|
Supreme Court overturns ban on direct corporate spending on elections
Quote:
:sad: This is the greatest loss on the front of responsible campaign finance in the history of the United States. Corporations are now free, should they choose, to directly finance their own campaigns for any candidate they so choose, meaning they now arguably have more control over who does or does not get elected than any individual. To paraphrase a famous quote, if you begin to feel an intense and crushing feeling of social and political terror at the concept, don't be alarmed; that indicates only that you're still sane. |
Unbelievable....
I suppose in theory I should agree as I don't think the govt should be telling us how we can spend our money but I simply can't agree with this. We need big money out of our election process plain and simple, if that makes me a hypocrite then I just don't care. Honestly with all the other infringements against our rights going on right now THIS winds up in front of the court and THIS gets overturned? Sometimes its hard to have any faith in my govt, it really is. Unbelievable. |
As a citizen of a country whose political contributions/donations cannot be financed by corporations, trade unions, associations and groups, and whose individual citizens are greatly limited in how much they can contribute, all I have to say is this: holy shit.
The power of influence has just gotten a shitload more powerful. Just when I thought the political process in the U.S. was circus-like enough.... |
i've spent the past hour or so trying to figure out what comes after plutocracy. oligarchy is contained within plutocracy...but what's next? back in the day it was Revolution.
what's astonishing to me about this is...well everything. i had a bad bad feeling when i read about this case being accepted. folk at the time were allowing themselves to speculate about this becoming a legal referendum on the notion of corporate personhood. and i suppose in a way it is, just not as those folk had expected or hoped. i would hope that there is a legislative response to this, some move to draft new law that redefines the game and removes some of the overwhelming power that the supreme court just handed the corporate oligarchy (as if they did not already have enough power in the context of the fading american empire)... criminy... |
The revolutionary types are under the spell of laissez-faire capitalism, roach. The NRA and Tea Party folks generally support the movement of power from the government to the market. I wouldn't necessarily say they'd call this a win, but their corporate masters might. They'd sooner turn their revolutionary impulses on the government which has effectively just been neutered.
Folks like you and me aren't necessarily built for revolution. President Obama posted this response on the White House website: Quote:
...but that seems like a bit of a joke considering the Democrats' lack of party unity as of late. Add to that the fact that anyone that wants to be reelected would be writing their own pink slip if they were to stand against corporate influence, and we've got a recipe for stagnation. A few Democrats will speak up, the Kuciniches and Graysons, but otherwise it will be foot dragging and apologism and blue-doggery. This is going to get a lot worse before there's even hope of it getting better. |
At least this puts to rest the whole notion that Kennedy et al are "strict constructionists." And why doesn't it surprise me that other "strict constructionists" are not up in arms about this?
|
A. Because constructionism is pretense for libertarianism and libertarianism is pretense for market worship.
|
Very simple solution. Find candidates that refuse the money and will work on a political finance amendment to end all this.
Or sit there and complain that this just basically put the nail in our coffin and elections truly won't matter because now everything is out in the open. Before they had to hide the money, now they'll just flaunt it. An amendment is the ONLY way to truly get political finance reform. |
So the individual citizens officially no longer count. Why even show up to the polling booth anymore?
|
Quote:
|
The biggest obstacle here is that it is a first amendment issue, essentially the decision says that the govt has no right to tell a corporation how they can and can't spend their money. In theory I agree, to do otherwise is a gross violation of the first. Aside from a constitutional amendment outlining the funding of elections (which would still theoretically violate the first) I don't really think there is any recourse here.
