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

[BoberFett]

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.

Both of you fuckers can put a red-hot, rusty poker up your asses and start twisting, you pieces of shit.

Had government not been the overbearing monster it is, I wouldn't have had any legal troubles to begin with. So government put me in the unfair position I was in, then told me "Too bad so sad, our team of attorneys and bureaucrats is here to fuck you."

That's not a handout, that's not wanting to be abused by the "democratically elected" government that supposedly represents me as a citizen. If that's your idea of government, then you're goddam right I'm against government in principle.

 

[BoberFett]

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!

So you're happy about the money it wasted coming after me?

LOL, Democrats.

 

[glenn1]

So you're happy about the money it wasted coming after me?

LOL, Democrats.

It all depends, they need to know if you're a "little guy" first before they can make decisions like that.

 

[fskimospy]

Both of you fuckers can put a red-hot, rusty poker up your asses and start twisting, you pieces of shit.

Had government not been the overbearing monster it is, I wouldn't have had any legal troubles to begin with. So government put me in the unfair position I was in, then told me "Too bad so sad, our team of attorneys and bureaucrats is here to fuck you."

That's not a handout, that's not wanting to be abused by the "democratically elected" government that supposedly represents me as a citizen. If that's your idea of government, then you're goddam right I'm against government in principle.

Hey, don't get mad at me for pointing out that you're a hypocrite. I'm just the messenger. It doesn't matter to me what intellectual contortions you have to go through in order to convince yourself that demanding free legal services paid for by the rest of us somehow isn't a handout.

You're just like so many other conservatives. You talk a big game about how people shouldn't get handouts, about self reliance, etc. All until you want a handout, then your circumstances were special and there is a good reason why you're entitled to free stuff.

Seems like you don't have much room to laugh at anyone.

 

[fskimospy]

So you're happy about the money it wasted coming after me?

LOL, Democrats.

I don't know the details so I have no feelings either way.

I will admit to being amused at how completely it exposed you for a hypocrite though.

Lol boberfett.

 

[lopri]

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".

The OP is only as dumb as the dissenters (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alitio) by your account.

 

[PokerGuy]

The OP is only as dumb as the dissenters (Scalia, Thomas, Kennedy, and Alitio) by your account.

Actually, the dissenters have their own reasons for dissent, but they are not the dumb reasoning used by OP. That's not what their dissent says at all, regardless of whether you like the ruling itself or not.

 

[PokerGuy]

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.

Of course government structure can change how corruption takes place. First, though, you have to determine what exactly you call corruption and how you measure it. Corruption in the sense of "I give you x, you vote for y or issue permit z" is straight forward. Things get a lot more complicated and more difficult to measure from there. I'm not convinced that in the grand scheme "money influence on government" is any different. Direct quid pro quo corruption might vary depending on the system, but not the overall influence of wealth. Remember the golden rule? He who has the gold, rules. That's irrespective of the setup and any restrictions in place on donations and all that jazz.

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?

Direct corruption, quid pro quo etc, sure. If that's the only thing you consider "corruption", then yes, the levels vary quite a bit. A cop in mexico wants a $20 to let you off the hook, but that's not normally how it works in a place like Germany.... so clearly less corruption.... but not less overall influence of big money on governance, and that's really what we're talking about.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course government structure can change how corruption takes place. First, though, you have to determine what exactly you call corruption and how you measure it. Corruption in the sense of "I give you x, you vote for y or issue permit z" is straight forward. Things get a lot more complicated and more difficult to measure from there. I'm not convinced that in the grand scheme "money influence on government" is any different. Direct quid pro quo corruption might vary depending on the system, but not the overall influence of wealth. Remember the golden rule? He who has the gold, rules. That's irrespective of the setup and any restrictions in place on donations and all that jazz.

Direct corruption, quid pro quo etc, sure. If that's the only thing you consider "corruption", then yes, the levels vary quite a bit. A cop in mexico wants a $20 to let you off the hook, but that's not normally how it works in a place like Germany.... so clearly less corruption.... but not less overall influence of big money on governance, and that's really what we're talking about.

That's not how it's measured. Here's one example of a way to quantify corruption:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_index

Again, I've never seen any empirical evidence that would argue that corruption stays constant regardless of government structure. If anything I've seen mountains that say the opposite. I mean by your argument the amount of corrupt influence that exists in Denmark is overall the same as the amount in North Korea, just expressed differently. Do you really believe that?

What basis do you have for saying this?

