon, Reagan and Bush's legacy of paranoia, corruption and failed neo-conservative imperialism, it turns into a Bill Cosby routine:


RIIIIGHT.
 
2014-04-07 04:41:25 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Well, it's limited to accepting items of value - ANY item, of ANY measurable value (IIRC, the smallest denomination of currency - in the US, that would be anything with market value equal to or greater than a penny [not "nominal value", like the 1/30th of a cent they claim a coupon is worth]).

Though (and this is probably better kept offline, if you're interested) the way a Talmudic trial runs, there is no "advocacy" - only statements from the accused and the accusers (two witnesses to the crime bring the accusation), followed by any other witnesses and questioning of all 3 parties by a panel of judges (3 in civil cases, 23 in capital cases*, 70 for matters of Canon**).

*and the rules for getting a conviction in capital cases are enough to set a modern American lawyer's teeth on edge
**only the 3-judge civil court is in use these days


As a (lapsed) catholic attorney who went to Brandeis, i have always thought jewish law to be deeply interesting.  Also the fact that European civil law is based in part of roman law but also on Canon law which was in turn based on Judaic law, including the lack of advocacy and inquisitorial judges.
 
2014-04-07 04:55:15 PM  

Teiritzamna: As a (lapsed) catholic attorney who went to Brandeis, i have always thought jewish law to be deeply interesting. Also the fact that European civil law is based in part of roman law but also on Canon law which was in turn based on Judaic law, including the lack of advocacy and inquisitorial judges.


Do you mean "Jewish legal proceedings" or "Jewish law, with all its many twists and turns, such that the simplest question turns into a doctorate-level thesis for an answer"? :P

The legal proceedings are, in a word, weird - at least when examined by a modern American steeped in Law and Order episodes from the mid-late 1990s.

// RIP Briscoe (I share a birthday with Jerry Orbach)
 
2014-04-07 04:56:19 PM  

Dr Dreidel: (I share a birthday with Jerry Orbach)


*raises a Pellegrino
 
2014-04-07 04:57:21 PM  

whidbey: LordJiro: Destructor: whidbey: Citations needed.

What, and give away Nixon's secret plan to end the war? I'll never talk.

whidbey: While downplaying the Watergate crimes and not even acknowledging the things Nixon didn't caught doing, abuses of power which trump anything the other Presidents you mentioned did. Nixon is hands down is one of the worst we ever had, and almost brought the country to violence with his reckless paranoid bullshiat.

Well, let us see the scoreboard so far...

1  Nixon instructed his cabinet to obstruct investigations (Obamacare, quesitonable. IRS, not cabinet level, maybe)
2 Bombed Laos and Cambodia (drone attacks)
3 Wiretaps (NSA)
4 Campaign finance abuse (IRS scandal)
5 Nixon covered up illegal actions of others (IRS, Benghazi... ?)

Notsureifserious.jpg

No kidding. The moment Obama is mentioned in the company of Nixon, Reagan and Bush's legacy of paranoia, corruption and failed neo-conservative imperialism, it turns into a Bill Cosby routine:


RIIIIGHT.


Tonight's story... is about... a Chicken Hawk.
 
2014-04-07 04:57:44 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Do you mean "Jewish legal proceedings" or "Jewish law, with all its many twists and turns, such that the simplest question turns into a doctorate-level thesis for an answer"? :P

The legal proceedings are, in a word, weird - at least when examined by a modern American steeped in Law and Order episodes from the mid-late 1990s.


Both actually, substantive and procedural.
 
2014-04-07 05:07:14 PM  

whidbey: Notsureifserious.jpg

No kidding. The moment Obama is mentioned in the company of Nixon, Reagan and Bush's legacy of paranoia, corruption and failed neo-conservative imperialism, it turns into a Bill Cosby routine:
RIIIIGHT.


/shrug... I don't know.

There are no tapes to subpoena. No missing 18 minutes. Just your general, run-of-the-mill obstruction... so far.

Maybe you're right. Maybe Nixon was the worst we ever had... But it seems Obama might be giving him a run for the money.

