Supreme Court strikes a blow for the First Amendment.

Lies, damned lies, and statistics.
User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 9662
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Postby Skeeve » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:41 pm

WildCat wrote:
Skeeve wrote:
xouper wrote:
Skeeve wrote:IF the GROUP is to be treated as a 'person' (entity or what ever), it should also be subject to the same limits as an individual person.

And under the First Amendment, that means no limit to how much an individual can spend to exercise their First Amendment right to express their political opinion.

And thus you appear to agree that groups have the same First Amendment protection from Congressional limits, and thus you agree with the Court's decision?
Yea, even though I think that McCain Feingold does not allow 'anyone who is ineligible to vote' to contribute (typically minors, resident aliens etc) and it's not too much of a streatch to include 'legal persons' in that list.

CH gave me a better idea though.
Rather than argue any limitation of free speech maybe we should try something else. Lets tax political contributions (of any type) above $10K/year per 'person.' What do you think?

Do you realize this case has nothing at all to do with campaign contributions?
Lemme see, the OP lead with.
Striking down the part of McCain-Feingold which proscribed political speech by certain actors during the runup to elections.
I take it you see this strictly as a matter of free speech then?
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13120
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 255 times

Postby WildCat » Wed Feb 24, 2010 7:49 pm

Skeeve wrote:
WildCat wrote:Do you realize this case has nothing at all to do with campaign contributions?
Lemme see, the OP lead with.
Striking down the part of McCain-Feingold which proscribed political speech by certain actors during the runup to elections.
I take it you see this strictly as a matter of free speech then?

It is, because the ruling said nothing about campaign contributions, and the case wasn't about campaign contributions.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 68420
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2512 times
Been thanked: 995 times

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:04 pm

WildCat wrote:It is, because the ruling said nothing about campaign contributions, and the case wasn't about campaign contributions.


... but the President said ...
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
djw
Posts: 246
Joined: Fri Jul 27, 2007 3:05 pm
Location: Boston MA

Postby djw » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:05 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
WildCat wrote:It is, because the ruling said nothing about campaign contributions, and the case wasn't about campaign contributions.


... but the President said ...


The President's an ass.

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 68420
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2512 times
Been thanked: 995 times

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:06 pm

djw wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
WildCat wrote:It is, because the ruling said nothing about campaign contributions, and the case wasn't about campaign contributions.


... but the President said ...


The President's an ass.


:x
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
hammegk
Posts: 15134
Joined: Sun Jun 06, 2004 1:16 pm
Title: Curmudgeon
Location: Hither, sometimes Yon
Has thanked: 386 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Postby hammegk » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:31 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
djw wrote:
Abdul Alhazred wrote:
WildCat wrote:It is, because the ruling said nothing about campaign contributions, and the case wasn't about campaign contributions.


... but the President said ...


The President's an ass.


:x

Sorry you are angry because the President is an ass.
The most important things in life–beauty, grace, redemption, compassion, loyalty, love–are beyond the reach of reason. Which doesn’t make them any less real. Stay far back: I'm allergic to Stupid.

The simple rule, the greatest plan, that he should keep who has the power, and he should take who can.

The only enemies of guns: rust ... and politicians.

Philanthropist (n.) - Someone who spends his own money to advance his version of Utopia. Socialist (n.) - Someone who spends your money to advance his version of Utopia.

“Jesus loves the little cheeses, all the cheeses of the world. Swiss and Cheddar, stinky, too. If He loved them, so should you. Jesus loves the little cheeses of the world.”

I'm right 98% of the time; who cares about the other 3%?

User avatar
Abdul Alhazred
Posts: 68420
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 1:33 pm
Title: Yes, that one.
Location: Chicago
Has thanked: 2512 times
Been thanked: 995 times

Postby Abdul Alhazred » Wed Feb 24, 2010 8:33 pm

hammegk wrote:Sorry you are angry because the President is an ass.