Its just a real shame that big oil (or any crop or group) can now spend billions of dollars on favorable advertisements for the candidate they like best while the opponent probably won't come remotely close to matching those funds. Unless of course they whore themselves out to another corporation by taking up their cause to get matching funds. Whats a candidates real concern going to be now? The average American gets overlooked enough in the election process as it is this is only going to make it a million times worse. The whole situation makes me sick. Debate 2012: Barack Obama takes the stage with a Toyaota Prius logo across the back of his jacket and a tie reading Microsoft, Sara Palin trots out on stage with Shell written across the back of her skirt and a huge button reading McDonalds "I'm loving it". In the end what was said really doesn't matter as all anybody cares about is getting enough time on camera to meet the contractual obligations of their ads. Sure its an exaggeration but after this ruling whats the difference? |
Quote:
What could happen is all the ad slots in the debate going to McDonalds and them using them to say "Wasn't Palin great there? We're loving her". In the UK, I don't know if it's law or convention, but companies do not directly advertise for or against politicians, but they are allowed to give money to parties for their own use. Personally, I'd like to see a rule that says in effect "only an entity which can vote is allowed to give money to or spend money on influencing the political process". Democracy is about the voter expressing their opinions, so lets make the funding of democracy relate only to the contributions of voters. |
Quote:
I absolutely love your solution and I think that would actually be a great way to handle it, if your legally allowed to vote in the US you can contribute if not then you can't spend a dime, I like that. if only the courts saw it that way huh? After my last post I got thinking about the issue a bit and I'm wondering how exactly is a "corporation" protected by the constitution anyway? Not allowing an individual to contribute would be a violation of his rights but how can intangible entity be guaranteed the same constitutional rights as a single person? I'd love to here the legal reasoning behind it because honestly I really don't understand it. |
There are really a very few definitions of myself that I find acceptable. Being a "person." is one of them. I must say, I feel downright diminished by this ruling. To even consider a corporate entity might somehow be construed as a "person" diminishes us all in a significant way, I think.
|
Quote:
|
But guys, Newt Gingrich said that this would be a boon to middle class candidates!!!! BOON!!!!! MIDDLE CLASSS!!!!!! Frankly, that's all I need to know.
---------- Post added at 09:39 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:20 AM ---------- Though to be fair, the US political system is pretty corrupt as is. I'm not sure this will do anything but make the corruption more overt. |
New Jersey's governor just signed a law that severely limits the amount of money that NJ unions can donate to political campaigns. Where is the Republican outrage over this egregious trampling of First Amendment Rights?
|
Collectivism strikes again. Funny how I don't see anybody bitching about the Unions suddenly having their advertising hands untied by this same decision; sauce for the goose but none for the gander, eh?
Equally funny how those of us who have repeatedly called for an end to Corporate Personhood from a Rightist perspective (because only individual human beings have Rights, including free speech and political agency) are now being cast as cheerleaders for this insane decision. Only when dealing with the Collectivist Left, in my observation, can vociferous support for the destruction of a thing (Corporate Personhood) be turned 180 degrees and absorbed, processed, and regurgitated as support -for- that thing. "You want to eliminate C.P. but you're an evil uncaring moronic tea-bagging Right-winger, so you want to -keep- C.P. because that's what evil uncaring moronic tea-bagging Right-wingers want!" The Collectivist Right has its' own similar problems, but only the C.L. seems so eager and able to take someone's actual positions and turn them inside out and upside down for the sake of scoring rhetorical brownie points. Some of y'all might want to take a closer look at the TEA Party protest signs; discounting the ones going after Obama and his Care, the single biggest target of these people's anger is the banks and auto companies who were bailed out by Bush and then Obama. Woah! Wait! But that's impossible! Everyone knows right-wing teabaggers worship banks! Yeah, and left-wingers want to force all the White women to have abortions to make room for more niggers. The first bolded statement operates on the same level of intellectual bankruptcy and moronic prejudice as the second. |
What in the blue hell are you going on about?
|
Quote:
But it's easy to get caught up on the topic of corporate personhood in this issue. We don't consider union personhood as much, no. |
Quote:
This: Quote:
Quote:
Market Distortion: Anything which impedes the free and voluntary exchange of goods and services. Collectivism: The ridiculous notion that groups, not (or in addition to) individuals, have Rights. Corporation: A group (ie a Collective), in this case commercial in nature, insanely recognised by the State as having Rights, these Rights being enforced by violence. This creates a Market Distortion (see above) by insulating the Corporation from Market forces such as boycott, strike, or simple sucky product that drives customers away. Lots of folks on the Right want Corporations gone every bit as much as folks on the Left do. However, because much of the Left is incapable of or unwilling to accept this fact, (see above quotes or anything by Kieth Olbermann, Ed Schultz, et al ad nauseum) they simply either refuse to acknowledge it or assign to such positions a meaning and purpose which is their exact opposite. This "Peace" becomes "war," "freedom" becomes "slavery," etc etc. |
Quote:
WE the people and corporations of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union... Quote:
|
Doesn't treating corporations as people essentially "double up" on people... making corporations some kind of gargantuan doppelganger chimera?
