Jump to content

Horrible decision by the Supreme Court


Guest One of Five

Recommended Posts

On 1/22/2010 at 12:15 PM, Mark K said:

I'd demand that the people who have been granted broadcasting rights must donate a certain amount of airtime and distribute it fairly if I could figure out a way to do the fairly part.

The purpose of broadcasting licenses is so that someone with a bigger transmitter can't just squash your signal.

That's fine.

It shouldn't come with extra first amendment rights though.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 491
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Somewhere back in the deep recesses of my memory I remember some politician or lobbyist saying: “ the problem with buying a politician is making sure he stays bought.” Robert Heinlein in “Strange

No, it landed here because you put it here.  If I wanted it to be here, I would have done so myself.  If you want to keep this thread alive by quoting others, there's plenty in this thread.  And

And that is exactly why so many of us have Tom on ignore.

Posted Images

On 1/22/2010 at 1:54 PM, jimbot said:

If we're going to have politicians being bought and sold, I want to know who is doing the buying. The more informed we are about the candidates, the better decision we can make when voting.

Is it really a mystery?

Bloomberg $pend$ millions. Everyone knows it. Yet we don't see complaints about it around this forum, where complaints about Koch $pending are frequent. Why? Because TeamD. And .22's.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 6/6/2015 at 5:04 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

IMHO, I think the FF's had an intention of distinguishing a recognized entity who called itself "the press" who were dedicated to the job of informing the public about the events and the issues of the day (e.g. the NYTs or CNN) - as opposed to a corporation like Walmart who wanted to make a statement about something, but "being the press" is not part of their charter or even day job.

I have never seen evidence of that intention.

I would think that people who just went through a revolution might be suspicious of the idea that the government in power should decide who can $peak or publi$h on political topics. Those royal Governors could be real cunts sometimes.

"Freedom of the press" meant "freedom to publish" back then. Not "freedom to publish for those in the good graces of government."

Link to post
Share on other sites

He talks to himself almost as much as as Hopless Hillary Jackoff Malarkey.

Even though I too have him on ignore I can give you the gist of those posts;

.22

.22

.22

.22

.22

.22

.22

.22

.22

.22

.22

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2010 at 4:24 PM, Clove Hitch said:
Regatta Dog said:

Power does corrupt. Unions topping the top 20 in political donations, by a huge amount, and then sitting at the table during secret health care reform meetings and negotiating a deal with our elected representatives.

 

We really need to do something about the influence unions have on our Gov't.

 

 

well, the supreme court just gave them more polt. power. You happy about that?

That's not really what happened.

What happened was, Congress gave pre$$ corporations $pecial rights to $peak about candidates.

That's why Mark K was right about this:

On 1/22/2010 at 3:25 PM, Mark K said:

As things are now with cable, a corporation can

be set up to spew political opinions and shill

for political parties at will. Just have to call

it "News" and that's that.

But is that really that? What if some prosecutor doesn't think it's news and doesn't think yours is a media corporation? No $pecial pre$$ rights for you!

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/22/2010 at 9:30 PM, MoeAlfa said:

Seriously, the idea that the law is unable to distinguish between live people and legal constructs is just a bunch of clever silliness.

I miss Moe and he was right about this.

The idea that this case was about treating corporations exactly the same as individuals is clever silliness, as is the idea that it was about whether corporations have first amendment rights. Both are long settled and were not at issue.

But the actual issue of $pecial rights for pre$$ corporations is just darn unflattering if you're one of the pre$$ corporations. So they have, apparently successfully, brainwashed a whole bunch of people into thinking this case was about long-settled issues instead.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/20/2018 at 11:06 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:
On 7/20/2018 at 10:49 AM, Olsonist said:

they got Citizens United wrong in holding Citizens United to be a person.

Why did they do this? They did this because it was in their interests to do so.

Corporations have had first amendment rights for a very long time. NY Times v Sullivan.

Non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations have too. NAACP v Button.