:)
Image "If I turn in a sicko, will I get a reward?"

"Yes! A BIG REWARD!" ====> Click here to turn in a sicko
Any man writes a mission statement spends a night in the box.
-- our mission statement plappendale

User avatar
DrMatt
BANNED
Posts: 29811
Joined: Fri Jul 16, 2004 4:00 pm
Location: Location: Location!
Has thanked: 143 times
Been thanked: 70 times

Postby DrMatt » Wed Feb 24, 2010 9:53 pm

Abdul Alhazred wrote:
hammegk wrote:Sorry you are angry because the President is an ass.


:)


The king is a fink!
Grayman wrote:If masturbation led to homosexuality you'd think by now I'd at least have better fashion sense.

User avatar
specious_reasons
Posts: 6694
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:58 pm
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Left and right united in opposition to ... SCOTUS decisi

Postby specious_reasons » Thu Feb 25, 2010 12:21 am

Cool Hand wrote:What's so hard to understand about that? Why the cognitive dissonance on this matter? Oh yeah, it's because corporations are teh evil du jour, and in much of the public's eye, teh corporations are more evil than government.

Fools. No corporation has the power of the state. In functioning nations, no corporation has ever had the power of the state, and many powers belong uniquely to the state. Although it's a false dilemma, I'd take corporatism over statism any day.


You know, it bothers me a bit that corporations are considered people. I know there's value in it, but there's 2 things that bother me, and they're both moral objections:
1. Corporations don't die.
2. No one individual is necessarily responsible for the corporation.

Corporations aren't people. They are a legal construct, and have legal and economic advantages that an individual doesn't have. We want those advantages though, which is why corporations have value.

One thing I don't understand: is there a difference between constitutional personhood and legal personhood? Why can't corporations be considered legally equivalent to a person by statute and not through interpretation of the constitution?
ta-
DAVE!!!

User avatar
corplinx
Posts: 19586
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator
Has thanked: 180 times
Been thanked: 611 times

Re: Left and right united in opposition to ... SCOTUS decisi

Postby corplinx » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:07 am

specious_reasons wrote:
Cool Hand wrote:What's so hard to understand about that? Why the cognitive dissonance on this matter? Oh yeah, it's because corporations are teh evil du jour, and in much of the public's eye, teh corporations are more evil than government.

Fools. No corporation has the power of the state. In functioning nations, no corporation has ever had the power of the state, and many powers belong uniquely to the state. Although it's a false dilemma, I'd take corporatism over statism any day.


You know, it bothers me a bit that corporations are considered people. I know there's value in it, but there's 2 things that bother me, and they're both moral objections:
1. Corporations don't die.
2. No one individual is necessarily responsible for the corporation.

Corporations aren't people. They are a legal construct, and have legal and economic advantages that an individual doesn't have. We want those advantages though, which is why corporations have value.

One thing I don't understand: is there a difference between constitutional personhood and legal personhood? Why can't corporations be considered legally equivalent to a person by statute and not through interpretation of the constitution?


The decision didn't say that corporations are people.

The decision basically said that an individuals right to free speech is not usurped by group membership. The government can't regulate the free speech of a corporation differently than a union, club, organization, etc.

User avatar
specious_reasons
Posts: 6694
Joined: Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:58 pm
Has thanked: 37 times
Been thanked: 28 times

Re: Left and right united in opposition to ... SCOTUS decisi

Postby specious_reasons » Thu Feb 25, 2010 1:57 am

corplinx wrote:The decision didn't say that corporations are people.

The decision basically said that an individuals right to free speech is not usurped by group membership. The government can't regulate the free speech of a corporation differently than a union, club, organization, etc.


Yes, push comes to shove, I happen to agree with the decision, even as it concerns me that money will have even more influence on politics now.
ta-

DAVE!!!