|
yeah well let's see. i think there's enough that's at the least problematic about this decision to occupy us without allowing things to degenerate into some strange passive-aggressive contest over whose political position dislikes corporate personhood more. it's a no-win situation. is there a stick or something that dislike runs up that we could point to after the tide goes out and say: see, my dislike of corporate personhood went to 11'3" while yours was a mere 11'...
i like this older blog entry about the case, which was one of a bunch that i read in the fall which were uneasy that this court decided to take on the case: Scholars and Rogues Campaign finance hearing may have ramifications for corporate personhood corporations are people. money is speech. i dunno..i think this is one of those moments that conservatives seem to put on every once in a while that starts out being one thing but soon turns into a kind of accidental theater, something on the order of the surrounding and sealing off of independence hall after 9/11/2001 in the name of protecting what it stood for. this is another. |
Quote:
Now, regarding the libertarian right and this case, I am sure you will point to yourself as an example of someone who disliked this ruling. And that is fair. But the point remains that the 5 members that voted for this ruling have consistently called themselves strict constitutionalists, have argued that they were so during their confirmation hearings, and have publicly supported the notion of a "strict constitutionalism." Furthermore, They were selected and confirmed by politicians and by a political movement that has as its overt theme the idea that the supreme court needs to return to a "strict constitutionalist" stance. So while you might be an exception, I think it is pretty fair to say that the justices themselves and the people who selected them are a significant chunk of the entire libertarian and strict constitutionalist movement. |
Baraka_Guru, yes. And to me, that includes unions as persons, as well. I'm stating that philosophical objection. It's the only point I'm making at this point.
|
Art, I'm now picturing two armies locked in unending battle to the death: one consisting of corporate doppelganger chimeras, the other of union doppelganger chimeras. They are, of course, no smaller than gargantuan. Take that as you will.
Epic. |
i dont object to unions being able to act politically in the same way that i object to corporations being able to.
first off, at this point the union movement is in disarray. there are some strong pockets and i hope to see more mobilization and new types of union action because without banding together working people are powerless against capital. conservatives just happen to like that state of affairs. but the reason i think the union-corporate entity equation false is as a matter which which types of interest each represents. unions represent a far greater cross-section of the material and personal interests of the working people who join them. corporations represent the interests of the holders of capital. there is a basic difference between them, which i think this little blurb makes clear. i see unions as being in themselves political organizations to the extent that the function to take power away from capital and transfer it to the rank-and-file. this despite the sector-monopoly model that the good ole afraid-of-the-reds us of a adopted after world war 2. so i think it is a basic capitulation to years of conservative propaganda to lump unions in with corporate persons. |
Baraka_Guru, yes.
And I don't see what is gained by granting those two armies, you describe, the legal status of persons. I do however, see very much is lost - in terms of the personhood of individuals - by that move. |
So corporations can make unlimited contributions but I can only contribute $2500 or whatever the limit is?
|
if unions were even 1/2 as powerful as people think they are, there wouldn't BE a Republican party
|
3 thoughts are in my mind as I read the discussion about this decision.
1) The freedom of speech shall not be infringed. This is a good thing, even though folks are whining about unlimited corporate interest money flooding election campaigns now. That can be addressed later. 2) right here and now is the perfect time to force the court to reconsider contracted corporate entities and having constitutional rights as a person woud, or not. If the courts would like to continue that absurd line of thinking, then lets amend the constitution in some way that removes 'personhood' from a corporate entity. 3) the claims about the 5 justices on the right, libertarianism, strict constructionist BS, and all the other ideological crap is just that. It's crap. Who runs this country? WE THE PEOPLE run this country. To those saying that the most money will now elect a candidate for office, answer why that is. When you come up with the right answer, work to change it. |
WE THE PEOPLE have not run this country in a long time
$$$ is the reason |
Quote:
|
The whole "strict constructionist" angle is not crap simply because it is a significant movement within constitutional law circles and this decision makes it clear that the "strict constructionist" position is also actively "legislating from the bench." This was a much more restricted case, and, as the dissenting opinion expressed, there was no need to invoke arguments regarding broad constitutional precedent that way. That is, Roberts et al went out of their way to broaden the scope of the lawsuit. And then they went an extra step in that direction by saying that corporations are entitled to those rights, and that donations are a matter of free speech.