1 hour ago, Mismoyled Jiblet. said:

Words sometimes matter

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/23/2010 at 10:09 AM, Guest One of Five said:

This ruling puts in place the right of a fictional person to influence the US electorate and thereby the US government.

Actually, it confirms once again that long-established right.

The law that was overturned put in place $pecial rights for some fictional persons, namely pre$$ corporations. Whatever those are. The law wasn't really clear what they are but I'm sure that we can trust the discretion of someone who is working for Jeff friggin' Sessions on that point.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, RKoch said:

Hmm...

Quote

When asked this week by The Thom Hartmann Program (via The Intercept) about the Supreme Court’s April 2014 decision to eliminate limits on campaign donations, Carter said the ruling “violates the essence of what made America a great country in its political system.”

I can understand his being upset if that's what he think the ruling did. It did not. He's usually better informed.

Quote

Carter’s comments come as the 2016 presidential race tops 20 candidates, most of them Republicans. “The incumbents, Democrats and Republicans, look upon this unlimited money as a great benefit to themselves,” Carter said. “Somebody’s who’s already in Congress has a lot more to sell to an avid contributor than somebody who’s just a challenger.”

The article is obviously dated but he's right about this. That's why I call "campaign finance" laws "incumbent protection" laws.

Quote

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also disagreed with the controversial Citizens United ruling that opened up campaign spending. She was among the dissenters in the court’s 5-4 decision that erased campaign-spending caps,

We still have the spending caps that were never erased and Ginsburg is smart and well-informed enough that there's no way I believe she ever told anyone that was her basis for dissent.

The case was about whether pre$$ corporations (whatever those are) are $pecial corporations with first amendment rights that extend beyond those of other corporations.

The answer, mostly because of the "whatever those are," is no, they are not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

And I personally have no issue with Pre$$ corporations having special rights that others don't because the 1st Amendment specifically mentions the need for the freedom of the press.  There is nothing in the Connie that says Amazon has the right to spend unlimited amounts to sway the political process.

They were not talking about a cadre of professional journalists with special government permission to $peak. They were talking about the freedom to publish.

Interesting that you'd mention Amazon. Which owns the Washington Po$t. Which, as a pre$$ corporation, can spend whatever it wants.

Do you know what the corporations I control do? Exactly what I want them to do, no more nor less.

So I guess everyone needs a pre$$ corporation.

Which leads to: how do you define one? Got an answer?

14 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I think what needs to happen wrt to Pre$$ corporations is we need to go back to treating the legitimate press with some special rights as long as they act responsibly with that privilege.  Up until about 20 years ago, the press acted pretty responsibly and was seen as mostly trustworthy to do its job of informing the public and holding elected officials accountable.  Its been in decline ever since the Press turned into the pre$$.  

There was never such a time, thank goodness. There was a time when information was a lot more restricted and most people got the same few stories from a few network mouthpieces. People like me, who always read alternative media as well, knew they did a terribly superficial and often biased job.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I fail to see how $pending on advocacy ad$ is any different that giving money directly to a candidate. 

And I fail to see how an editorial endorsement from a new$paper corporation is any different from an editorial attack from a non-profit, non-pre$$ corporation.

The difference might hinge on how a pre$$ corporation is defined. I'd know if someone offered a definition for discussion.

MegaLoMart is trying hard to be "Amazon, but with stores." But Amazon owns a pre$$ corporation and I don't know of one owned by MegaLoMart. The majority said that this meant Amazon, through its subsidiary, could $peak about political matters while its competitors could not. Does this seem fair?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

I would be quite OK with prohibiting a press corporation from being able to make an editorial endorsement or attack in order to maintain their ability to enjoy special pre$$ privileges.  They are more than welcome to set up a parallel but firewalled opinion organization if they want to be able to make editorial opinions known.   