 

[PokerGuy]

That's not how it's measured. Here's one example of a way to quantify corruption:

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_index

That's another example of a very limited view of "corruption", they take it to mean misuse of public power for private benefit. Certainly by that measure, the structure and regulations have a major impact on the measured levels.

What I'm referring to is much broader than that. An example might help clarify. Lets say for arguments sake that religious groups all of a sudden have orders of magnitude more money than they do today, and they pour billions into ads and campaigns to get pro-life candidates elected, and those candidates turn around and pass very strict pro-life legislation that bans abortions, even though 65%+ of the population supports abortion in some form or another. This influence would not be considered "corruption" based on the definition of transparency international... but I'd argue such an occurrence would shows a disproportionate influence of wealth on governance.

That kind of influence purchased by wealth/power/celebrity will happen regardless of structure. If the media picks up a subject and pushes a narrative heavily (as we often see), they can drive that issue into the limelight and force politicians to take whatever side they want. Again, disproportionate influence, but not something I think you can (or even would want to) eliminate.

I mean by your argument the amount of corrupt influence that exists in Denmark is overall the same as the amount in North Korea, just expressed differently. Do you really believe that?

No, obviously there are some limitations to what comparisons make sense. In an absolute dictatorship you're likely going to have lots of direct corruption (having to bribe an official to get a permit etc), but overall influence of wealth is going to be skewed because one person (or small group) controls all the wealth and power anyway and the public has no say so there's very little to be influenced.

 

[fskimospy]

That's another example of a very limited view of "corruption", they take it to mean misuse of public power for private benefit. Certainly by that measure, the structure and regulations have a major impact on the measured levels.

What I'm referring to is much broader than that. An example might help clarify. Lets say for arguments sake that religious groups all of a sudden have orders of magnitude more money than they do today, and they pour billions into ads and campaigns to get pro-life candidates elected, and those candidates turn around and pass very strict pro-life legislation that bans abortions, even though 65%+ of the population supports abortion in some form or another. This influence would not be considered "corruption" based on the definition of transparency international... but I'd argue such an occurrence would shows a disproportionate influence of wealth on governance.

That kind of influence purchased by wealth/power/celebrity will happen regardless of structure. If the media picks up a subject and pushes a narrative heavily (as we often see), they can drive that issue into the limelight and force politicians to take whatever side they want. Again, disproportionate influence, but not something I think you can (or even would want to) eliminate.

No, obviously there are some limitations to what comparisons make sense. In an absolute dictatorship you're likely going to have lots of direct corruption (having to bribe an official to get a permit etc), but overall influence of wealth is going to be skewed because one person (or small group) controls all the wealth and power anyway and the public has no say so there's very little to be influenced.

Excessive regulations tend to indicate that people with power and influence are unduly influencing government and it's one of the measures in the index of corruption, so that's actually accounted for to a certain extent.

I just don't buy the idea that the wealthy exert the same influence regardless of where you are. Even if you discount extreme examples like North Korea, it's clearly far better to be a wealthy person in some countries than others. That doesn't mean that wealthy people don't exert more influence than no matter where you go, but the amount of additional influence they wield varies considerably.

That gets to the heart of the discussion: it isn't a question of "can we eliminate the additional influence?" (I agree, no solution that would do that would be something we want to do) The questions are:

1. Is the amount of additional influence the wealthy have here a bad thing at its current extent? I think yes.

2. Can we do things to change that? I think yes, as shown by other developed countries.

 

[Jhhnn]

That's another example of a very limited view of "corruption", they take it to mean misuse of public power for private benefit. Certainly by that measure, the structure and regulations have a major impact on the measured levels.

What I'm referring to is much broader than that. An example might help clarify. Lets say for arguments sake that religious groups all of a sudden have orders of magnitude more money than they do today, and they pour billions into ads and campaigns to get pro-life candidates elected, and those candidates turn around and pass very strict pro-life legislation that bans abortions, even though 65%+ of the population supports abortion in some form or another. This influence would not be considered "corruption" based on the definition of transparency international... but I'd argue such an occurrence would shows a disproportionate influence of wealth on governance.

That kind of influence purchased by wealth/power/celebrity will happen regardless of structure. If the media picks up a subject and pushes a narrative heavily (as we often see), they can drive that issue into the limelight and force politicians to take whatever side they want. Again, disproportionate influence, but not something I think you can (or even would want to) eliminate.



No, obviously there are some limitations to what comparisons make sense. In an absolute dictatorship you're likely going to have lots of direct corruption (having to bribe an official to get a permit etc), but overall influence of wealth is going to be skewed because one person (or small group) controls all the wealth and power anyway and the public has no say so there's very little to be influenced.

