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

[PokerGuy]

So money isn't free speech then is it? The right to free speech doesn't cost a dime, the ability to be heard though, that costs a pretty penny but as you now admit, there is no right to be heard.

Therefor money doesn't equal free speech. I'm glad you finally came around

Nobody said that money equals free speech, another strawman. It is, however, inextricably intertwined. Dissemination of speech may or may not cost money, and it's up to each person if they want to spend their money to do so. Preventing them from doing that is effectively taking away their free speech.

Also, for the umpteenth time, nobody (certainly not me) has argued that anyone has the right to be heard. Another strawman.

 

[ivwshane]

Yes, you quoted me, but note that your quote didn't show what you said I posted -- because I didn't post any such thing. It's you making up something and trying to pretend that's what I posted.

There is a difference between a "right to have your speech heard" (which does not exist) versus a right to free speech which includes spending your own money to disseminate your speech. Completely different concepts.

There is no such right in the constitution to spend your own money to disseminate your speech.
You keep changing the terms you are using but you are simply saying the same thing and you are wrong. Just because the two are linked doesn't mean they are both guaranteed.
Just like you have the right to bear arms doesn't mean you have the right to buy whatever weapon you want nor does it mean you have the right to use the weapons however you want.
According to your "logic", money equals the right to bear arms since in most scenarios you need money to buy arms, therefore any restrictions on how you use that money to buy arms is unconstitutional. Of course you know as well as I do that that is incorrect, there are indeed, restrictions.

 

[ivwshane]

Nobody said that money equals free speech, another strawman. It is, however, inextricably intertwined. Dissemination of speech may or may not cost money, and it's up to each person if they want to spend their money to do so. Preventing them from doing that is effectively taking away their free speech.

Also, for the umpteenth time, nobody (certainly not me) has argued that anyone has the right to be heard. Another strawman.

Actually the Supreme Court through CU said money equals free speech, it's the whole point of this thread!

Again, there are no guaranteed rights on how you can spend your money, therefor, limiting how one can spend their money on elections is not a violation of free speech, since as you just noted, people are still allowed to voice their opinions regardless.

Again, I thank you for coming around and seeing the light; money does not equal free speech.

 

[cabri]

Actually the Supreme Court through CU said money equals free speech, it's the whole point of this thread!

Again, there are no guaranteed rights on how you can spend your money, therefor, limiting how one can spend their money on elections is not a violation of free speech, since as you just noted, people are still allowed to voice their opinions regardless.

Again, I thank you for coming around and seeing the light; money does not equal free speech.

PokerGuy was not saying that money equals free speech. He was stating though that they are intertwined.

 

[PokerGuy]

Actually the Supreme Court through CU said money equals free speech, it's the whole point of this thread!

Can you link to the actual language where the court said that? I don't remember reading that in the opinion anywhere. Don't tell me some drivel interpretation, show me where the court actually said that money equals free speech.

Again, there are no guaranteed rights on how you can spend your money, therefor, limiting how one can spend their money on elections is not a violation of free speech

The SCOTUS (and logic) disagree with you. If you follow your logic nobody has any rights, they can just restrict your ability to exercise your rights at any time.

Again, I thank you for coming around and seeing the light; money does not equal free speech.

Again, you are attacking a strawman. Money in and of itself doesn't equal free speech. However, restrictions on how money is spent can definitely amount to restrictions on free speech. The two are intertwined.

 

[senseamp]

This court seems to think that SuperPAC money doesn't corrupt. Even wrote that in CU.

 

[PokerGuy]

This court seems to think that SuperPAC money doesn't corrupt. Even wrote that in CU.

... and they are correct, in the sense that superpac money doesn't create any more corruption than is going to be there anyway. As much as some of the naive fools would like to believe it, there is no way -- nor will there ever be a way -- to make it such that people with a lot of money/fame won't have disproportionately more influence than others.

 

[fskimospy]

... and they are correct, in the sense that superpac money doesn't create any more corruption than is going to be there anyway.

You keep saying that, but as I mentioned before it's hard to see any evidence for how it's true. The only way that would be the case is if for a given level of government size/GDP corruption was identical regardless of how a government was structured.

Studies regarding different levels of corruption around the world seem to directly disprove this, so I'm wondering why you think it's the case?

