Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment;

[nobodyknows]

Because it's an association of individuals. If individuals get free speech, why not associations of individuals

Damn you people are stupid. All men are created equal. Coporations, ASSociations, etc. aren't men. They can't look in the mirror and they don't put there pants on one leg at a time like men do.

 

[nobodyknows]

The Supreme Court interprets the constitution.

The right to free speech is extended to individuals and, according to this court's interpretation, associations of individuals.

That's it.

That sounds just like the righties position on Alberto Gonzalez. I said fuck 'em then and I say fuck 'em now. This isn't over just because some whacko still wet behind the ears says so. You're a big joke, but iin case you haven't noticed I'm not laughing.

 

[gsellis]

Damn you people are stupid. All men are created equal. Coporations, ASSociations, etc. aren't men. They can't look in the mirror and they don't put there pants on one leg at a time like men do.

Not true. I can be an 'association' under the law in filing taxes. I can run a single proprietorship. Corporations are defined with officers, but if I was President, my wife was VP, and my kids were listed as treasurer and secretary... Now, a candidate decides to make gem cutting illegal in the 11th hour of a campaign, my 'company' has a vested interest in getting the word out. Remember, the officers are defined by law and the other members are to meet the letter of the law. I am still the corporation. I still have not figured out that whole forward flip off a chair putting my pants on both legs at a time thing.

 

[nobodyknows]

Superb column by Ruth Marcus of the Washington Post here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203897.html

Well worth reading. Rather than posting more drivel about toilets and taxes corporations, I'd like a supporter of this decision to explain to me why The Surpeme Court basing a ruling on issues not presented to the lower courts and admittedly not necessary to resolution of the case before it does not ipso facto constitute judicial activism.

And Bush "legacy" continues to fuck up this country that I love. From the article:

.
.
.
It was the height of activism to usurp the judgments of Congress and state legislatures about how best to prevent corruption of the political process.

"If it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more," a wise judge once wrote. That was Chief Justice John G. Roberts -- back when -- and dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens rightly turned that line against him.
.
.
.

Just a week ago all the righties were talking about "precedent" in the voting of the appointed MA senator after the election. Now they are ignoring "precedent"

ANd they wonder why they are labeled HYPOCRITS?? Hmmm, maybe, just maybe they are just STUPID. I'm begining to think both.

 

[nobodyknows]

Not true. I can be an 'association' under the law in filing taxes. I can run a single proprietorship. Corporations are defined with officers, but if I was President, my wife was VP, and my kids were listed as treasurer and secretary... Now, a candidate decides to make gem cutting illegal in the 11th hour of a campaign, my 'company' has a vested interest in getting the word out. Remember, the officers are defined by law and the other members are to meet the letter of the law. I am still the corporation. I still have not figured out that whole forward flip off a chair putting my pants on both legs at a time thing.

So you're saying an ASSociation can look in the mirror and shave it's face? You sir are a liar.

 

[PJABBER]

Over the weekend I had a chance to listen to the C-SPAN broadcast of the actual court deliberations. Fascinating. Those hearings are the best entertainment on radio if you are into the case topics. I think you can also get them on streaming Internet feed and maybe a recording off their WWW site, so you are not bound to the radio or TV broadcasts.

I believe all citizens, organized or not in whatever form, should have the right to advocate for their beliefs and their positions. This is basically what the USSC has determined.

Ben Shapiro in a recent article commented on the implications of a Court that starts to focus on founding principles -

The significance of the ruling is clear: It recognizes that freedom of the press and freedom of speech apply to all people, whether or not those people choose to organize legally as a PAC, a 527, a 501(c)(4) or a corporation. The unspoken rationale behind campaign finance reform has always been the equalization of access to political influence; many leftists feel that a poor man's speech is not truly "free" unless it counts as much as a rich man's in the public square. In this view, free speech is a commodity to be parceled out by the government in the name of equality, not an opportunity or a restriction on government interference in political action.

Because this rationale is not palatable to most Americans -- we don't want the government rationing our speech -- the campaign finance reform gurus have cloaked themselves in the guise of "anti-corruption." In Citizens United, however, the Supreme Court came out foursquare against that flimsy facade. "[T]he First Amendment," wrote Justice Anthony Kennedy, surprisingly lucid for once, "does not allow political speech restrictions based on a speaker's corporate identity."

The Citizens United decision demonstrates more than renewed allegiance to free speech principles, however. It demonstrates that perversions of the Constitution are not entrenched forever; Reagan-esque "rollback" is possible, even at the Supreme Court. Citizens United overtly states that the hallowed -- and foolish -- principle of stare decisis cannot be the final word for conservatives.

For too long, liberal legal authorities have hidden behind stare decisis when it suits them (see Roe v. Wade) and rejected it when they see fit (see Lawrence v. Texas). And conservative legal scholars have allowed liberals to get away with it because of the premium conservatives generally place on maintenance of the status quo -- as William F. Buckley famously put it, standing athwart history yelling Stop.