LordJiro: 1 Nixon instructed his cabinet to obstruct investigations (Obamacare, quesitonable. IRS, not cabinet level, maybe)
2 Bombed Laos and Cambodia (drone attacks)
3 Wiretaps (NSA)
4 Campaign finance abuse (IRS scandal)
5 Nixon covered up illegal actions of others (IRS, Benghazi... ?)

Notsureifserious.jpg


Yeah, 1 is unsupportable (at present). 4 is comparable because it might have actually affected the outcome of an election. And 5 is pure speculation pending further investigation.

Then there's the stuff Obama is getting away with that Nixon could only dream of. It'll just annoy everyone here to roll out that old chestnut, so I'll call it quits while I'm ahead... :-)
 
2014-04-07 05:08:55 PM  

Destructor: Maybe Nixon was the worst we ever had... But it seems Obama might be giving him a run for the money.


lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?
 
2014-04-07 05:10:52 PM  

whidbey: Destructor: Maybe Nixon was the worst we ever had... But it seems Obama might be giving him a run for the money.

lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?


Because it's the truth and you refuse to acknowledge it.

You have a big case of cognitive dissonance on your hans.
 
2014-04-07 05:13:39 PM  

dwrash: whidbey: Destructor: Maybe Nixon was the worst we ever had... But it seems Obama might be giving him a run for the money.

lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?

Because it's the truth and you refuse to acknowledge it.


But it isn't. It's just you talking shiat and making absurd comparisons.

You have a big case of cognitive dissonance on your hans.

Like comparing things you don't like about Obama to real documented crimes of the Nixon administration?

Dude, pull your farking head out of Ron Paul's ass.
 
2014-04-07 05:13:56 PM  

Teiritzamna: Dr Dreidel: Do you mean "Jewish legal proceedings" or "Jewish law, with all its many twists and turns, such that the simplest question turns into a doctorate-level thesis for an answer"? :P

The legal proceedings are, in a word, weird - at least when examined by a modern American steeped in Law and Order episodes from the mid-late 1990s.

Both actually, substantive and procedural.


I won't bore the rest of you, but if you can get your hands on a copy of the Talmud tractate Sanhedrin, I think around page 60 or 70 is a great summary of the legal proceedings. *Googles a bit* It's 40a, start of Chapter 5 where they explain the stages of a proceeding.

There's also a chapter that starts on page 70a (IIRC) with some fascinating discussion, about when it's OK to use deadly force, starting on 71b-72a. From what I understand, the end of the tractate also has some wacky stuff about death and the afterlife, but I've never read that far.

// it's amazing that I still remember that from junior year of high school
 
2014-04-07 05:23:07 PM  

whidbey: lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?


Geez whidbey... Why do you hate Nixon so much? So he lied to the American people... So did Obama. So he covered up a little incompetent burglary. Obama covered up some incompetence with Benghazi.

Or are you...

whidbey: one of those "both sides are bad


...guys...? :-)

Nixon used his (hilariously not secret) plan to eventually (and painfully) pull us out of 'nam. He made peace with China, got us the EPA, ended the draft, and brought us title IX.

Obama, on the other hand, has managed to divide the nation, stagnate the economy, reduce the middle class, and continue his most favorite parts of the Bush legacy (drones, NSA, etc)...

On the plus side, he did managed to ram through a generally unpopular healthcare law.
 
2014-04-07 05:23:39 PM  

dwrash: whidbey: Destructor: Maybe Nixon was the worst we ever had... But it seems Obama might be giving him a run for the money.

lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?

Because it's the truth and you refuse to acknowledge it.

You have a big case of cognitive dissonance on your hans.


Bigger than calling Obama an ineffectual, spineless leader and an iron-fisted tyrant?
 
2014-04-07 05:25:09 PM  

Destructor: Nixon used his (hilariously not secret) plan to eventually (and painfully) pull us out of 'nam. He made peace with China, got us the EPA, ended the draft, and brought us title IX.

Obama, on the other hand, has managed to divide the nation, stagnate the economy, reduce the middle class, and continue his most favorite parts of the Bush legacy (drones, NSA, etc)...

On the plus side, he did managed to ram through a generally unpopular healthcare law.


Citations needed. Also riling up a bunch of stupid teabag dipshiats does not constitute "dividing the nation."

4/10 for replies
 
2014-04-07 05:27:08 PM  

Destructor: whidbey: lolwut

What makes people post shiat like this?