 

[senseamp]

... and they are correct, in the sense that superpac money doesn't create any more corruption than is going to be there anyway. As much as some of the naive fools would like to believe it, there is no way -- nor will there ever be a way -- to make it such that people with a lot of money/fame won't have disproportionately more influence than others.

Do X for me or my SuperPAC will spend $Y,000,000 to attack your opponent.
Don't do X for me and my SuperPAC will spend $Y,000,000 to attack you.
No corruption at all.

 

[Jhhnn]

... and they are correct, in the sense that superpac money doesn't create any more corruption than is going to be there anyway. As much as some of the naive fools would like to believe it, there is no way -- nor will there ever be a way -- to make it such that people with a lot of money/fame won't have disproportionately more influence than others.

I'm not sure that's true at all. As we saw with the so-called IRS scandal over 501(c)4 funding, big money corruption doesn't want to participate unless they're anonymous.

They have created elaborate mechanisms to serve that purpose-

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...7cfd9a-719b-11e3-9389-09ef9944065e_story.html

I'd settle for all the money in politics being traceable to its source. Even Righties, I suspect, would be appalled at how much of their team's funding comes from only a few sources.

 

[JEDIYoda]

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.

Robert`s didn`t say that.............

 

[glenn1]

Again, I thank you for coming around and seeing the light; money does not equal free speech.

If you believe that money doesn't equal speech when it comes to political donations, let's apply it to other areas. Let's limit the amount of money you can spend on your lawyer for criminal defense, after all since the attorney is speaking on your behalf. Therefore using your same logic we should have the right to put a cap on how much you can spend on attorney fees since it won't limit your speech at all as you still have the "right" to speech.

 

[BoberFett]

Writing letters to your congressperson should henceforth be illegal, because it costs money to buy a stamp, and in allowing you to write a letter, you are disenfranchising those who can't afford stamps.

One person, one vote. Not $0.49, 49 votes.

 

[Jhhnn]

If you believe that money doesn't equal speech when it comes to political donations, let's apply it to other areas. Let's limit the amount of money you can spend on your lawyer for criminal defense, after all since the attorney is speaking on your behalf. Therefore using your same logic we should have the right to put a cap on how much you can spend on attorney fees since it won't limit your speech at all as you still have the "right" to speech.

You're so silly. Most defendants end up with a Public Defender. You obviously have no idea how much it costs to mount a credible defense in a criminal case.

Which is a bullshit analogy anyway, because your lawyer is on record as acting in your behalf. That's not true wrt money in politics at all.

I think that Roberts is just trying to hold the elected judiciary to higher standards than he does wrt politicians so he sides with the "Liberals" on the court in this instance. They'd just as obviously like to hold politicians to those same higher standards but corruption in politics is a long standing conservative "value", one they cherish. His usual comrades in arms would obviously extend those same principles to the elected judiciary, as well.

 

[JSt0rm]

Writing letters to your congressperson should henceforth be illegal, because it costs money to buy a stamp, and in allowing you to write a letter, you are disenfranchising those who can't afford stamps.

One person, one vote. Not $0.49, 49 votes.

Your schtick is old and tired dude.

 

[BoberFett]

Your schtick is old and tired dude.

Cry more, bitch.

As long I have to listen to every left wing fucktard spout off their stupidity constantly, then you'll get no quarter from me.

 

[BoberFett]

You're so silly. Most defendants end up with a Public Defender. You obviously have no idea how much it costs to mount a credible defense in a criminal case.

Which is a bullshit analogy anyway, because your lawyer is on record as acting in your behalf. That's not true wrt money in politics at all.

I think that Roberts is just trying to hold the elected judiciary to higher standards than he does wrt politicians so he sides with the "Liberals" on the court in this instance. They'd just as obviously like to hold politicians to those same higher standards but corruption in politics is a long standing conservative "value", one they cherish. His usual comrades in arms would obviously extend those same principles to the elected judiciary, as well.

LOL, Democrats. You actually believe everything about government you read? No wonder you're a Democrat, you've never been on the sharp end of the government stick.

Having personally been fucked over by the government myself, even though I had essentially $0 to my name, but the judge decided I had the means to hire an attorney, I was denied counsel. Had to represent myself.