|
Last I checked, the media is a corporation. Foxnews spent the entire election cycle heavily supporting McCain. CNN, MSNBC, HLN, NBC, ABC, CBS spent the entire cycle heavily supporting Obama. There was no constraint on their support because they operate under the guise of a free press. I am having a difficult time seeing how these corporations can have up-to-the-minute-of-the-election support of candidates, and all other corporations shouldn't be able.
Don't get me wrong, I don't want ANY corporations to give money directly to a candidate. I don't want them to use money to create an advertisement in support of a candidate. They should use that money to advance their businesses through the free market, rather than politics. However, the media corporations have such an advantage for whatever candidate/issue they support...well, you understand my point. I don't know the solution, I suppose I lament that we have lost our free press. |
I'm flabbergasted by this ruling. Completely appalled. When is one of these idiots going to die?
Following on that, why do we appoint justices to the SC for life? There's a reason our form of government was designed the way it was - to prevent one person or one family from keeping the people under their boots forever - but it doesn't seem to apply to the Supreme Court. Why is that? :confused: |
Quote:
Legislating from the bench started long before I was alive, so this is nothing new. Nearly everybody here likes to confuse the term 'judicial activism', applying it when they read a decision they don't agree with. It has a much simpler concept, but there aren't a whole lot of people willing to make that leap of truth. Quote:
---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
The goose in this case is the size of Godzilla and the gander the size of maybe an elephant. If Godzilla and an elephant were let loose on Tokyo, which would you be talking about? Be honest. If you really want to drag partisanship into this, answer me this: who appointed the 5 justices that voted for this and who appointed the 4 against? |
Quote:
|
Personally I don't like the practice of unions or any group for that matter making large contributions to political campaigns. But Will is right about this, corporations are going to be putting up significantly more money then the unions ever will and in turn are going to get the brunt of most peoples anger about this. Thats just the way it is.
|
I'm probably more pro-Union (or at least some sort of worker organization) than most, but even I understand the danger of organizations making political donations. I don't want corporations or unions funding elections, directly or indirectly.
I like the way Baraka presented Canadian rules: Quote:
Switching gears for a moment: I'm curious who else here has heard about a recent push for a new Constitutional amendment stating clearly that money is not speech and corporate entities are not individuals. I would certainly support such an amendment and it could be something even the most partisan members of the left and right could get together on. Other than corporate shills, of course. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
On the other hand I do believe money to some extent is free speech. We should have to right to spend our money on anything we want (within the law) and that includes using it to fund whatever group or movement we agree with. I think if you took away that right you'd run the risk of the govt dictating what is a legitimate cause and what isn't (among other things). For example could the govt cut off individual funding to some vile group like KKK? Or could a party in power cut off funding for the other party? Should they have the right to? I don't know maybe the stance is a little hypocritcal and some major point is going right over my head but I'd need a little convincing on the money as free speech issue. In the end I probably would support it with some provisions on protecting individual spending. |
Quote:
In fact, what people are talking about is a court decision that reversed earlier precedent. If the issue had been settled since 1886, that wouldn't have been the case, and the current decision wouldn't be notable. |
"I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our moneyed corporations, which dare already to challenge our government to a trial of strength and bid defiance to the laws of our country." Thomas Jefferson, 1812
|
This fantastic editorial was reprinted in my local paper this morning.
Quote:
|
I heard an interesting perspective from Ginsberg on the news. One of the biggest area's that is going to be affected by this is state judges where 80% of them are elected. This means corporations will be able to easily buy judges or force their hands by spending for or against them.
Corruption could become even more widespread than it is... |
I wonder when the last time the President criticized a Supreme Court decision to their faces in front of the nation was?
It doesn't sound like it should be allowed, and they now have to come up with "Election Reform" to make sure nothing underhanded happens. I wonder if the donors names are still public? I would think taking contributions from foreign businesses would be a problem for that person. |
Alito can die in a fire for all I care. He mouthed "Not true" as President Obama correctly accused the SCOTUS of opening the floodgates for special interests.
