Were fucking owned

[NOVA]

Why do Media Corporations like TV have full freedom of speech and non-media corporations shouldn't....???
This ruling fixes that injustice...

 

[NOVA]

We can debate abortion, flag-burning as free speech or your apparent view that women shouldn't be allowed to vote on another thread.

This thread is about allowing corporations even MORE influence than they already had. Do you agree with that, or not?

NO, I don't agree...freedom of speech in this country should be universal...

and we are not debating abortion or flag buring or voting, we're debating constitutional rights in general.....

 

[Epicurus]

They didn't understand or wouldn't have been able to see corporations in their current form, with their intimate involvement in government through money. It's kind of ridiculous to say that corporations existed then as though it's apples to apples.

And yeah - I guess I'm "whining." Honestly, I am not able to argue consitutional law, so I don't know whether what SCOTUS did is within the exact letter of the law or not (but it sure was a close vote). Frankly, I don't even care; a ruling like this, and the broader issue of corporate control over our government, undermines American ideals in a much more egregious & permanent way.

Sorry if that's melodramatic, but man, if you knew what goes on....

Well first off about the corporations, it's not quite comparing apples and apples but it's definitely Red Delicious and Granny Smiths. Within the Founders lifetimes (1819), they saw corporations become even more powerful than they are today. Some saw it as unfortunate development and spoke out against it, but most didn't. Corporations today have a shadow of the power that they had for most of American history.

Secondly, I'm not trying to pretend it was a cut and dry issue because it's not. It was close, though honestly (and I'm really not trying to be biased) the liberal bloc on the court tend to decide the way they do today based more on policy reasons than originalist intent. A hundred years ago this decision probably would have been 9-0. There are certainly legitimate arguments for curbing and regulating the donations of organizational entities to political campaigns, but they tend to be policy arguments rather than legal arguments.

Third, before I draw a line in the sand and call this a perfect decision I feel compelled to admit that I have not read the opinion yet. I am uncomfortable praising this decision too much before I see the actual legal reasoning. But I will say that it seems, on the face of it, to be the correct decision.

Many will bemoan this decision but this speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the average American regarding the role of the SCOTUS. Many, including myself before I was educated more deeply about their constitutionally-delegated duties, see the SCOTUS's role as something very different than it is in actuality.

And yes I agree this decision isn't very good for most people. But that goes back to what I was saying about the Court's role. They are not being judged by you or the voters at large. They are being judged by future generations of legal scholars, law students, and constitutional historians. Their responsibility is ensuring that the policies of the country are enacted in a proper way that does not destroy the fragile balance of power between the branches. People caught up in the heat of passion of the politics of their day may dislike them, but the members of the Court are playing a longer game. Their judge is history and scholarship; not the passion-of-the-decade that the voters are concerned about.

I completely understand your concerns about the effects of this decision, but if there is no continuity and no legality in the way our laws and policies are enacted then we have lost something much greater, in my opinion.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I've got this one, thanks. You can go home. You do more damage than good.

ROFL

I'd rep you twice for this, but i got to spread more around first.

 

[Airstrip One]

The corporations that existed in the 18th Century were chartered, and given monopolies over various portions of the world by Britain. Obviously there was the East India Co., but there were also others such as the Muscovy Co. (monopoly with Russia), Eastland Co. (monopoly with Scandinavia and the Baltic states), and so forth.

 

[NOVA]

Well first off about the corporations, it's not quite comparing apples and apples but it's definitely Red Delicious and Granny Smiths. Within the Founders lifetimes (1819), they saw corporations become even more powerful than they are today. Some saw it as unfortunate development and spoke out against it, but most didn't. Corporations today have a shadow of the power that they had for most of American history.

Secondly, I'm not trying to pretend it was a cut and dry issue because it's not. It was close, though honestly (and I'm really not trying to be biased) the liberal bloc on the court tend to decide the way they do today based more on policy reasons than originalist intent. A hundred years ago this decision probably would have been 9-0. There are certainly legitimate arguments for curbing and regulating the donations of organizational entities to political campaigns, but they tend to be policy arguments rather than legal arguments.

Third, before I draw a line in the sand and call this a perfect decision I feel compelled to admit that I have not read the opinion yet. I am uncomfortable praising this decision too much before I see the actual legal reasoning. But I will say that it seems, on the face of it, to be the correct decision.

Many will bemoan this decision but this speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the average American regarding the role of the SCOTUS. Many, including myself before I was educated more deeply about their constitutionally-delegated duties, see the SCOTUS's role as something very different than it is in actuality.