If Trump tweets a lie and the Wa$hington Po$t $ay$ it's a lie, is that an attack or a report?

in addition to wondering what a pre$$ corporation is, I'm now wondering how such a "firewall" for cen$oring opinions would work.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, Shootist Jeff said:

If its a verifiable lie, its a report.  

As for how it would work...... I'm just the "ideas" guy.  Not the detail guy.  That's for someone else to work out.  :D

So, for an example of a verifiable lie, someone like me might say that calling this:

SWVictory22silver-flower.jpg

A "weapon of war," as several Senators do, is a verifiable lie.

Or is it just an opinion?

OK, OK, couldn't resist. But the question isn't that different from a less provocative one above: the court didn't "eliminate limits on campaign donations." That's a fact. But you're of the opinion that they effectively DID. Which side of the firewall would that land on?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 8/3/2018 at 5:10 AM, Uncooperative Tom said:

The difference might hinge on how a pre$$ corporation is defined. I'd know if someone offered a definition for discussion.

MegaLoMart is trying hard to be "Amazon, but with stores." But Amazon owns a pre$$ corporation and I don't know of one owned by MegaLoMart. The majority said that this meant Amazon, through its subsidiary, could $peak about political matters while its competitors could not. Does this seem fair?

The lack of a satisfactory definition of a "media corporation" in the law and the failure to answer that last question were the main factors that made Justice Kennedy side with the majority.

 

On 8/3/2018 at 6:11 AM, Shootist Jeff said:

I'm just the "ideas" guy.  Not the detail guy.  That's for someone else to work out.  :D

And if they don't, someone like Justice Kennedy will do it for them. And he did. These are not minor details, they're the main issues of controversy in the case.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 2 months later...
20 minutes ago, Bent Sailor said:

Nine & a half times out of ten, when it comes to legal matters, the weight of precedent will overrule a common sense reading of the law. It's why corporations are people


Actually, they're considered people for certain legal purposes because they were designed in their government-issued charters to be considered people for certain legal purposes.

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with that position in Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific RR and has been unanimous on that point ever since.

Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

The Supreme Court unanimously agreed with that position in Santa Clara County vs Southern Pacific RR and has been unanimous on that point ever since.

Sounds pretty haughty and all, Tom, but that decision STUNK, then was hyperbolized, extended, mis-recorded, and manipulated by a RR dude sitting within the court system. Amazing stuff.

Secondly, the basis of Citizen's stands upon the fourteenth amendment, where libertarians can't count state intent very well.

Citizen's was a CATO hijack job. We need to be more careful out there.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

That decision STUNK, then was hyperbolized, extended, mis-recorded, and manipulated by a RR dude sitting within the court system.

And this is a hilarious party line.

A court reporter somehow fooled the entire Supreme Court into adopting his view unanimously over and over again for over a century. Then people finally noticed! Uh huh.

Somehow a very similar precedent from 1963 upon which the topic decision rested was completely missed! Uh huh.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:

And this is a hilarious party line.

A court reporter somehow fooled the entire Supreme Court into adopting his view unanimously over and over again for over a century. Then people finally noticed! Uh huh.

Somehow a very similar precedent from 1963 upon which the topic decision rested was completely missed! Uh huh.

Haughty indeed. 

Tom Ray, Pied Piper.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Secondly, the basis of Citizen's stands upon the fourteenth amendment, where libertarians can't count state intent very well.

Citizen's was a CATO hijack job. We need to be more careful out there.

Alas, the secret libertarian cabal's control over Justice Kennedy has ended.

We're trying to get control over Kavanaugh but honestly it's like trying to make a bowman or a drummer be sane and normal.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
11 hours ago, jocal505 said:

Just sayin' that he needs to get better at this, needs to carry less exposure, what with Citizens United


OK, but why would you bring this topic up instead of the Kelo case in the Kelo thread?

You need to get better at finding the threads about the topics you wish to discuss. Do you want a lesson in how to search Scot's database?

Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, dogballs Tom said:


OK, but why would you bring this topic up instead of the Kelo case in the Kelo thread?