Justice Alito mouths 'not true' - POLITICO Live - POLITICO.com I can't believe there are still some people so naive that they think there's no partisanship on the bench. |
Alito and company can point to this being a "Freedom of Speech" issue all they want, but we all know that every Constitutional freedom has limits on it, and that not all of the amendments apply to corporations and unions.
Here's hoping for a new amendment that defines corporations (and their rights) more clearly |
That's unbelievable. Is Alito just stupid or naive? Does he honestly believe that nobody will take advantage and flood ungodly amounts of money into the election process? Or is he just trying to cover the collective sorry asses of himself and his cronies on the bench?
I as well hope somebody gets an amendment in the works quickly to fix this. |
I'd like to post a succinct little tidbit that outlines the difference caused by the outcome of this ruling.
[Again, I will state that I live in a country where only individuals can contribute funds to political parties, and a maximum of $1,100 annually at that. Also the governing body of communications (CRTC) restricts the purchasing of political advertisements to registered political parties, and they are limited to 6.5 hours each.] Today I read that before this ruling, "corporations and unions could run election-period ads only by setting up a political action committee, which can raise money only from employees or union members, each of whom face a $5,000 cap on annual contributions."* But now, both corporations and unions can spend directly from their own coffers...and at their discretion. I think this is an astounding difference, and it didn't really hit me until I read it this morning. *Obama, court at public odds on campaign spending - The Globe and Mail |
this is almost surreal. alot of people feel that this will permanently alter the foundation of our election system. Why is that?
are we at last brought to such mundane and ignorant status as to not be in control of our elections? If corporate corruption and influence determines who is elected, we the people are to blame for being too stupid to do anything different than listen to infomercials on who is the most popular candidate. Quote:
|
Quote:
I know I don't have millions of dollars to offset any gains that a corporation can contribute to a particular canidate. Do you honestly beleive that elected officials are going to propose legislation that thins their pockets? |
Quote:
What this means is that those with the most money to pay for advertising tend to be most influential in terms of getting their messages embedded in our minds whether we want it there or not, whether you agree with it or not. As an example, I would wager a guess that McDonald's and the Coca-Cola Company have had a far bigger impact on you than the corner mom-n-pop pizza place and the independent ice-cream shop next door. Much of that has to do with the weight of their messages, in addition to the reach, breadth, and frequency of their messages. This example is rather mundane because it involves food and drink, rather than political messages, but you get the idea. Our choices, no matter how free and empowered we may think they are, are greatly influenced by advertising, which has become highly sophisticated over the years to the point where it's become rather frightening, really. An adequately funded and planned advertising strategy can send ripples throughout the world, but its real impact operates under the radar. |
Your argument posits that advertisement, if done sufficiently well, removes or abridges free will and freedom of agency.
This is, politely, bullshit. I have a choice between McDonalds or my local diner; McDs advertises constantly on TV, radio, etc; Jerg's Patio has an ad in my local paper. Guess where I eat? Jerg's. The food's better, and everyone with half a brain in this town knows it. If the rest are so farmyard-turkey stupid that they let themselves be "suggested" into buying McDonalds, that's their own fault. They have a choice to be informed, to shop around and compare...they simply -choose- not to do so, for whatever their individual reasons might be. Maybe, for some inexplicable reason, they -prefer- McDonalds. Advertising is suggestions, not bloody hypnotism, and if somebody's too dumb to understand that and process the adverts they receive accordingly, they deserve whatever they get. They're also to stupid to be allowed anywhere near a polling place. |
The problem is that these people don't know that they're too stupid to be allowed anywhere near a polling place.
|
Quote:
Quote:
The only alternative is to find a way to block ads out completely. But even then, you still have family/peer pressure and social expectations/taboos. It's hard (impossible?) to escape it; you're more susceptible than you think. We all are. EDIT: I should add that I find it interesting that you guys think that intelligence (media intelligence or otherwise) is a factor as to whether one deserves to exercise their right to vote. |
Initially I thought this was a bunch of horseshit and just shouldn't be allowed.