Anyone?

Geez whidbey... Why do you hate Nixon so much? So he lied to the American people... So did Obama. So he covered up a little incompetent burglary. Obama covered up some incompetence with Benghazi.

Or are you...

whidbey: one of those "both sides are bad

...guys...? :-)

Nixon used his (hilariously not secret) plan to eventually (and painfully) pull us out of 'nam. He made peace with China, got us the EPA, ended the draft, and brought us title IX.

Obama, on the other hand, has managed to divide the nation, stagnate the economy, reduce the middle class, and continue his most favorite parts of the Bush legacy (drones, NSA, etc)...

On the plus side, he did managed to ram through a generally unpopular healthcare law.


Ooh, that's gotta be one of my favorite Teabagger talking points. "We went absolutely batsh*t when a black guy got elected! He's the MOST DIVISIVE PRESIDENT EVAR!"
 
2014-04-07 05:31:55 PM  

LordJiro: Ooh, that's gotta be one of my favorite Teabagger talking points. "We went absolutely batsh*t when a black guy got elected! He's the MOST DIVISIVE PRESIDENT EVAR!"


He's got a point - in January 2009, pretty much the whole country was united in not wanting the GOP to run even the local waffle joint. By November 2010 however, enough of us disagreed that control of the US House went to that same GOP.

The teabag conclusion does not follow from those premises, but the premises themselves contain elements of truth.
 
2014-04-07 05:32:27 PM  

LordJiro: "We went absolutely batsh*t when a black guy got elected! He's the MOST DIVISIVE PRESIDENT EVAR!"


How Destructor sees himself:

i.imgur.com

The reality:

progressivepopulist.org
 
2014-04-07 05:34:07 PM  

whidbey: Citations needed.


Uhh... Your favorite history book and newspaper?

whidbey: Also riling up a bunch of stupid teabag dipshiats does not constitute "dividing the nation."


That's right, there's just so much cooperation in Congress today! I can't imagine what I was thinking. Why, just the other day, Nancy Pelosi and Boehner were singing kumbaya together while Obama was laughing and joking with Paul Ryan about how well the budget was coming together.

Dude. You have states talking about splitting apart. Colorado, California, even Michigan. I don't remember the nation being so torn with rancor. Maybe on Whidbey island (been there, nice place, btw), your just scratching your head wondering what the moron conservatives are whining about, so you really weren't aware. It's bad out there, whidbey.

whidbey: 4/10 for replies


Yay? That's good, right?
 
2014-04-07 05:37:02 PM  

Destructor: whidbey: Citations needed.

Uhh... Your favorite history book and newspaper?

whidbey: Also riling up a bunch of stupid teabag dipshiats does not constitute "dividing the nation."

That's right, there's just so much cooperation in Congress today! I can't imagine what I was thinking. Why, just the other day, Nancy Pelosi and Boehner were singing kumbaya together while Obama was laughing and joking with Paul Ryan about how well the budget was coming together.

Dude. You have states talking about splitting apart. Colorado, California, even Michigan. I don't remember the nation being so torn with rancor. Maybe on Whidbey island (been there, nice place, btw), your just scratching your head wondering what the moron conservatives are whining about, so you really weren't aware. It's bad out there, whidbey.

whidbey: 4/10 for replies

Yay? That's good, right?


Well, when half of Congress decides, on day one of the Presidency, that they will not let Obama get anything done, come Hell or high water? Yeah, that's pretty divisive. But blaming Obama for it seems a little silly.
 
2014-04-07 05:38:12 PM  
You can park it now, Destructor.
 
2014-04-07 05:45:47 PM  

Destructor: You have states talking about splitting apart. Colorado, California, even Michigan. I don't remember the nation being so torn with rancor.


Initially, they wanted to split TX into 5 states before they'd be allowed to join the union. People have been trying to split CA for at least a generation or two (I forget the name, but IIRC there's a separatist "state" between CA and OR that's a remnant of this push). IIRC people have been wanting to split Michigan's UP from the LP pretty much since they got the UP (and discovered it was lousy with beavers and their pelts).

Bills to split states are like bills proposing Constitutional Amendments - everyone's advanced one, no one thinks theirs is crap, and they're largely ignored (except to say "That's not gonna happen").

