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

[Blackjack200]

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

So the appointment of a judge by a corrupt politician is not problematic?

 

[Atomic Playboy]

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

There are plenty of jurisdictions where judges are elected, either directly or through retention elections.

 

[cabri]

So the appointment of a judge by a corrupt politician is not problematic?

Appointed judges are by the state governor and/or the President.

Now if you want to claim that your governor is corrupted; then one can file an impeachment/repeal before re-election time as a voter

If you believe that the President can be bought enough to select a federal judge that also MUST be confirmed by the US Senate so be it.

 

[ivwshane]

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.

Are you implying constitutional rights have no restrictions? If you aren't then what's your point? If you are then you'd be wrong.

 

[ivwshane]

Appointed judges are by the state governor and/or the President.

Now if you want to claim that your governor is corrupted; then one can file an impeachment/repeal before re-election time as a voter

If you believe that the President can be bought enough to select a federal judge that also MUST be confirmed by the US Senate so be it.

Yeah, where charges can be brought up by those same corrupted officials? Where they will be tried in front of those same corrupted judges?

But in the mean time between elections, just suck it up until then, we'll let the new government fix the last governments fuck ups, that's ideal! /s

Lol ok.

 

[ivwshane]

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

Or the reasonable position and person might say that both positions are vital and benefit from a minimum of corruption.




Naw! That's too reasonable!

 

[BoberFett]

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.

Some of you do understand what lobbying is, do you not?

When you write a letter to your congressperson, you are lobbying them. Whether it's the Koch brothers giving campaign contributions or you buying a stamp to put on an envelope, you're still expending personal resources to sway your representative's opinion. The only difference is scale.

I just wanted to point that out the type of idiots who scream about how "lobbying is evil" or "lobbying is corrupt". Try to understand terms before you use them.

 

[Blackjack200]

Some of you do understand what lobbying is, do you not?

When you write a letter to your congressperson, you are lobbying them. Whether it's the Koch brothers giving campaign contributions or you buying a stamp to put on an envelope, you're still expending personal resources to sway your representative's opinion. The only difference is scale.

I just wanted to point that out the type of idiots who scream about how "lobbying is evil" or "lobbying is corrupt". Try to understand terms before you use them.

I am not against lobbying, I actually believe some amount of it is necessary, though I think it is almost always corrupting, and needs to be tightly controlled.

Now that I've said that, do you think that the amount of money that's currently being spent by private and special interests on political influence is a problem, or not?

 

[BoberFett]

I am not against lobbying, I actually believe some amount of it is necessary, though I think it is almost always corrupting, and needs to be tightly controlled.

Now that I've said that, do you think that the amount of money that's currently being spent by private and special interests on political influence is a problem, or not?

I was mostly responding to the knee-jerk nutters who know little more than parroting buzzwords that they don't understand.

If you want to argue about how much money flows into politics, go for it. Of course, you mentioned "private and special interests", which of course as you know includes groups like unions, environmental groups, and other darlings of the left. As long as you're against all special interests, at least I'd consider you consistent. Many people want to squash those evil lobbyists... except for the lobbyists they like. They're good people.

But of course since the US federal government has a budget measured in trillions of dollars, I'm not sure how you'll get the money out of politics. Politics *IS* money. If the government had a budget of $50, nobody would bother trying to control it. So I wish you the best of luck.

 

[Darwin333]

It's retarded to elect judges in the first place but I definitely agree with the decision. How can any judge who takes money from a lawyer to get his job possibly be impartial when that lawyer enters his courtroom? Didn't we have a thread here not long ago about a judge basically extorting a lawyer because the lawyer donated to his opponent who lost?

I agree we need to get money out of politics in general but just because the system is already fucked up doesn't mean we need to fuck it up even more.

 

[senseamp]

This just goes to show that Republicans on SCOTUS are out of their depth and playing with fire with no regard for the consequences. At least Roberts is concerned with his already tarnished reputation as the chief "justice" and is trying to limit the damage of his previous decisions, even if it means being inconsistent. The other four Republicans are fully committed to ignoring the corrupting influence of money, on both politicians and judges.

 

[senseamp]

The "expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption" statement by the Roberts court is going to be right up there with the "negro might justly and lawfully be reduced to slavery for his benefit" of Taney court as statements defining that court's stupidity.

 

[trenchfoot]

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

Isn't it freakishly coincidental that the conservatively biased USSC prefers to continuously rule for the small minority of very rich folks/big businesses rather than the overwhelming majority of middle class and poor folks?

I wonder how that ever came to be? (Yes, that was a sarcastically rhetorical question aimed at our resident ATPN members who favor the very rich).

However, as you had aptly described, it really isn't a matter of the majority conservative judges being biased towards conservative values. What really matters is that our conservative USSC judges are being biased towards the very rich and powerful. That the Repub ruled House and Senate also favors the rich and powerful makes a mockery of them championing conservative values when all of that bullshit rhetoric is only meant to get them votes.

That distinction should be made very clear when describing precisely who those "conservative" leaning judges are biased towards.

 

[Darwin333]

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

Just some people have a metric fuckton of said speech and the vast majority of other people have virtually no speech. Honestly I wished they would just go all in and remove all bribery laws so all that "speech" can get right to the point.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

Fearful thread

OMG!!!! Your CBD is showing!!!!

How big is your amygdala? Must be massive.

 

[BoberFett]

Is it considered corruption or a bribe when a politician buys votes by giving away money to specific groups? Why or why not?

 

[xBiffx]

There are plenty of jurisdictions where judges are elected, either directly or through retention elections.

A decision needs to be broad enough to cover all judges, elected or appointed.

 

[JSt0rm]

lol. When does a politician buy votes by giving money to a group?

 

[xBiffx]

lol. When does a politician buy votes by giving money to a group?

Are you serious?

 

[JSt0rm]

Are you serious?

yes. I get the connection he is trying to make but its incredibly jaded. The money flows to the politicians then they vote on laws that that money wanted. We need to get money out of politics.

I know the spooky poor people get free shit but its better then the french revolution style revolt.

 

[Darwin333]

Is it considered corruption or a bribe when a politician buys votes by giving away money to specific groups? Why or why not?

Wait, politicians give money to groups??? When did this start happening, its always been the other way around as far as I knew. How does one get into one of these groups that politicians are showering with cash?

 

[JSt0rm]

Wait, politicians give money to groups??? When did this start happening, its always been the other way around as far as I knew. How does one get into one of these groups that politicians are showering with cash?

He is talking about those evil democrats giving money to poor people Yeah I felt the same way.

 

[Jhhnn]

He is talking about those evil democrats giving money to poor people Yeah I felt the same way.

To feed their kids! The Horror!

If Dems are trying to buy votes with that, they're doing a piss poor job because poor people generally don't vote with near the regularity of more affluent Americans.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/01/voter-turnout-income_n_2790755.html

 

[senseamp]

OMG!!!! Your CBD is showing!!!!

How big is your amygdala? Must be massive.

LOL, from people who think/thought that national debt is a big threat to the country, or that voter fraud is a significant issue despite only handful of cases, that they need to carry a gun to be safe, that Saddam had WMDs, etc, that is just precious.

 

[Sonikku]

I wonder if super pacs/citizens united would be the law of the land today if Gore had been elected.