But after a bit of time letting it sink in, I've come to the conclusion that it is still a bunch of horseshit.... BUT it should be allowed. With today's information at our fingertips it's easier to figure out who is the asshole in the equation. There's so much tracking and parsing going on that no company in their right mind will take advantage of it on it's face, but maybe try to do it via shell companies and other subterfuge. What the past decade has taught me is that there is no safety any longer in that method. If someone believes you are being a douche and hiding behind something, that someone will go through great pains to out you for being a douche. If that is a shell lobbying company, it will lead to someone. There is now ALWAYS a trail to follow. |
I think whats getting lost in the conversation here is how this will ultimately effect the overall quality of candidates running for office. Face time and getting your name out there are huge factors when you begin building a campaign and candidates will look to any means they can to achieve that.
What worries me about this ruling is it will cause candidates to begin wooing wealthy groups (more then they do now) to support them in the up coming race, which means building a platform around issues that appeal to the wealthy party in question and not the average American. Whats a candidates real aim going to be now? Whose interests are they going to take to heart? What issues are they going to spend the most time talking about? I don't think this will be the end of democracy as we know it but lets face it the average American is left out of the equation enough as it is, do we need to make it worse? |
Yes, it probably should (legally) be allowed. But a) SCOTUS made a broader ruling than was being presented in the case in question, and b) celebrating this as some sort of victory for freedom undermines the fact that corporate influence already trumped citizen influence, and now this influence will grow even stronger
|
here's the thing. congress shall make no law......
this restricts congress from making a law restricting the freedom of speech. it doesn't say 'except foreigners or foreign corporations. This means that, yes, Chavez could throw billion dollar ads out there advocating a socialist or communist candidate....if he so chose. Why? Because 'we the people' wrote the constitution, we the people formed the federal government, and we the people put restrictions on the federal government. Therefore, it is incumbent upon 'we the people' to be knowledgable about any and all candidates who are running for office to be our representatives. If we are going to be lazy enough to sit back and elect our representatives based on ads we see on television (which may be based on total and complete lies), then 'we the people' deserve exactly the totalitarian government we elect. |
So all rights outlined in the Bill of Rights are absolute? Congress shall make no law about any of them? Do tell
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Oy. The first amendment is written so that it presupposes the existence of freedom of speech - it does not grant that freedom. It says congress can't pass laws to abridge it. So you don't know whether the law Congress passed abridges the freedom until you've defined the scope of the freedom. This really isn't so hard, guys.
The decision held, basically, that people who set up entities to act for themselves don't thereby have constricted speech rights just because they use a corporate form. That applies to the Sierra Club, ACLU, UAW, etc etc etc. It doesn't apply to campaign contributions but only to political speech. Campaign contributions are a different story entirely. It seems to me that this decision should be more pro-NGO than pro-business (both of which tend to be organized in corporate form). Businesses have a lot of competing claims on their resources, and they'd have to choose between (for example) investing in new plants, new employee benefits, training, R&D or political speech. Which is likely to have a better long-term payoff? Hard to say, though it will vary from case to case. NGOs (and unions, too, though to a lesser extent) are by their nature single-purpose entities, created for the purpose of achieving certain policy objectives. They have far fewer competing claims on their attention. This decision really does free them up. That may or may not be a good thing for the republic, but it's far from necessarily being a pro-right-wing approach. I think people here are "into" politics and they assume that lots of other people are into it the same way they are. Not so. Business people tend to be more interested in their businesses than in politics, and usually want to be left alone. The business people I don't care for are the opportunists, who line up for government goodies as if they were on welfare. Bah. |
Loq, what's your take on Justice Alito's behavior at the State of the Union?
|
I think he's not used to having cameras on him. So it prob didn't occur to him that muttering under his breath about a misstatement of the decision in a case would be picked up on a camera and make national news. From what I know about Alito from people who know him, he is a total wonk, perfect gentleman and not devious in the least. This was not some political stunt because he just doesn't think that way.