Historically, conservatives have embraced stare decisis on principle; liberals have embraced it without principle. As G.K. Chesterton put it, "The business of progressives is to go on making mistakes. The business of the conservatives is to prevent the mistakes from being corrected." Justice Antonin Scalia seconds Chesterton's motion in practice, stating, "You simply cannot reinvent the wheel in every case … Life is too short. By and large, I am not urging that we rip out all of the mistakes made over the last 50 years."

Now, finally, conservatives are beginning to wake up. As Justice John Roberts, a big believer in stare decisis, puts it in his concurring opinion in Citizens United, "in the unusual circumstance when fidelity to any particular precedent does more to damage [the rule of law] than to advance it, we must be more willing to depart from that precedent." The next step is for conservative justices to begin righting the wrongs that have occurred time after time in the Court's jurisprudence. Scalia's pragmatism isn't good enough. Simply because a bad decision is old does not make it a good decision. Our Constitution did not respect precedent; if it did, we'd be monarchists. It respected certain principles, and those principles must be protected at all costs.

 

[Fern]

-snip-
Just a week ago all the righties were talking about "precedent" in the voting of the appointed MA senator after the election. Now they are ignoring "precedent"

ANd they wonder why they are labeled HYPOCRITS?? Hmmm, maybe, just maybe they are just STUPID. I'm begining to think both.

What?

The precedent is Santa Clara County v Railroad. So they are sticking with precedent (even if I personally find it dubious as precedent for previously stated reasons.

------------------

This case was about a documentary. Why can Michael Moore (and his company) produce political documentaries and not be subject to these rules, but others can't?

Why can GE own NBC and MSNBC, which have 'news' opinion shows with the Democratic view (Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz) but other companies can't? GE isn't even a media compnay.

Why can media companies be excluded from the rules that prohibit companies from political advocacy?

IMO, our rules made little sense before this ruling anyway.

Fern

 

[gsellis]

So you're saying an ASSociation can look in the mirror and shave it's face? You sir are a liar.

Your creative use of the capitals and loose use of the term liar shows you are a mental midget with a polarized view of the world. But that was George Bush's fault too. Sorry, but your opinion is not well thought out. By your standard, you are probably an association. You apparently are not mature enough to shave.

 

[FerrelGeek]

Damn you people are stupid. All men are created equal. Coporations, ASSociations, etc. aren't men. They can't look in the mirror and they don't put there pants on one leg at a time like men do.

OK, I'm not gonna read through all 17 pages. Do you consider unions to be ' non people' as well?

 

[Atreus21]

Damn you people are stupid. All men are created equal. Coporations, ASSociations, etc. aren't men. They can't look in the mirror and they don't put there pants on one leg at a time like men do.

Dude, relax.

 

[nobodyknows]

Your creative use of the capitals and loose use of the term liar shows you are a mental midget with a polarized view of the world. But that was George Bush's fault too. Sorry, but your opinion is not well thought out. By your standard, you are probably an association. You apparently are not mature enough to shave.

And shitheads like you think nothing but God's words come out of your mouths. So?

If your brains were dynamite you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.

 

[nobodyknows]

What?

The precedent is Santa Clara County v Railroad. So they are sticking with precedent (even if I personally find it dubious as precedent for previously stated reasons.

------------------

This case was about a documentary. Why can Michael Moore (and his company) produce political documentaries and not be subject to these rules, but others can't?

Why can GE own NBC and MSNBC, which have 'news' opinion shows with the Democratic view (Chris Matthews, Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, Ed Shultz) but other companies can't? GE isn't even a media compnay.

Why can media companies be excluded from the rules that prohibit companies from political advocacy?

IMO, our rules made little sense before this ruling anyway.

Fern

Oh look, the guy who stuck up for Alberto Gonzalez and Bush Jr. to the bitter end has something "intelligent" he wants to argue? Sorry, but I don't need to waste my time arguing with someone who has their mind made up and won't change it. Since you've already proven that's the way you are all I have to say is buh-bye.

 

[hal2kilo]

Damn you people are stupid. All men are created equal. Coporations, ASSociations, etc. aren't men. They can't look in the mirror and they don't put there pants on one leg at a time like men do.

When was the last time you saw one sentenced to death!

 

[nobodyknows]

OK, I'm not gonna read through all 17 pages. Do you consider unions to be ' non people' as well?

I consdier the ruling to be wrong. I don't care if unions can take advantage of it also. Right is right and wrong is wrong. I always fight for what I think is right.

 

[nobodyknows]

When was the last time you saw one sentenced to death!

Do you have a point? If so make it.

 

[hal2kilo]

Do you have a point? If so make it.

First, I was agreeing with you. But, seriously, if they are people then how come we haven't seen any corportations sentenced to death.