And the reason you "don't remember the nation being so torn with rancor" is that you're younger than 170 years old (I assume). We spent half (or three-quarters of) a million lives and $2 billion (in 1870s dollars) cleaning up that little spot of rancor, and I'd guess we're several years from that at least.
 
2014-04-07 05:57:02 PM  

dwrash: whidbey: dwrash: whidbey: dwrash: Compared to what Clinton, Bush and Obama have done, Nixon looks quite innocent.

hurr

hurr derpity derp?

You know its true!

That you're spewing derp? Absolutely.

Nope.. no derp, just reality.

At least Nixon started getting us out of a war, while Clinton, Bush and Obama are the bomb strike/war mongers I despise.. and you can probably add Reagan to that list.

One small lie about a break in where no-one was hurt and the cover up was what sunk Nixon..  stack the more recent Presidents against that and he looks clean as can be... its all about perspective.

FYI, I'm not a Nixon fan... but I am a fan of the 1968 party platform.. it's much more sane and inclusive than any other party platform since.

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25841


ReThat's not even close to the actual truth. Yes, Watergate was what started the ball in motion. In and of itself, it probably would have been enough. The "small lie about a break in"? Give me a break. Read up on what the reasoning behind the break in was. Aside from that, the whole ongoing airing of the tapes gave the lie to everything about Nixon's public persona. He showed himself to be paranoid to the point of serious delusion, vindictive , contemptous of most of the public, corrupt and utterly without credibility. The airing of what Nixon was really like made him repugnant and unacceptable to not only the public, but most of his own party. THAT was the story of Watergate.
 
2014-04-07 06:00:22 PM  

whidbey: The reality:


I wish I had a tricorn hat that nice. (Also, I wish I was that thin.) However, I haven't made a placard yet... but if I did, it would be easier to read (honestly, who uses blue with black lettering?) and I would be careful when it came to spelling.

LordJiro: Ooh, that's gotta be one of my favorite Teabagger talking points. "We went absolutely batsh*t when a black guy got elected! He's the MOST DIVISIVE PRESIDENT EVAR!"


Why does this keep coming up? I don't care what color the man is. If it really makes a difference to you, I only don't like the part of Obama that's white. Geez.

LordJiro: Well, when half of Congress decides, on day one of the Presidency, that they will not let Obama get anything done, come Hell or high water? Yeah, that's pretty divisive. But blaming Obama for it seems a little silly.


Soooo. The same guy who can find time to deal with the international jerks of the world can't come to some sort of reconciliation with Congress? Heck, he can't even be bothered to make a public showing of good will. It is a little silly.

whidbey: You can park it now, Destructor.


Hmm. I really don't want to irritate you (needlessly). But you seem angry in this thread. I'm just going to back away slowly now. :-)
 
2014-04-07 06:05:34 PM  

Gecko Gingrich: I'll admit to only reading the article until this part, but it wasn't SCOTUS. It was CJoSCOTUS.


AKA, Dread Asshole Roberts
 
2014-04-07 06:08:50 PM  

Dr Dreidel: Initially, they wanted to split TX into 5 states before they'd be allowed to join the union. People have been trying to split CA for at least a generation or two (I forget the name, but IIRC there's a separatist "state" between CA and OR that's a remnant of this push). IIRC people have been wanting to split Michigan's UP from the LP pretty much since they got the UP (and discovered it was lousy with beavers and their pelts).


You're right. However, this stuff is actually making it to the ballot now. I don't think it's gone that far in a while.

Dr Dreidel: Bills to split states are like bills proposing Constitutional Amendments - everyone's advanced one, no one thinks theirs is crap, and they're largely ignored (except to say "That's not gonna happen").


I remember a time when they thought pot would never be legalized, too. :-)

Dr Dreidel: And the reason you "don't remember the nation being so torn with rancor" is that you're younger than 170 years old (I assume). We spent half (or three-quarters of) a million lives and $2 billion (in 1870s dollars) cleaning up that little spot of rancor, and I'd guess we're several years from that at least.