My guess is that he either will be very sure not to move a muscle at future SOTUs or won't show because he doesn't want to have the camera on him. Tell me, you think Obama's behavior was appropriate - attacking them to their faces when he knows they can't respond - especially given his rather blatant misstatement of what that case was about? Or for that matter, Chuck Schumer and Harry Reid, sitting right behind the Justices and in effect razzing them, when they know damn well the Justices have no way to respond? From what I know of Ruth Ginsburg, she probably recoiled in distaste from that display by the President and his Senatorial sycophants, and my guess is that Breyer and Kennedy did, too. Obama did himself no favors with the Justices by behaving that way toward them in public. |
and yet they are supposed to be a neutral bench, uninfluenced by their political stances. In other words, Obama's behavior SHOULDN'T change a thing about how they rule on cases. Time will tell if this is true....
|
Quote:
I thought Obama's behavior was appropriate. I would like it if he called more folks out to their faces on national television. I would expect that anyone who could make it onto the Supreme Court could handle a bit of public criticism. |
Other than the fact that the case dealt with a 20 y.o, not 100 y.o precedent, and that it had nothing to do with contributions to candidates and nothing to do with foreign corporations - and the court's opinion specifically said it wasn't dealing with that - other than all that it was fine and fair summary. Geeez. Face it, Obama just flat out lied about that opinion because it suited his political convenience to do it and he knew that his cheering section would back him up no matter what he did.
Sup Ct justices aren't politicians. They're not there to be political punching bags. You don't insult judges to their faces on national television. And if you think it's ok just because you like the president and you disagree with the decision he was criticizing, I can't help you. Partisan politics makes smart people do and say stupid things. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
I'm sure after Justice Alito was sworn in, Justice Thomas sat him down and talked his ear off about this and that. I disagree with Justice Alito a lot, but I don't think him a fool. I think he either had a moment of ego or anger. By the way, there are a lot of very, very qualified people that don't seem to think President Obama made any misstatement about the ruling. We all know corporate personhood's been around for a century, but this ruling does change the way laws are interpreted, specifically when it comes to campaigning. You know that four Justices voted against the ruling, right? Did you read Justice John Paul Stevens 90-page dissent? If not, I highly recommend it (thought admittedly there was some of it I couldn't quite follow and I felt like the story arc didn't have a satisfactory conclusion). Quote:
Quote:
|
If you think politicizing judges is a good idea, I hope you never have a legal case in which you need a fair shake from a judge where the adversary is more poltiically attractive than you are.
Please, Filtherton, you're spouting politically partisan nonsense. Go read the flippin' case. And learn a little bit about stare decisis, when and how it applies and what the Sup Ct does. Even Linda Greenhouse of that famously rightwing newspaper the NY Times says Obama got it wrong. Sheesh. ---------- Post added at 04:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 03:53 AM ---------- Guys, as I said, partisan politics makes people say stupid things. Anyone with a shred of intellectual integrity will say that, at best, Obama "overstated" the holding. Please, I spent too many years in law school and practicing law to have to listen to this crap about how to read a case. Obama does know how to read a case, and he knew exactly what he was doing - he was tossing raw meat to his base at the expense of the Supreme Court, and he wasn't too particular about accuracy when he did it. Will, Alito at his hearings had cameras on him and knew it. He had no reason at the SOTU to think he'd be focused on when the Pres was speaking - he isn't a politician and is rarely in front of a camera. Just take that for what it was - Obama got it wrong, did it indecorously, and Alito muttered about it without realizing he'd be caught on camera. Why is this so hard to understand? Because it doesn't fit your preferred good guy/bad guy narrative? And Alito didn't even write that opinion, Kennedy did. It wasn't his work being shot at. You also might want to look at Ginsburg - her face was tightening during that applause, too. Believe me, Obama made no friends on the court that day, on either side of the 5-4 split. The justices are very solicitous of each other. |
Linda Greenhouse's opinion was much more nuanced than that.
Regarding politicization of the supreme court, it has been going on for years, and the fact that the 5 justices nominated by republicans are going out of their way to overturn precedent is just the most recent example. There is a reason each president has nominated justices that are younger and more partisan. That is an easier way to affect policy than constitutional amendments. |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
no, Will. The partisans are the people here, and they say stupid things because of partisanship.
