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 155
    More: Obvious, Richard Nixon, U.S. Supreme Court, Nixon White House, corruption, Latin phrases, Nixonian, stand-up, Chief Justice John Roberts  
•       •       •

3279 clicks; posted to Politics » on 07 Apr 2014 at 12:13 PM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
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.
 
Displayed 50 of 155 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter





In Other Media


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

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

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

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report