And yes I agree this decision isn't very good for most people. But that goes back to what I was saying about the Court's role. They are not being judged by you or the voters at large. They are being judged by future generations of legal scholars, law students, and constitutional historians. Their responsibility is ensuring that the policies of the country are enacted in a proper way that does not destroy the fragile balance of power between the branches. People caught up in the heat of passion of the politics of their day may dislike them, but the members of the Court are playing a longer game. Their judge is history and scholarship; not the passion-of-the-decade that the voters are concerned about.

I completely understand your concerns about the effects of this decision, but if there is no continuity and no legality in the way our laws and policies are enacted then we have lost something much greater, in my opinion.

You waste a lot of ink to say nothing....

The role of the Supreme Court is to determine if laws enacted by Congress are Constitutional....simple and to point....

even Epicurus and Smarter should be able to grasp the point.

 

[Epicurus]

You waste a lot of ink to say nothing....

The role of the Supreme Court is to determine if laws enacted by Congress are Constitutional....simple and to point....

even Epicurus and Smarter should be able to grasp the point.

Bravo, do leave this to me and go back to your fag-bashing or something.

 

[NOVA]

Bravo, do leave this to me and go back to your fag-bashing or something.

If you've got a beef with my opinions, spit it out...accusing me of homophobia is clever but it won't buy you any debate points....


You call homosexuals, fags and accuse me of being a homophobe? Really ?

 

[SmarterthanYou]

the bottom line with this decision is that it is perfectly in line with the first amendment, which should generally make the liberals happy, however, because it still leaves corporations with constitutional rights, now corporations are entitled to unfettered first amendment rights as well. I'm sure they hate that because it removes a level of their control on the political knowledge of the electorate. too bad.

congress shall make no law.......remember that? the supreme court just did.

 

[Cancel 2016.2]

They didn't understand or wouldn't have been able to see corporations in their current form, with their intimate involvement in government through money. It's kind of ridiculous to say that corporations existed then as though it's apples to apples.

And yeah - I guess I'm "whining." Honestly, I am not able to argue consitutional law, so I don't know whether what SCOTUS did is within the exact letter of the law or not (but it sure was a close vote). Frankly, I don't even care; a ruling like this, and the broader issue of corporate control over our government, undermines American ideals in a much more egregious & permanent way.

Sorry if that's melodramatic, but man, if you knew what goes on....

You asked earlier why cons were harping on unions... it is posts like the above that brought that out.

It is not just corporations that have the potential to bribe the politicians more... it is ALSO unions that have a greater ability to control our government. Just ask CA how that is working for them. Or look to all the favors Obama, Pelosi and Reid are lavishing upon the unions.

That said, you are correct... our founders would not recognize today's corporations nor the unions influence in DC.

 

[NOVA]

the bottom line with this decision is that it is perfectly in line with the first amendment, which should generally make the liberals happy, however, because it still leaves corporations with constitutional rights, now corporations are entitled to unfettered first amendment rights as well. I'm sure they hate that because it removes a level of their control on the political knowledge of the electorate. too bad.

congress shall make no law.......remember that? the supreme court just did.

A gold star for you...

 

[Epicurus]

If you've got a beef with my opinions, spit it out...accusing me of homophobia is clever but it won't buy you any debate points....


You call homosexuals, fags and accuse me of being a homophobe? Really ?

I didn't call you a homophobe and I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other about gay rights.

I suggested it because it seems to be an issue more on your level. Lots of passion, beliefs, and screaming. Light on the facts and reason.

Leave this one to me. Adults are talking. Now go play with your wedge issues.

 

[NOVA]

I didn't call you a homophobe and I'm not particularly concerned one way or the other about gay rights.

I suggested it because it seems to be an issue more on your level. Lots of passion, beliefs, and screaming. Light on the facts and reason.

Leave this one to me. Adults are talking. Now go play with your wedge issues.

I see no point in getting into a playground fight with you, sonny...but to accuse me of "fag-bashing, as in "go back to your fag-bashing" certainly in tantamount to calling me a homophobe, whether you understand that or not is irrelevant....

Passion and beliefs I have....with no "screaming".....
and like I say, if you have a problem with my facts or reasoning, spit it out....
but spare me your condescending attitude bullshit....your BO is no better than any else....

 

[Onceler]

Well first off about the corporations, it's not quite comparing apples and apples but it's definitely Red Delicious and Granny Smiths. Within the Founders lifetimes (1819), they saw corporations become even more powerful than they are today. Some saw it as unfortunate development and spoke out against it, but most didn't. Corporations today have a shadow of the power that they had for most of American history.

Secondly, I'm not trying to pretend it was a cut and dry issue because it's not. It was close, though honestly (and I'm really not trying to be biased) the liberal bloc on the court tend to decide the way they do today based more on policy reasons than originalist intent. A hundred years ago this decision probably would have been 9-0. There are certainly legitimate arguments for curbing and regulating the donations of organizational entities to political campaigns, but they tend to be policy arguments rather than legal arguments.

