Roberts Court: Buying judges is bad, buying politicians still OK.

[senseamp]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/supreme-court-restrictions-judicial-fundraising-117474.html

Fine piece of logical Yoga by Roberts:

A State may assure its people that judges will apply the law without fear or favor — and without having personally asked anyone for money.

Politicians passing laws "out of fear or favor" of SuperPACs is still fine under Citizens United, but judges applying those laws for same reasons is somehow bad, according to Roberts. To be fair, the other 4 Republican "justices" are fine with money influencing both legislatures and judiciaries.

 

[PokerGuy]

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/04/supreme-court-restrictions-judicial-fundraising-117474.html

Fine piece of logical Yoga by Roberts:


Politicians passing laws "out of fear or favor" of SuperPACs is still fine under Citizens United, but judges applying those laws for same reasons is somehow bad, according to Roberts. To be fair, the other 4 Republican "justices" are fine with money influencing both legislatures and judiciaries.

Are you really that dumb that you can't understand a distinction between a politician legislator and someone bound to interpret the law (ie, a judge?). Nevermind, we know the answer to that question, the answer is "yes".

I disagree with the ruling, I think it's an undue restriction on the free speech rights of judges, but only an idiot such as yourself would fail to see the difference between politicians and judges.

 

[senseamp]

Are you really that dumb that you can't understand a distinction between a politician legislator and someone bound to interpret the law (ie, a judge?). Nevermind, we know the answer to that question, the answer is "yes".

I disagree with the ruling, I think it's an undue restriction on the free speech rights of judges, but only an idiot such as yourself would fail to see the difference between politicians and judges.

The difference being that politicians are not corruptible by SuperPAC money and judges are? Or that it's OK to corrupt politicians and not judges?

 

[cabri]

Is your issue against the judges or the politicians?

 

[Vdubchaos]

Are you really that dumb that you can't understand a distinction between a politician legislator and someone bound to interpret the law (ie, a judge?). Nevermind, we know the answer to that question, the answer is "yes".

I disagree with the ruling, I think it's an undue restriction on the free speech rights of judges, but only an idiot such as yourself would fail to see the difference between politicians and judges.

Think about what you are saying exactly....

You do realize that POLITICIANS are the ones that pass the laws right?

Lot of these laws shouldn't even be there to begin with.

And his point stands. Corruption is legal in USA aka "lobbying". And we are the only country do have this in place.

 

[glenn1]

The difference being that politicians are not corruptible by SuperPAC money and judges are? Or that it's OK to corrupt politicians and not judges?

Because the actions of legislators towards individuals are limited by Constitutional prohibitions on Bills of Attainder whereas judges don't face that same constraint by definition. BTW, the SCOTUS expressly rejected your "appearance of corruption" argument in Citizens United.

 

[Blackjack200]

And by "SCOTUS", you're referring narrowly to the Republic... err... "conservative" justices that outvoted the other four?

 

[senseamp]

Because the actions of legislators towards individuals are limited by Constitutional prohibitions on Bills of Attainder whereas judges don't face that same constraint by definition. BTW, the SCOTUS expressly rejected your "appearance of corruption" argument in Citizens United.

Yep, the Roberts Court Republicans rejected it for politicians in Citizens United, hence the mental gymnastics for him to accept it for judges. Trying to keep a lid on the Pandora's box of corruption he himself opened.

 

[cabri]

And by "SCOTUS", you're referring narrowly to the Republic... err... "conservative" justices that outvoted the other four?

Yep, the Roberts Court Republicans rejected it for politicians in Citizens United, hence the mental gymnastics for him to accept it for judges. Trying to keep a lid on the Pandora's box of corruption he himself opened.

\

So what you both want is a court that is political in your favor/ideals :whiste:

 

[glenn1]

And by "SCOTUS", you're referring narrowly to the Republic... err... "conservative" justices that outvoted the other four?

Sure, just like abortion was decided by a majority of progressive justices who outvoted the others on Roe v. Wade - that's how the SCOTUS works. The entire premise of outlawing corporate speech is stupid to begin with - even before Citizens United a company could run an ad saying "call Senator Blowhard and tell him to vote against _____" and now they can tack on the end of that ".... and vote against him also." If you think that's endangering the republic then you really have serious issues.

 

[thraashman]

Why does it not surprised me that glenn1 and PokerGuy, two of P&Ns more conservative posters, both support corporations purchasing our politicians. It's like they looked up the term "fascism" and said "THAT. That's what I want! Gimme some of that!"

 

[xBiffx]

Where does one contribute to a judge's election campaign when they are appointed?

 

[JSt0rm]

\

So what you both want is a court that is political in your favor/ideals :whiste:

Cant people be against corruption or is that a new wedge issue to keep everyone separated?