I don't... And I'm old by Earth standards. I believe I tried to frame my response to lay within the domain of "Living Memory". Using American History as a backdrop, you could say we've been living a fairly charmed existence in modern times. And then Obama came along... :-)
 
2014-04-07 06:11:56 PM  

Destructor: LordJiro: Well, when half of Congress decides, on day one of the Presidency, that they will not let Obama get anything done, come Hell or high water? Yeah, that's pretty divisive. But blaming Obama for it seems a little silly.


Soooo. The same guy who can find time to deal with the international jerks of the world can't come to some sort of reconciliation with Congress? Heck, he can't even be bothered to make a public showing of good will. It is a little silly.


Well, for starters, the Republicans in Congress are a greater threat to America than any of the "international jerks of the world". None of those "jerks" have come within days of defaulting on America's national debt out of spite.

And again, how do you "reconcile" with a group who outright declared they refuse to work with you no matter what? Republicans are petty, spoiled, whiny children throwing a temper tantrum, and if anything, Obama tried to work with them too MUCH in the early days, and it bit him in the ass.
 
2014-04-07 06:42:13 PM  

LordJiro: And again, how do you "reconcile" with a group who outright declared they refuse to work with you no matter what? Republicans are petty, spoiled, whiny children throwing a temper tantrum, and if anything, Obama tried to work with them too MUCH in the early days, and it bit him in the ass.


You compromise. The art of politics. But Obama doesn't like doing that. Look at healthcare. He didn't have to compromise... So he didn't. The rest is history.

So, Obama has discovered he simply doesn't need congress. So, he ignores them. It seems to suit him.
 
2014-04-07 07:11:29 PM  

Destructor: LordJiro: And again, how do you "reconcile" with a group who outright declared they refuse to work with you no matter what? Republicans are petty, spoiled, whiny children throwing a temper tantrum, and if anything, Obama tried to work with them too MUCH in the early days, and it bit him in the ass.

You compromise. The art of politics. But Obama doesn't like doing that. Look at healthcare. He didn't have to compromise... So he didn't. The rest is history.

So, Obama has discovered he simply doesn't need congress. So, he ignores them. It seems to suit him.


WRONG. He had to replace the public option that was in the original plan, with the insurance mandate to get "Blue Dog" Democrats (Republicans without the branding) on-board. It was supposed to get actual Republicans on board too, but they backed out at the last minute.

Democrats compromised on the stimulus, adding more tax cuts that kneecapped the recovery. Democrats compromised on spending; cutting it all over the place despite most economists saying we should be spending MORE, particularly on infrastructure. Every time Obama and the rest of the Democrats have tried to compromise with Republicans, the result has been the same. Either things get watered down with disproven 'supply-side' nonsense, to the point where they barely help, or Republicans back out of any deal that's made at the last minute.

You can not compromise with fascist radicals like the GOP.
 
2014-04-07 07:27:33 PM  
Circular reasoning, compliments of the your good ol' boys.
izquotes.com
 
2014-04-07 07:33:21 PM  

LordJiro: WRONG. He had to replace the public option that was in the original plan, with the insurance mandate to get "Blue Dog" Democrats (Republicans without the branding) on-board. It was supposed to get actual Republicans on board too, but they backed out at the last minute.


It's hardly the Republicans fault that members of the Democratic party had to be bribed into passing that monstrosity. Nope, the Democrats had to have that thing, come hell or high water, and they had to have it by Christmas. It was the Democrat's gift to America. Nancy Pelosi was very proud. Not one Republican vote. But, they got it! Yay!

LordJiro: Democrats compromised on the stimulus...
Democrats compromised on spending...
Every time Obama and the rest of the Democrats have tried to compromise with Republicans, the result has been the same. Either things get watered down with disproven 'supply-side' nonsense, to the point where they barely help, or Republicans back out of any deal that's made at the last minute.


Who have the Democrats been compromising with? Themselves? No, when they compromise, they compromise with the Republicans. You mean they don't get everything they want? Well, that's the way its supposed to work. Now, turn that around, and see it from the Republicans POV. They don't get everything they want either. That's politics.

Meanwhile, Obama is talking up the minimum wage, as if that's going to lower the unemployment rate or something. He's done with Congress. He's not interested in trying to work with them. So, this is what he's all about now; he'll change as much as he dares with executive orders.

It seems to be working for him.
 