 

[nobodyknows]

First, I was agreeing with you. But, seriously, if they are people then how come we haven't seen any corportations sentenced to death.

Good point! Hell, I've never even seen one get life imprisonment either.

 

[gsellis]

And shitheads like you think nothing but God's words come out of your mouths. So?

If your brains were dynamite you wouldn't have enough to blow your nose.

Wow, orginal thought... not. Parrot says as does.

 

[Fern]

Oh look, the guy who stuck up for Alberto Gonzalez and Bush Jr. to the bitter end has something "intelligent" he wants to argue? Sorry, but I don't need to waste my time arguing with someone who has their mind made up and won't change it. Since you've already proven that's the way you are all I have to say is buh-bye.

You're an idiot. I probably have more posts bashing Alberto Gonzales than you (and exactly zero praising him).

Edit: Here's an example from May 2007-

-snip-
So far, what we've got is Alberto looking/acting like an incompetent boob who can't "remember", and acts to lazy to be bothered to check the records and providing an accurate description of the events leading to dismissal.
Fern

http://forums.anandtech.com/showthread.php?t=39766&highlight=alberto+gonzales

Fern

 

[nobodyknows]

You're an idiot. I probably have more posts bashing Alberto Gonzales than you (and exactly zero praising him).

Fern

Maybe after he was tossed under the bus, not before.

 

[nobodyknows]

Wow, orginal thought... not. Parrot says as does.

Like "mental midget"? ROFL!!

Now go away and play with some kiddies your own age because you might get hurt playing with the big boys. You already acting hurt so it's probably best I put you on my ignore list as you don't seem to have anything of value to contribute.

Bye now.

 

[gsellis]

Like "mental midget"? ROFL!!

Now go away and play with some kiddies your own age because you might get hurt playing with the big boys. You already acting hurt so it's probably best I put you on my ignore list as you don't seem to have anything of value to contribute.

Bye now.

You are young and foolish and not worth typing to. I probably graduated from college before you were born.

 

[Craig234]

Not true. I can be an 'association' under the law in filing taxes. I can run a single proprietorship. Corporations are defined with officers, but if I was President, my wife was VP, and my kids were listed as treasurer and secretary... Now, a candidate decides to make gem cutting illegal in the 11th hour of a campaign, my 'company' has a vested interest in getting the word out. Remember, the officers are defined by law and the other members are to meet the letter of the law. I am still the corporation. I still have not figured out that whole forward flip off a chair putting my pants on both legs at a time thing.

No, you're not. You and your family are affected, and as citizens, and you can fully tale political action to the extent allowed by law and the constitution, with our personal fund.

That guy you do business with in China is affected too, but he cannot spend money in the election.

Your corporation isn't a person or a citizen, and it cannot spend money in the election.

And the multimational who stands to profit from taking the opposite positin from you and make your participation a joke with its deep pockets cannot make your role a joke in the election.

 

[Patranus]

Your corporation isn't a person or a citizen, and it cannot spend money in the election.

Not according to the supreme court....

 

[Craig234]

Progressives are trying to get the Doleist class large enough to have a majority on the assumption it is 'fair'. It is all about power and remaining in office.

The major assumption, that is incorrect, is that 'corporations' are these large monoliths run by secret star chambers planning on ruling the planet. Too much Hollywood. This ruling also controlled the Incs and S Corps that are individual or joint income tax filers. What about their speech? Oh, that could be you, your parents, your sibs...

No, that's a right-wing myth and lie. Democrats are about the middle class - measures that make it do better and the poor get to it, not about turning the country into a nation of do-nothings.

Republicans are the one with the ulterior motive - it's basic business, that cheap labor enriches the rich. A suffering poor, a weaker middle class, has multiple benefits for them.

It provides a ready cheap source of labor, with the unemployment a permanent part of the system; and it has fewer direct costs the less they spend on services.

It's a pretty short-sighted approach, but the right-wing does it.

Again look at the history - take the late 19th century for example with this 'pro-business ideology' was in power and people were treated more like farm animals, long days, unafe conditions, little medicine, poverty.

Program after program good for the worker the right has opposed - like the minimum wage that's been essential to the middle class, by helpig the poor - and the right has made up many lies about it.

No, it's all about who they serve. The Republican serve the rich, though they need the votes of others andd try to appeal to them by other issues ('we get the commies out unlike the Democrats!') and lies (the more you cut taxes on the rich, the more you will get and the more taxes that will be paid as giving the rich hundreds of billions all goes to fuel the economy not to aquire everything of value. Ignore the facts, that 22% of the cuts is returned in taxes, that the rich are skyrocketing their ownership of society).

The Democrats are partly infiltrated by the same corporatist interests, but are stil a mixed party much more concerned for the low and middle - and for the top in other ways.

The right may be good at gutting the country and handing it to the rich, but the Dems build society to make the the pie bigger so everyone benefits, even the rich.

The rich just don't get to have as much of the pie.