Third, before I draw a line in the sand and call this a perfect decision I feel compelled to admit that I have not read the opinion yet. I am uncomfortable praising this decision too much before I see the actual legal reasoning. But I will say that it seems, on the face of it, to be the correct decision.

Many will bemoan this decision but this speaks to a fundamental misunderstanding of the average American regarding the role of the SCOTUS. Many, including myself before I was educated more deeply about their constitutionally-delegated duties, see the SCOTUS's role as something very different than it is in actuality.

And yes I agree this decision isn't very good for most people. But that goes back to what I was saying about the Court's role. They are not being judged by you or the voters at large. They are being judged by future generations of legal scholars, law students, and constitutional historians. Their responsibility is ensuring that the policies of the country are enacted in a proper way that does not destroy the fragile balance of power between the branches. People caught up in the heat of passion of the politics of their day may dislike them, but the members of the Court are playing a longer game. Their judge is history and scholarship; not the passion-of-the-decade that the voters are concerned about.

I completely understand your concerns about the effects of this decision, but if there is no continuity and no legality in the way our laws and policies are enacted then we have lost something much greater, in my opinion.

Ultimately, I'm not necessarily pissed at SCOTUS. Like I said, I don't really know Constitutional law that well, and I agree that the Constitution has to guide their actions (though I guess I'm not what you would call a strict constructionalist).

But, it has to be stopped. When I first read this today, it just seemed surreal. How much more power & influence can we grant to corporate America? It's just a bummer to me, and I think that most Americans - while knowing somewhat how undue the influence is - have no idea of the extent of coporate influence over our laws & politicians.

 

[FUCK THE POLICE]

Seriously, just impeach the fuckers. This is a disgusting ruling, the worst ruling in American history.

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Ultimately, I'm not necessarily pissed at SCOTUS. Like I said, I don't really know Constitutional law that well, and I agree that the Constitution has to guide their actions (though I guess I'm not what you would call a strict constructionalist).

But, it has to be stopped. When I first read this today, it just seemed surreal. How much more power & influence can we grant to corporate America? It's just a bummer to me, and I think that most Americans - while knowing somewhat how undue the influence is - have no idea of the extent of coporate influence over our laws & politicians.

shouldn't that be an issue for the legislature and not the courts? the court ruled on free speech, how is that wrong? what part of the opinion do you feel they ruled incorrectly on?

 

[Onceler]

You asked earlier why cons were harping on unions... it is posts like the above that brought that out.

It is not just corporations that have the potential to bribe the politicians more... it is ALSO unions that have a greater ability to control our government. Just ask CA how that is working for them. Or look to all the favors Obama, Pelosi and Reid are lavishing upon the unions.

That said, you are correct... our founders would not recognize today's corporations nor the unions influence in DC.

Honestly - even though I vote Dem, I'm just not a big union guy. I won't defend their right to influence politics & politicians to the death or anything. I know there is corruption there, I know there is undue influence & I know that there are times that the unions have undermined better solutions (in education, for example).

As I said before, I'm not really for any of it. I'd like to see the whole way campaigns are financed & run changed, in a revolutionary way. It's sick what has happened, even over the past decade, but certainly over the past few decades...

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

Seriously, just impeach the fuckers. This is a disgusting ruling, the worst ruling in American history.

somehow i don't recall you complaining about obama being able to afford 30 minutes of prime time wheras mccain could not because he chose public financing....

don't you think your stance is a bit hypocritical

 

[Onceler]

shouldn't that be an issue for the legislature and not the courts? the court ruled on free speech, how is that wrong? what part of the opinion do you feel they ruled incorrectly on?

As I said, I don't really understand consitutional law, and I'm not really pissed at SCOTUS. I'm not necessarily saying that they ruled incorrectly, according to the letter of the law, because I'm just not informed enough on that topic to make that judgment.

However, I can say conclusively that the decision itself, and corporate money in general, is bad for America, and bad for the ideals of democracy.

 

[NOVA]

Ultimately, I'm not necessarily pissed at SCOTUS. Like I said, I don't really know Constitutional law that well, and I agree that the Constitution has to guide their actions (though I guess I'm not what you would call a strict constructionalist).

But, it has to be stopped. When I first read this today, it just seemed surreal. How much more power & influence can we grant to corporate America? It's just a bummer to me, and I think that most Americans - while knowing somewhat how undue the influence is - have no idea of the extent of coporate influence over our laws & politicians.

The ranting and raving over the freedom given to business....wow...

How about the politician that takes the bribe, sells his vote, the in your face corruption you've witnessed just in the past few weeks with the healthcare vote....isn't that corrupt politician the REAL CRIMINAL....rather than those exercising their Constitutional rights of free speech....
I just don't quite get the lefts logic....