You need to get better at finding the threads about the topics you wish to discuss. Do you want a lesson in how to search Scot's database?

Go look at the Kelo thread. Unfortunately, it has become swept up in reverse race-baiting. This could become another cheap feature of our boards. This would be a poor development.

dred, Dylann burning flag.JPG

Link to post
Share on other sites

An interesting question from the 8th on Short Circuit this morning.

Quote

Missouri man starts a one-person nonprofit, on behalf of which he meets with legislators to talk about policy issues. He receives no payment and makes no expenditures but is still required to register as a lobbyist and file disclosure reports. A First Amendment violation? Eighth Circuit: Not at all; besides, the disclosures will be easy since he has nothing to report. Dissent: What possible interest could the government have in forcing this guy to file blank reports?

CalzoneCaseSumm.jpg

So lobbyist societies are people too.

The dissent asks a good question.

The justification for these disclosure rules is, as the dissent notes, to see "who is putting up the money and how much."

But Calzone isn't paying, being paid, or spending. He's just speaking without any $peaking at all. And blank forms are hard to justify in any case, at least to tree huggers like me.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...
13 hours ago, Left Shift said:

As I understand it, the personhood of corporations was an added line to a Supreme Court decision inserted by a clerk.  It became precedent due to inertia and, until Citizen's United, never really had a test case.  The court makeup for the Citizen's United decision was the perfect moment for clarification and expansion of that clerk's note.

To our serious national regret.  

"Corporations are people, my friend", Mitt Romney.  Except they have many rights and financial abilities unavailable to flesh and blood people.


The way you understand it is quite incomplete.

It's true that a clerk did add this part to the syllabus of Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific RR
 

Quote

 

The defendant Corporations are persons within the intent of the clause in section 1 of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

States, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

There's more to that story. Here's what his employers had to say about his scurrilous action.

Quote

Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.

So the court reporter added a note stating the unanimous opinion of the court. Had they disagreed, they could have fired him for his insolence. But they didn't disagree.

One of the precedents cited in CU for the "novel" idea that corporations are "persons" for legal purposes was NAACP vs Button in 1963, a case similar to CU in a number of ways. In that case, the Court said this about NAACP Inc:

Quote

We think petitioner may assert this right on its own behalf, because, though a corporation, it is directly engaged in those activities, claimed to be constitutionally protected, which the statute would curtail.

Your unawareness of that and many other prior tests of corporate personhood does not mean they didn't occur. It just means you did not know about them.

Meanwhile, to our serious national regret,

On 1/6/2019 at 7:10 AM, Contumacious Tom said:

Washington State voters just passed an initiative themselves that says, among other things, this:

Quote

(20) "Person" means any individual, corporation, company,
association, firm, partnership, club, organization, society, joint
stock company, or other legal entity.

Will of the people and all, you know?

Well, that's not the part I regret.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And hey, Relentless Tom - 

You might also want to explain to the gallery how corps got limited liability . .  

Now there is a real corrupt hoot for ya !! 

Hint- It's about another railroad bribery scam.  

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, AJ Oliver said:

And hey, Relentless Tom - 

You might also want to explain to the gallery how corps got limited liability . .  

Now there is a real corrupt hoot for ya !! 

Hint- It's about another railroad bribery scam.  

 

That's a bit more advanced than explaining that the Supreme Court has been unanimous since the 1800's on corporate personhood.

If I'm able to clear up the confusion on that point, maybe I'll go for something more advanced. It's not going well. This thread just had its ninth anniversary and there are still educated people, retired professors even, who have no idea what the case was about.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
39 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

That's a bit more advanced than explaining that the Supreme Court has been unanimous since the 1800's on corporate personhood.

If I'm able to clear up the confusion on that point, maybe I'll go for something more advanced. It's not going well. This thread just had its ninth anniversary and there are still educated people, retired professors even, who have no idea what the case was about.

What case? Wha? Who?

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, Raz'r said:

What case? Wha? Who?