Want to know why I hate government, and by extension, hate fuckers like you that spend every waking moment of your pointless existence cheerleading for more government? It's because I've actually dealt with government, and it made me despise it more than the worst corporation ever could.

 

[fskimospy]

LOL, Democrats. You actually believe everything about government you read? No wonder you're a Democrat, you've never been on the sharp end of the government stick.

Having personally been fucked over by the government myself, even though I had essentially $0 to my name, but the judge decided I had the means to hire an attorney, I was denied counsel. Had to represent myself.

Want to know why I hate government, and by extension, hate fuckers like you that spend every waking moment of your pointless existence cheerleading for more government? It's because I've actually dealt with government, and it made me despise it more than the worst corporation ever could.

So you're complaining about your lack of government handout?

LOL conservatives.

 

[ivwshane]

Sounds like a personal issue to me bober, one that has clouded your thinking. If someone, say a sandy hook resident, used your rational, surely you'd be right there with them! Right? No? Then perhaps you should excuse yourself from the debate

LOL, Democrats. You actually believe everything about government you read? No wonder you're a Democrat, you've never been on the sharp end of the government stick.

Having personally been fucked over by the government myself, even though I had essentially $0 to my name, but the judge decided I had the means to hire an attorney, I was denied counsel. Had to represent myself.

Want to know why I hate government, and by extension, hate fuckers like you that spend every waking moment of your pointless existence cheerleading for more government? It's because I've actually dealt with government, and it made me despise it more than the worst corporation ever could.

 

[glenn1]

Sounds like a personal issue to me bober, one that has clouded your thinking. If someone, say a sandy hook resident, used your rational, surely you'd be right there with them! Right? No? Then perhaps you should excuse yourself from the debate

Unsure what this random assortment of words even means. But getting back to the subject, I remain completely baffled why the left wants to give complete and unfettered power to one group of the wealthy (the politicians) to have spend money as they see fit, and completely restrict how other wealthy people (non-politicians or not-yet politicians) can spend theirs. They're the same people for the most part (see John Corzine among many others) who fuck over the poor the exact same way if they're in office or not. If anything you should support higher restrictions on the actual politicians since they're the ones with access to and spending taxpayer money.

 

[dank69]

Unsure what this random assortment of words even means. But getting back to the subject, I remain completely baffled why the left wants to give complete and unfettered power to one group of the wealthy (the politicians) to have spend money as they see fit, and completely restrict how other wealthy people (non-politicians or not-yet politicians) can spend theirs. They're the same people for the most part (see John Corzine among many others) who fuck over the poor the exact same way if they're in office or not. If anything you should support higher restrictions on the actual politicians since they're the ones with access to and spending taxpayer money.

You're probably confused because libs don't actually want to limit how people spend money except for not letting them throw money directly at specific politicians.

 

[glenn1]

You're probably confused because libs don't actually want to limit how people spend money except for not letting them throw money directly at specific politicians.

Then advocate to make it completely illegal in any amount. At least that's consistent, logical, and fair even though I'd still think you were treating the symptom rather than the actual problem. If nothing else if you truly believe what you say about "money != free speech" then you could advocate for something useful like banning all political advertising which would make all these donation issues moot.

 

[Jhhnn]

So you're complaining about your lack of government handout?

LOL conservatives.

He can't possibly appreciate that.

It's the kind of thing that passes for reason in conservative circles all the time.

 

[Jhhnn]

Unsure what this random assortment of words even means. But getting back to the subject, I remain completely baffled why the left wants to give complete and unfettered power to one group of the wealthy (the politicians) to have spend money as they see fit, and completely restrict how other wealthy people (non-politicians or not-yet politicians) can spend theirs. They're the same people for the most part (see John Corzine among many others) who fuck over the poor the exact same way if they're in office or not. If anything you should support higher restrictions on the actual politicians since they're the ones with access to and spending taxpayer money.

Please. Politicians are generally of the 1%, but the big money in politics comes from the .01%.

The difference between the two groups is greater than the difference between median families and those at the entry level to the 1%.

The rest? Obfuscational bullshit.

 

[fskimospy]

He can't possibly appreciate that.

It's the kind of thing that passes for reason in conservative circles all the time.

You would think that he would be happy that government wasn't wasting more money on giving free stuff to poor people. We spend enough money on handouts as it is!