• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The corrupted Supreme Court strikes again! No limits from donors after the election

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Homerboy said:
They aren't wrong.
Money IS speech. but that's the fucking problem, isn't it?
Click to expand...
NO, money is not speech. Money is a tool/object That is being used to symbolize something it's not. Claiming that money is speech is no different than trying to say your car is speech, your house is speech, or a farmer's corn is speech. Yes, they are all symbols of value, and have value attached to them, and can be used to leverage or trade for goods and services. Money is nothing more than paper/metal/0's and 1's (digital) that value has been assigned and is a tool of value used to purchase goods and services.
 
Last edited:
NWRMidnight said:
NO, money is not speech. Money is a tool/object That is being used to symbolize something it's not. Claiming that money is speech is no different than trying to say your car is speech, your house is speech, or a farmer's corn is speech. Yes, they are all symbols of value, and have value attached to them, and can be used to leverage or trade for goods and services. Money is nothing more than paper/metal/0's and 1's (digital) that value has been assigned and is a tool of value used to purchase goods and services.
Click to expand...

I dont think you understood my post
 
ivwshane said:
He is saying that the fact that the Supreme Court views money as speech is what the problem is. It really doesn’t matter what we think now does it?
Click to expand...
How can he be saying that, when he says they are not wrong? How can one have that translation on what he said when he flat out says they are not wrong? By saying that, he is agreeing with them that money is free speech.
 
NWRMidnight said:
How can he be saying that, when he says they are not wrong? How can one have that translation on what he said when he flat out says they are not wrong? By saying that, he is agreeing with them that money is free speech.
Click to expand...
I'm just guessing here, but I think he is saying that even if money is speech that doesn't mean that it should be unrestricted in politics.
 
SMOGZINN said:
No, this will be a quiet revolution. They will just take the power and hold it through increasingly underhanded means, and people will continue to talk about how terrible it is and do nothing about it. Democracy ends in apathy not anger.
Click to expand...

Thats my point. We are already at this part. It's over. The part of the story where we get democracy back will be on the heels of violent upheaval. They used the system to quietly break it. It won't be quietly fixed.
 
Zorba said:
It would've been better for the slaves to not be counted at all. And better for the slave owners to count them 100%. I've never understood why the ”3/5" part is held up as the racist part and not the "All other persons" part.
Click to expand...

Well, the modern equivalent is how they build these prisons in these rural counties in the south and count the inmates in the census as residents to elect more officials - who in no way represent the majority black/brown/poor white inmates of the prison. This is big in red states.
 
But the inconsistency of these judge rulings. With the blocking of Title 42 from expiring today, how can they extend an executive order from the prior administration when the current one doesn’t want to extend it? Like I get the judge’s reasoning for medical and economical hardships. But then we get other judges that block an executive order that the sitting president is well within his constitutional rights to demand all federal employees to wear masks. Hell, he can order all of them to wear polka dot uniforms while he’s at it and no stupid judge has the right to block. So we have one judge wanting to tie POTUS hand because of health reasons. But then another judge blocking POTUS wanting to extend a order ignoring the health reasons.
 
eelw said:
But the inconsistency of these judge rulings. With the blocking of Title 42 from expiring today, how can they extend an executive order from the prior administration when the current one doesn’t want to extend it? Like I get the judge’s reasoning for medical and economical hardships. But then we get other judges that block an executive order that the sitting president is well within his constitutional rights to demand all federal employees to wear masks. Hell, he can order all of them to wear polka dot uniforms while he’s at it and no stupid judge has the right to block. So we have one judge wanting to tie POTUS hand because of health reasons. But then another judge blocking POTUS wanting to extend a order ignoring the health reasons.
Click to expand...
I was thinking pretty much the same thing. It's hard to characterize this as anything but a political ruling by a political tribunal that has two sets of rules-one that applies to the GOP and one that applies to anyone else. It's rather shocking and shameful how far and how fast American jurisprudence is collapsing.
 
Thump553 said:
I was thinking pretty much the same thing. It's hard to characterize this as anything but a political ruling by a political tribunal that has two sets of rules-one that applies to the GOP and one that applies to anyone else. It's rather shocking and shameful how far and how fast American jurisprudence is collapsing.
Click to expand...
I’m afraid we haven’t seen anything yet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top