A great deal of the influence in American politics depends on anonymity of financial support, on giving false impressions of who's paying for what. If every political ad had to include something like "Go to www.rightwingbillionaires.com for a complete & open accounting of this group's finances" it would change the face of politics forever.

A lot of influential believers wouldn't be nearly so adamant in their faith if they weren't able to conceal the financial underpinnings of belief.

 

[PokerGuy]

That doesn't mean that wealthy people don't exert more influence than no matter where you go, but the amount of additional influence they wield varies considerably.

Perhaps, but I think that's more a function of the society / norms than it is any kind of regulation or restrictions on donations. I simply don't see those kinds of restrictions as anything even remotely effective or useful in achieving the supposed goals.

That gets to the heart of the discussion: it isn't a question of "can we eliminate the additional influence?" (I agree, no solution that would do that would be something we want to do) The questions are:

1. Is the amount of additional influence the wealthy have here a bad thing at its current extent? I think yes.

2. Can we do things to change that? I think yes, as shown by other developed countries.

Most can probably agree with #1, but I disagree that the answer to #2 is "yes", I think it's "realistically, no, unless you are willing to trample on certain freedoms like some other countries are willing to do".

 

[PokerGuy]

A great deal of the influence in American politics depends on anonymity of financial support, on giving false impressions of who's paying for what. If every political ad had to include something like "Go to www.rightwingbillionaires.com for a complete & open accounting of this group's finances" it would change the face of politics forever.

Of course it would, it would give the left even more ammunition to use the lefty media to bash anyone not in lock step with the PC leftists and their agenda, to silence anyone not on board with their notions.

A lot of influential believers wouldn't be nearly so adamant in their faith if they weren't able to conceal the financial underpinnings of belief.

As I stated previously, this is exactly why anonymity is absolutely critical to freedom and without one the other doesn't exist.

 

[BoberFett]

Hey, don't get mad at me for pointing out that you're a hypocrite. I'm just the messenger. It doesn't matter to me what intellectual contortions you have to go through in order to convince yourself that demanding free legal services paid for by the rest of us somehow isn't a handout.

You're just like so many other conservatives. You talk a big game about how people shouldn't get handouts, about self reliance, etc. All until you want a handout, then your circumstances were special and there is a good reason why you're entitled to free stuff.

Seems like you don't have much room to laugh at anyone.

I don't know the details so I have no feelings either way.

I will admit to being amused at how completely it exposed you for a hypocrite though.

Lol boberfett.

I used to think you were intelligent, but the more you post the more I realize how truly dumb you are.

Are you the same type of idiot that thinks conservatives shouldn't use any government services, even though they pay for them? I guarantee I've paid for far more than my share of government services throughout my career, and paid for others services as well. There's nothing hypocritical on my part, only failure of logical thinking on your part.

 

[dank69]

Of course it would, it would give the left even more ammunition to use the lefty media to bash anyone not in lock step with the PC leftists and their agenda, to silence anyone not on board with their notions.



As I stated previously, this is exactly why anonymity is absolutely critical to freedom and without one the other doesn't exist.

Oh snap, references to lefty media and leftist agenda. Thank God we have Fox News to give us the real story.

 

[ivwshane]

I used to think you were intelligent, but the more you post the more I realize how truly dumb you are.

Are you the same type of idiot that thinks conservatives shouldn't use any government services, even though they pay for them? I guarantee I've paid for far more than my share of government services throughout my career, and paid for others services as well. There's nothing hypocritical on my part, only failure of logical thinking on your part.

Ahahahaha!!!! Strawman and denial, the favorite cocktail of the right! Drink it up!

 

[fskimospy]

I used to think you were intelligent, but the more you post the more I realize how truly dumb you are.

I'm so sorry to have disappointed you, haha.

Are you the same type of idiot that thinks conservatives shouldn't use any government services, even though they pay for them? I guarantee I've paid for far more than my share of government services throughout my career, and paid for others services as well. There's nothing hypocritical on my part, only failure of logical thinking on your part.

Of course I don't think that conservatives shouldn't use any government services, I simply think that people who have complained about others getting 'handouts' shouldn't demand that the government provide them with means-tested benefits based on their lack of money, which is pretty much a handout by definition. It's especially bad if they start complaining about how they didn't get enough free stuff from the government later.

You have complained about other people getting handouts in the past and then complained when you didn't get a handout (which is what free legal services are). That's hypocrisy 101.