All of them since the one where this happened:

Quote

Before argument, Mr. Chief Justice Waite said: The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Contumacious Tom said:

Forgot to answer this one but I think Relentless Tom has a nice ring to it.

I think he would call you importunate :)


BTW:  In my entire life, I have never before had an opportunity to use that word.  ** GO ME! **

Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, cmilliken said:

I think he would call you importunate :)


BTW:  In my entire life, I have never before had an opportunity to use that word.  ** GO ME! **

And the hits keep coming.

I can only change every 30 days you know.

 
 
Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Forever-Tom - 

You make the hi-jacking of the 14th Amend seem almost reasonable . .

It was anything but - SCOTUS regularly turned down appeals from African Americans against vicious racist attacks, the very people whom that

amendment was supposed to protect. Thousands of blacks were tortured and murdered by mobs under the approving SCOTUS eye. 

And gave those rights to Corps instead . . 

In fact, the history of the 14th is just about the main illustration out there that all that prattle we hear about the "rule of law" 

is nothing but a sick joke. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Hey Forever-Tom - 

You make the hi-jacking of the 14th Amend seem almost reasonable . .

It was anything but - SCOTUS regularly turned down appeals from African Americans against vicious racist attacks, the very people whom that

amendment was supposed to protect. Thousands of blacks were tortured and murdered by mobs under the approving SCOTUS eye. 

And gave those rights to Corps instead . . 

In fact, the history of the 14th is just about the main illustration out there that all that prattle we hear about the "rule of law" 

is nothing but a sick joke. 

If you have some specific history in mind, that would be interesting to hear about.

In modern times, black people can and do win 14th amendment based claims. Here's a thread about one. Celebrate with me!

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

If you have some specific history in mind, that would be interesting to hear about.

In modern times, black people can and do win 14th amendment based claims. Here's a thread about one. Celebrate with me!

You cannot possibly be that ignorant . . I'm thinking bigly bad faith. 

There is only one word that properly describes the systematic violence directed against African-Americans after the civil war to 

strip them of their voting, property, and virtually all other fundamental rights that the 14th was supposed to protect: 

that word is terrorism 

The courts and SCOTUS of that era were just fine with that. 

They were too busy being whores for the nascent corporate oligarchy. 

You ignorant slut. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:
7 hours ago, Contumacious Tom said:

If you have some specific history in mind, that would be interesting to hear about.

In modern times, black people can and do win 14th amendment based claims. Here's a thread about one. Celebrate with me!

You cannot possibly be that ignorant . . I'm thinking bigly bad faith. 

Just because I was able to influence the Supreme Court to recognize the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights prior to my birth, don't think it means I know everything you're thinking.

I really don't know what you're thinking about, which is different from not knowing history.

5 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

There is only one word that properly describes the systematic violence directed against African-Americans after the civil war to 

strip them of their voting, property, and virtually all other fundamental rights that the 14th was supposed to protect: 

Well, since one of the main types of property they wanted out of the "wrong" hands was guns, I think the word would be:

Grabberz!

Because prohibition programs are never about the objects and always about the people.

You're awfully interested in black people for someone who agrees with stripping corporations like the NAACP of their first amendment rights. WTF?

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, phillysailor said:

That’s an important and tricky point you are making. To delve into it further is to try to decide if some groups are more worthy of protection than others. As much as libs would like to think it’s easy, usually when the government tries to get it right they end up doing it wrong.

I still think there are ways of getting $ out of politics while leaving political speech protected.  I don’t equate them as consanguineous, no matter what CU says. 

The law that the topic case overturned DID decide some groups are more worthy than others.

Specifically, pre$$ corporation$ are more worthy than non-profit, non-pre$$ corporations like Citizens United or the NAACP.

They did it wrong by doing it at all in my opinion.

If you forbid someone from spending his money ONLY if he's doing it for political expression and NEVER any other time, that's about political expression. All the stupid "speech isn't $peech" memes won't change that fact.