User avatar
Skeeve
Posts: 9662
Joined: Wed Jun 09, 2004 7:35 am
Has thanked: 27 times
Been thanked: 69 times

Postby Skeeve » Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:15 pm

WildCat wrote:
Skeeve wrote:
xouper wrote:
Skeeve wrote:IF the GROUP is to be treated as a 'person' (entity or what ever), it should also be subject to the same limits as an individual person.

And under the First Amendment, that means no limit to how much an individual can spend to exercise their First Amendment right to express their political opinion.

And thus you appear to agree that groups have the same First Amendment protection from Congressional limits, and thus you agree with the Court's decision?
Yea, even though I think that McCain Feingold does not allow 'anyone who is ineligible to vote' to contribute (typically minors, resident aliens etc) and it's not too much of a streatch to include 'legal persons' in that list.

CH gave me a better idea though.
Rather than argue any limitation of free speech maybe we should try something else. Lets tax political contributions (of any type) above $10K/year per 'person.' What do you think?

Do you realize this case has nothing at all to do with campaign contributions?
Yes and No.
In a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled that a central provision of the 2002 McCain-Feingold campaign-finance act violated the First Amendment by restricting corporations from funding political messages in the run-up to elections.
Link.
Yes it is a free speech issue, however there are financial issues here as well.
Then Skank Of America could start in...

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13120
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 255 times

Postby WildCat » Thu Feb 25, 2010 10:50 pm

Skeeve wrote:Yes it is a free speech issue, however there are financial issues here as well.

No, it was entirely a free speech issue and had nothing at all to do with campaign funding.

Note your quote says funding political messages, not political campaigns.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
corplinx
Posts: 19586
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator
Has thanked: 180 times
Been thanked: 611 times

Postby corplinx » Thu Mar 04, 2010 6:41 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._Ci ... g_opinions

Just for some perspective. I am glad these justices are now in the minority.

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 21513
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 315 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Postby gnome » Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:05 pm

corplinx wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London#Majority_and_concurring_opinions

Just for some perspective. I am glad these justices are now in the minority.


Hangon a minute there.

I feel the roles are reversed in this case...

From what I can tell, the majority in Kelo is basing their decision on legal principle that it's up to the "tryer of fact" (lower court) to distinguish what constitutes a legitimate usage rather than the Supreme Court. This is based on a philosophy of least interference that is usually championed by those of a more conservative bent.

The minority appears to be arguing that the decision will result in an undesirable and unfair result. They may be correct--but they are thus arguing that the Court disregard the current law in favor of a fairness agenda--something usually opposed by conservatives.

I draw from this conclusion that those strongly opposing Kelo are basing their decision on whether they like the outcome, rather than the method by which it was decided... since they claim to prefer the courts not "legislate from the bench" even where the law appears flawed.

So it's either conclude that they haven't given it much research, or only care about "legislating from the bench" when they disagree with the result.

I tend to think of Kelo as an example of judicial restraint that can be double-edged. Plus I'm not particularly alarmed because in many cases the legislatures followed up with stricter laws, which is exactly what's supposed to happen instead of "legislating from the bench".

This may not apply to you, if you have a different analysis from mine. It's obvious you HAVE researched it.
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
corplinx
Posts: 19586
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 12:49 am
Title: Moderator
Has thanked: 180 times
Been thanked: 611 times

Postby corplinx » Thu Mar 04, 2010 11:45 pm

gnome wrote:
corplinx wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kelo_v._City_of_New_London#Majority_and_concurring_opinions

Just for some perspective. I am glad these justices are now in the minority.


Hangon a minute there.

I feel the roles are reversed in this case...

From what I can tell, the majority in Kelo is basing their decision on legal principle that it's up to the "tryer of fact" (lower court) to distinguish what constitutes a legitimate usage rather than the Supreme Court. This is based on a philosophy of least interference that is usually championed by those of a more conservative bent.

The minority appears to be arguing that the decision will result in an undesirable and unfair result. They may be correct--but they are thus arguing that the Court disregard the current law in favor of a fairness agenda--something usually opposed by conservatives.