 

[dank69]

Why does it not surprised me that glenn1 and PokerGuy, two of P&Ns more conservative posters, both support corporations purchasing our politicians. It's like they looked up the term "fascism" and said "THAT. That's what I want! Gimme some of that!"

They want rich people to have more free speech than the poors.

 

[Blackjack200]

Yep, the Roberts Court Republicans rejected it for politicians in Citizens United, hence the mental gymnastics for him to accept it for judges. Trying to keep a lid on the Pandora's box of corruption he himself opened.

Why does CJ Roberts hate free speech?

\

So what you both want is a court that is political in your favor/ideals :whiste:

Yes, I want a court that is partial to civil rights for women, gay people, and everyone for that matter, and that doesn't permit too much monied influence in government. I'm disappointed that the majority of the bench is so cynical.

Sure, just like abortion was decided by a majority of progressive justices who outvoted the others on Roe v. Wade - that's how the SCOTUS works. The entire premise of outlawing corporate speech is stupid to begin with - even before Citizens United a company could run an ad saying "call Senator Blowhard and tell him to vote against _____" and now they can tack on the end of that ".... and vote against him also." If you think that's endangering the republic then you really have serious issues.

There have been some pretty good analyses presented on the impact of CU and the amount of money that has poured into to the process since. If you don't think that has a negative impact on our ability to govern ourselves fairly, you're sticking your head in the sand.

 

[glenn1]

They want rich people to have more free speech than the poors.

Also addressed in Citizens United: "There is no such thing as too much speech."

 

[Blackjack200]

Where does one contribute to a judge's election campaign when they are appointed?

Behind the bench. It's speech. You're saying "hey judge, here's some money. My bro is on corruption charges, make sure that blindfold isn't too tight."

1st amendment.

 

[Blackjack200]

Also addressed in Citizens United: "There is no such thing as too much speech."

Totally agree, and money is speech. You should be able to speak to the judge just as much as you would like.

Also, police officers that pull you over.

 

[xBiffx]

Behind the bench. It's speech. You're saying "hey judge, here's some money. My bro is on corruption charges, make sure that blindfold isn't too tight."

1st amendment.

Pretty sure that's not what this ruling said...but troll on brotha, troll on.

 

[Jhhnn]

They want rich people to have more free speech than the poors.

Anybody can have all the free speech they can pay for!

Under the current system, they don't even have to put their name on it. They can pay whack-a-doodle Teatards to say anything, pretend it's "grass roots". Really. Honest. Scout's honor.

 

[Jhhnn]

Also addressed in Citizens United: "There is no such thing as too much speech."

Please. The conservative majority reached well beyond the original issues of the case to open the floodgates for money in politics.

I happen to agree with Roberts in this instance. I'd like to see such prohibition wrt other elected officers of the court, like district attorneys. If the DA won't prosecute the judge doesn't matter.

Or maybe he just figures that the real power lies in the appointed federal judiciary. If you can buy the politicians who appoint the judges you'll get what you want anyway & appearances of propriety in the judiciary can be better maintained.

 

[ivwshane]

Pretty sure that's not what this ruling said...but troll on brotha, troll on.

You don't seem to understand the premise of this thread.

First off, not all judges are appointed.

Second, Roberts voted in favor for CU saying money is speech and doesn't corrupt. Roberts is now voting against "money is speech" citing that people should be able to trust that a judges deciscion hasn't been influenced by money.

It's a 180 from the citizens united deciscion.

 

[senseamp]

Here's what the Republicans on SCOTUS believe, verbatim from Citizens United:
"this Court now concludes that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. That speakers may have influence over or access to elected officials does not mean that those officials are corrupt. And the appearance of influence or access will not cause the electorate to lose faith in this democracy."
Yep, Republicans actually believe this crap.

 

[cabri]

You don't seem to understand the premise of this thread.

First off, not all judges are appointed.

Second, Roberts voted in favor for CU saying money is speech and doesn't corrupt. Roberts is now voting against "money is speech" citing that people should be able to trust that a judges deciscion hasn't been influenced by money.

It's a 180 from the citizens united deciscion.

Judges decision would seem to be more vital than the selection of a politician

 

[glenn1]

You don't seem to understand the premise of this thread.

First off, not all judges are appointed.

Second, Roberts voted in favor for CU saying money is speech and doesn't corrupt. Roberts is now voting against "money is speech" citing that people should be able to trust that a judges deciscion hasn't been influenced by money.

It's a 180 from the citizens united deciscion.

Yes it's inconsistent and he should have ruled against it for the same reasons. What's your point since you disagree with him in any event? I don't remember you urging him to stick to his principles when he changed his mind to rule Obamacare penalties were a tax when Obama had clearly said they weren't.

At this point every corporation should just open a news branch and use that to advertise whatever the fuck they want since that seems the only way you'll understand what the clear words "free speech" mean.