11 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

Citizens United was badly reasoned, and corruptly carried out (no one had even asked the court to rule on the issue). 

 

You finally got something right!

It's true that no one asked the court to rule on "the issue" that lefties want to talk about: whether corporations and union$ have first amendment rights. That's because, as Stevens said for the minority

Quote

We have long since held that corporations are covered by the First Amendment

It was never a question.

The $pecial first amendment rights for $ome corporations and not others WAS a question.

And it's one that Justice Kennedy got right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Sol Rosenberg said:

If you want to understand just about any problem in the US, you need to answer one question: “who profits from it.”


Pre$$ corporations that are friendly to big government.

Still mostly works.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 6:22 AM, Importunate Tom said:
On 2/14/2019 at 5:51 AM, cmilliken said:

I think he would call you importunate :)


BTW:  In my entire life, I have never before had an opportunity to use that word.  ** GO ME! **

And the hits keep coming.

I can only change every 30 days you know.

I'm going to keep this one for a while. Too funny! Thanks!

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Olsonist said:
7 hours ago, bridhb said:

True, but the NRA gets to give millions of apparently Russian money to candidates that support their cause.

Tom will be by shortly to remind you that:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of corporate citizens, shall not be infringed.

He'll point out that that translation loses something from the original Russian.


bridhb, if you have thoughts about corporate $peech, this would be a good place to share them.

Olsonist, since you mostly have thoughts about me, you might be interested in the Tom Ray thread.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, Importunate Tom said:


bridhb, if you have thoughts about corporate $peech, this would be a good place to share them.

Olsonist, since you mostly have thoughts about me, you might be interested in the Tom Ray thread.

Nope.  No one is interested in you, your gun threads, or a thread about you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Fakenews said:

Nope.  No one is interested in you, your gun threads, or a thread about you.

Nonsense. So far, you, Olsonist, and Left Shift seem to have nothing else on your minds.

10 hours ago, Left Shift said:
12 hours ago, Olsonist said:

Tom will be by shortly to remind you that:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the rights of corporate citizens, shall not be infringed.

He'll point out that that translation loses something from the original Russian.

He will also conveniently drop out everything before the comma.  NRA style.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

You think THOSE are bad decisions, just wait till the Reichista SCOTUS overthrows . . 

Roe, any limits on gerrymandering, and even independent state commissions to draw leg boundaries 

They have every intention of cementing oligarchic rule. 

You read it here first  . . 

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, AJ Oliver said:

The ones I cited - come on, try some decent faith for a change 

Well, OK, I'll guess which one(s) you meant, since you cited none by name.

On 2/14/2019 at 10:08 PM, AJ Oliver said:

You cannot possibly be that ignorant . . I'm thinking bigly bad faith. 

There is only one word that properly describes the systematic violence directed against African-Americans after the civil war to 

strip them of their voting, property, and virtually all other fundamental rights that the 14th was supposed to protect: 

that word is terrorism 

The courts and SCOTUS of that era were just fine with that. 

They were too busy being whores for the nascent corporate oligarchy. 

You ignorant slut. 

Wedged in there between the usual personal insults, I'll take a wild guess that you might be talking about decisions like Dred Scott v Sanford.

Or, as my elk call it,

On 10/27/2014 at 6:13 AM, Importunate Tom said:

the execrable Dred Scott decision.


The big problem with recognizing black people as citizens was:

Quote

It would give to persons of the negro race, who were recognised as citizens in any one State of the Union, the right to enter every other State whenever they pleased, singly or in companies, without pass or passport, and without obstruction, to sojourn there as long as they pleased, to go where they pleased at every hour of the day or night without molestation, unless they committed some violation of law for which a white man would be punished; and it would give them the full liberty of speech in public and in private upon all subjects upon which its own citizens might speak; to hold public meetings upon political affairs, and to keep and carry arms wherever they went.

None of which seem to be problems to me. Not even that last one.