I draw from this conclusion that those strongly opposing Kelo are basing their decision on whether they like the outcome, rather than the method by which it was decided... since they claim to prefer the courts not "legislate from the bench" even where the law appears flawed.

So it's either conclude that they haven't given it much research, or only care about "legislating from the bench" when they disagree with the result.

I tend to think of Kelo as an example of judicial restraint that can be double-edged. Plus I'm not particularly alarmed because in many cases the legislatures followed up with stricter laws, which is exactly what's supposed to happen instead of "legislating from the bench".

This may not apply to you, if you have a different analysis from mine. It's obvious you HAVE researched it.


You may be right. I'll re-read when I have time and retract my comparison if it is indeed faulty.

User avatar
gnome
Posts: 21513
Joined: Tue Jun 29, 2004 12:40 am
Location: New Port Richey, FL
Has thanked: 315 times
Been thanked: 322 times

Re: Supreme Court strikes a blow for the First Amendment.

Postby gnome » Fri May 11, 2018 6:50 pm

So, have you had time yet? :twisted:
"If fighting is sure to result in victory, then you must fight! Sun Tzu said that, and I'd say he knows a little bit more about fighting than you do, pal, because he invented it, and then he perfected it so that no living man could best him in the ring of honor. Then, he used his fight money to buy two of every animal on earth, and then he herded them onto a boat, and then he beat the crap out of every single one. And from that day forward any time a bunch of animals are together in one place it's called a zoo! (Beat) Unless it's a farm!"
--Soldier, TF2

User avatar
WildCat
Posts: 13120
Joined: Tue Jun 15, 2004 2:53 am
Location: The 33rd Ward, Chicago
Has thanked: 25 times
Been thanked: 255 times

Re: Supreme Court strikes a blow for the First Amendment.

Postby WildCat » Fri May 11, 2018 7:50 pm

Holy fuck gnome is like an elephant, they say they never forget.

eta: yet incredibly patient.
Do you have questions about God?

you sniveling little right-wing nutter - jj

User avatar
Grammatron
Posts: 32374
Joined: Tue Jun 08, 2004 1:21 am
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Been thanked: 1443 times

Re: Supreme Court strikes a blow for the First Amendment.

Postby Grammatron » Fri May 11, 2018 7:56 pm

He's just slow to respond, I once helped him and it took him like 4 years to try my suggestion
pillory wrote:jokes aren't funny....seriously thinking......

seriously thinking might be funny....but it's not joke

User avatar
Doctor X
Posts: 65755
Joined: Fri Jun 04, 2004 8:09 pm
Title: Collective Messiah
Location: Your Mom
Has thanked: 3025 times
Been thanked: 1932 times

Re: Supreme Court strikes a blow for the First Amendment.

Postby Doctor X » Fri May 11, 2018 8:11 pm

And another four for her to actually get pregnant.

--J.D.
Mob of the Mean: Free beanie, cattle-prod and Charley Fan Club!
"Doctor X is just treating you the way he treats everyone--as subhuman crap too dumb to breathe in after you breathe out."--Don
DocX: FTW.--sparks
"Doctor X wins again."--Pyrrho
"Never sorry to make a racist Fucktard cry."--His Humble MagNIfIcence
"It was the criticisms of Doc X, actually, that let me see more clearly how far the hypocrisy had gone."--clarsct
"I'd leave it up to Doctor X who has been a benevolent tyrant so far."--Grammatron
"Indeed you are a river to your people.
Shit. That's going to end up in your sig."--Pyrrho
"Try a twelve step program and accept Doctor X as your High Power."--asthmatic camel

WS CHAMPIONS X3!!! NBA CHAMPIONS!! Stanley Cup! SB CHAMPIONS X5!!!!!


Return to “Politics & Social Issues”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: CCBot [Bot] and 3 guests