You want me to spell this out? here it is. Stevens' position is "a corporation is a corporation is a corporation" - out for one purpose, out for all. So if one kind of corporate speech can be banned because of appearance of corruption that means every kind can be banned for the same reason. That is a very simplistic view, and the one you are advocating. The majority opinion is that, whether or not there are forms of corporate speech can be limited because of concerns about corruption - a question that was not at issue in the Citizens United case - it does not necessarily follow that simply by virtue of the fact that people are using the corporate form, that means every form of their speech can be regulated. One of the speech limitations Stevens is referring to go back to (IIRC) the Hatch Act cases, which forbade individuals who work for the govt from being active in politics on govt time. That's a free speech restriction on individuals, justified by the need to have a nonpolitical govt employee body. The corporate and union limitations (again, I'm going on memory) that he's talking about refer to restrictions on direct contributions to candidates, not on other kinds of expenditures such as "issue ads." So there was no 100 year settled law being upended - it just wasn't at stake in that case. In order to get to Obama's conclusion, you need to say that protecting one kind of corproate speech necessarily means removing all forms of regulation of all other kinds of corporate speech. That's nonsense. it just doesn't follow that everything has to always be treated alike even if there are differences. It's like arguing that every spousal notification law destroys Roe v Wade. Well, maybe it makes a good fundraising mailer for Planned Parenthood to say so, but it just ain't true. I'm not correcting Stevens, or Breyer or Ginsburg or Sotomayor. If you asked Stevens what the holding of Citizens United was, he woudl not tell you it looked anything like what Obama said. What he would say (and this is what his opinion says) is that it could be the first step toward what Obama said, and that's why it shouldn't be permitted. Big difference. |
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Reversed law? Present in both SotU and Dissent. Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
I like Obama, no secret there. But his comments regarding the issue were not all that smart IMHO. After doing a little reading on the case and the law I'm not sure he was even right. I didn't go to law school but it seems at best he's over reaching for political gain here. To do so in front of the justices, on national TV didn't impress me. To me it was one a few "low lights" in an otherwise very good SOTU address.
|
Quote:
the 'no right is absolute' is a bullshit ideologically driven theory supported by people that believe people can't be trusted with freedom, therefore they wish to have the ability to use 'reasonable regulation' of that freedom to make them feel safer. but we can't have slippery slopes, they don't exist except in our fantastical notions of nightmares. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
same with mentally deficient individuals. They get their hearings and evaluations, then if they are deemed mentally unstable or deficient, they get placed somewhere in the system where they can be treated to get better, or if they can't get better, then for their own safety they need to be kept there. It's not that difficult to understand. ---------- Post added at 09:03 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:01 AM ---------- Quote:
and just because the USSC allows restrictions on our rights for 'reasonable' beliefs does not mean that they are actually legitimate, despite the feelings of those who wish to be subservient to state authority. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
---------- Post added at 11:22 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:18 AM ---------- Quote:
|
Quote:
Sorry man but none of our rights are guaranteed or absolute. And the USSC does interprit the constitution, not just follow it's wording to the letter. Hence differing opinions from each of the justices. |
Quote:
Quote:
Let's be very clear, what you are saying is currently the way it happens to be now. That does not mean its according to the constitution, it's just blindly accepted by an ignorant populace. |
Quote:
This was upheld by the USSC. Further examples of limitations of your rights are you can't yell fire in a crowded theatre, or bomb on a plane. So again rights aren't absolute. |
And the last I checked, prison inmates no longer have the right to bear arms.
Maybe we aren't on the same page with regard to the meaning of absolute? I don't know, do they still have the right to bear arms? It's a right that shall not be infringed, right? Is it absolute or not? |
Quote:
Quote:
again, rights are absolute, otherwise constitutions mean absolutely nothing. ---------- Post added at 06:04 PM ---------- Previous post was at 06:02 PM ---------- Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
how about machine guns for 4 year olds? no due process there
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Yes you can yell fire in a theatre, but not if there isn't one. Nor bomb on a plane if there isn't one. Those are exceptions to free speech, negating the absolute part. The president can declare a state of martial. All of these fly in the face of absolute rights "guaranteed" by the constitution. And since the supreme court is the final legal authority, yes they are always correct, legally speaking. |
The best argument against the absolute right of free speech is defamation/libel. If i publish an article in the local newspaper in which I accuse John McCain of having a homosexual affair (and play it off as serious), they should have every right to legal recourse because I am using free speech as a weapon to attack someone in a way where there could be significant consequences.
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 08:12 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project