But I'm not sure what this has to do with "nascent corporate oligarchy." Please explain the connection.

And while you're at it, how about answering this question:

I'm glad that SCOTUS recognized the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights in 1963.

Are you?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
1 hour ago, MR.CLEAN said:
6 hours ago, Shootist Jeff said:

BS.  As much as I despise the CU ruling - it certainly didn't start there CU accelerated it, for sure.  

What the fuck are you on about now?  The ruling absolutely 'started there' because before the ruling, corporations couldn't donate a billion dollars to a super PAC.  Now they can not only donate whatever they want, they don't have to disclose it.  Outside spending has absolutely exploded, and its been funding and fomenting the kind of unrest that we now see.  


Do you mean "outside $pending" like when a pre$$ corporation endorses a candidate?

That's been going on forever. OK, I suppose, due to the pink flags and all.

But do we really want Trump's henchmen deciding who is and who is not INTERNATIONAL MEDIA?

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 weeks later...
25 minutes ago, jocal505 said:

My thoughts question why Tom feels a need to wrap Citizen's United under the banner of the NAACP.


It must be a mystery to non-readers.

Readers know I got the idea from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, in which he cited NAACP v Button among the precedents for corporate first amendment rights.

My thoughts question why Joe wants to talk about things he clearly hasn't read.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/31/2019 at 8:24 AM, Importunate Tom said:


Do you mean "outside $pending" like when a pre$$ corporation endorses a candidate?

 

 

I missed this comment.

An endorsement is an opinion of the editors, who are human people.  I'm pretty sure you are in favor of the 1A for human people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, MR.CLEAN said:

I missed this comment.

An endorsement is an opinion of the editors, who are human people.  I'm pretty sure you are in favor of the 1A for human people.

Do the humans do the $pending or does the corporation?

The issue in the topic case wasn't about the humans who created the content. It was about the corporate $pending.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Kennedy, writing for the majority on an non-controversial point:

Quote

 

The Court has recognized that First Amendment protection extends to corporations. Bellotti, supra , at 778, n. 14 (citing Linmark Associates, Inc. v. Willingboro , 431 U. S. 85 (1977) ; Time, Inc. v. Firestone , 424 U. S. 448 (1976) ; Doran v. Salem Inn, Inc. , 422 U. S. 922 (1975) ; Southeastern Promotions, Ltd. v. Conrad , 420 U. S. 546 (1975) ; Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn , 420 U. S. 469 (1975) ; Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo , 418 U. S. 241 (1974) ; New York Times Co. v. United States , 403 U. S. 713 (1971) (per curiam); Time, Inc. v. Hill , 385 U. S. 374 (1967) ; New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U. S. 254 ; Kingsley Int’l Pictures Corp. v. Regents of Univ. of N. Y. , 360 U. S. 684 (1959) ; Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson , 343 U. S. 495 (1952) ); see, e.g., Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. FCC , 520 U. S. 180 (1997) ; Denver Area Ed. Telecommunications Consortium, Inc. v. FCC , 518 U. S. 727 (1996) ; Turner , 512 U. S. 622 ; Simon & Schuster , 502 U. S. 105 ; Sable Communications of Cal., Inc. v. FCC , 492 U. S. 115 (1989) ; Florida Star v. B. J. F. , 491 U. S. 524 (1989) ; Philadelphia Newspapers, Inc. v. Hepps , 475 U. S. 767 (1986) ; Landmark Communications, Inc. v. Virginia , 435 U. S. 829 (1978) ; Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. , 427 U. S. 50 (1976) ; Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc. , 418 U. S. 323 (1974) ; Greenbelt Cooperative Publishing Assn., Inc. v. Bresler , 398 U. S. 6 (1970) .