2014-04-07 08:39:47 PM  
This would be the same Nixon that gave us OSHA and the EPA, and raised the minimum wage by 40% before imposing a wage and price freeze? The same Nixon that cut bait in Vietnam too bad you defense contractors? That Nixon?

Yeah he sounds like a real shill for campaign donors. What a puppet.

/revisionist fools
 
2014-04-07 10:12:30 PM  

Destructor: whidbey: You can park it now, Destructor.


Hmm. I really don't want to irritate you (needlessly). But you seem angry in this thread. I'm just going to back away slowly now. :-)


Not even mad. Just been here a long time. I tend to shoot from the hip. Appy Polly Logies.
 
2014-04-07 10:37:47 PM  
img.fark.net
 
2014-04-07 11:10:27 PM  

d23: Even this guy thought that the Bush (2) administration was more corrupt than Nixon.


He also said -- and this is probably the most shocking thing he ever wrote -- that if if Humphrey got the nomination in 1972, he would vote for Richard Nixon.
 
2014-04-08 03:51:05 AM  
"If the right people had been in charge of Nixon's funeral, his casket would have been launched into one of those open-sewage canals that empty into the ocean just south of Los Angeles. He was a swine of a man and a jabbering dupe of a president. Nixon was so crooked that he needed servants to help him screw his pants on every morning. Even his funeral was illegal. He was queer in the deepest way. His body should have been burned in a trash bin".

-Hunter S. Thompson
 
2014-04-08 09:56:20 AM  

whistleridge: The idea of originalist arguments is just as silly when the left uses it as when the right does. Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist then, political parties were seen as a bad thing, and the unspoken code of gentlemanly behavior was that it simply wasn't 'done' to campaign.


We have Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to thank for political parties....and G. Washington hated the idea, he said political parties do nothing but divide people.

/got that from my 9yr old daughter's history book!
 
2014-04-08 10:20:50 AM  

ristst: whistleridge: The idea of originalist arguments is just as silly when the left uses it as when the right does. Multinational corporations as we know them didn't exist then, political parties were seen as a bad thing, and the unspoken code of gentlemanly behavior was that it simply wasn't 'done' to campaign.

We have Thomas Jefferson and James Madison to thank for political parties....and G. Washington hated the idea, he said political parties do nothing but divide people.

/got that from my 9yr old daughter's history book!


Did you happen to read the part where parties didn't develop until 8-10 years AFTER the Constitution was written?

After all, if we're going to refer to the halcyon days of yore and the intent of the framers, it should be confined to the actual framing and writing. What came after is what came after, be it 5, 50, or 225 years later.
 
2014-04-08 11:03:11 AM  

Destructor: Who have the Democrats been compromising with? Themselves? No, when they compromise, they compromise with the Republicans. You mean they don't get everything they want? Well, that's the way its supposed to work. Now, turn that around, and see it from the Republicans POV. They don't get everything they want either. That's politics.


Yes they only get "98% of what we wanted" which is a world away from "everything".
 
2014-04-08 11:07:08 AM  

RminusQ: Yes they only get "98% of what we wanted" which is a world away from "everything".


(That's good politics... for them...)
 
2014-04-08 11:32:15 AM  

whistleridge: Did you happen to read the part where parties didn't develop until 8-10 years AFTER the Constitution was written?After all, if we're going to refer to the halcyon days of yore and the intent of the framers, it should be confined to the actual framing and writing. What came after is what came after, be it 5, 50, or 225 years later.


No, because that detail was not mentioned in her textbook.  But please, feel free to contact the publisher and confirm your status of "historical douchebag" by raging at them that they omitted this critical detail from a 4th grade textbook.

The very nerve of those publishers...it's criminal I say.
 
2014-04-08 01:49:36 PM  
I know it's cool to pick on Roberts like he's the king moron of the court, but four others keep agreeing with him and 22 Senate Democrats nominated him. Whatever they got for that isn't looking so good now, is it?
 
2014-04-08 03:25:19 PM  
moothemagiccow: I know it's cool to pick on Roberts like he's the king moron of the court, but four others keep agreeing with him and 22 Senate Democratsconfirmed his nomination  nominated him. Whatever they got for that isn't looking so good now, is it?

FTFY
 
Displayed 155 of 155 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





Top Commented
Javascript is required to view headlines in widget.

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