     This protection has been extended by explicit holdings to the context of political speech. See, e.g., Button , 371 U. S., at 428–429; Grosjean v. American Press Co. , 297 U. S. 233, 244 (1936) . Under the rationale of these precedents, political speech does not lose First Amendment protection “simply because its source is a corporation.” Bellotti, supra, at 784; see Pacific Gas & Elec. Co. v. Public Util. Comm’n of Cal. , 475 U. S. 1, 8 (1986) (plurality opinion)

 

If people who work at a newspaper $pend their own money to $peak, that's protected.

If they $pend newspaper corporation money to $peak, that is too.

And if they have a pink flag on their boat as they should, it even protects INTERNATIONAL MEDIA figures like CLEAN.

Do you still have that video, CLEAN? It was damn funny.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I posted this in another thread just for FakeNewb/Bull Gator, but it's more relevant here.

On 5/9/2019 at 11:08 AM, Importunate Tom said:

Great News for Gator from SCOTUS:

Yes, the First Amendment Protects "I Eat Ass" Bumper Stickers

If a Vespa has a wide enough bumper, I suppose the sticker could be extended to say "I eat buttery ASS" and it would still be protected expression.

As is this FUCT decision from SCOTUS
 

Quote

 

The Supreme Court has cleared the way for you to go get FUCT. In a 6-3 ruling, the justices determined that a law prohibiting registration of "immoral or scandalous" trademark names violates the First Amendment.

The case, Iancu v. Brunetti, pitted a clothing manufacturer of the aforementioned brand name "FUCT" against the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office (PTO), which refused to accept the trademark registration because of its vulgar nature. Erik Brunetti fought the decision, and today the justices ruled in his favor.

The majority decision, written by Justice Elena Kagan and joined by Justices Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, ruled that this part of the Lanham Act is unconstitutional because it discriminates on the basis of viewpoint.

 

Yes, that's only 5 Justices, but it was 6-3 because

Quote

KAGAN, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which THOMAS, GINSBURG, ALITO, GORSUCH and KAVANAUGH, JJ., joined. ALITO, J., filed a concurring opinion. ROBERTS, C. J., and BREYER, J., filed opinions concurring in part and dissenting in part. SOTOMAYOR, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which BREYER, J., joined.

Heh. Censors get FUCT!

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:


It must be a mystery to non-readers.

Readers know I got the idea from Justice Kennedy's majority opinion, in which he cited NAACP v Button among the precedents for corporate first amendment rights.

My thoughts question why Joe wants to talk about things he clearly hasn't read.

You snipped this from a heartfelt message, taken from the day after Dylann Roof followed your basic memes. Now you use these words for XYZ, by thread transfer, to some other  part of your narcissism. You boost your cause with folly, false moves, and false wisdom. You are the dogballs.

 

To: the dogballs

From : Joe

I have developed an aversion to your principles, based on how you handle yourself. You are a habitual race-baitier, who uses cheap race-baiting in public on a daily basis. You think this is clever, and you have a support group of sorts, on PA, a forum of sophisticated (and hardy) men.

See A.J. Oliver a few posts above this one, noting that you don't give us the respect of discussion in good faith.   No offense dogballs, but the way you handle yourself,whatever you are presenting starts out with a few strikes against it. I can assume it is foul by the way you roll.

Sorry.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
19 hours ago, jocal505 said:
21 hours ago, Importunate Tom said:

I do agree with the unanimous Supreme Court decision on this subject. Not sure where you got the ludicrous notion that my elk put her on the streets, but homeless people do have rights. Yes, even that right.

Citizen's United, baby. Wow.


What does this case have to do with whether or not homeless people have rights?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Importunate Tom said:


What does this case have to do with whether or not homeless people have rights?

Right off the bat, you miss the point. The problem here is not their rights. The problem is the roof remaining over their head.

Are a slumlord figure? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 5/16/2019 at 2:10 PM, AJ Oliver said:

You think THOSE are bad decisions, just wait till the Reichista SCOTUS overthrows . . 

Roe, any limits on gerrymandering, and even independent state commissions to draw leg boundaries 

They have every intention of cementing oligarchic rule. 

You read it here first  . . 

Are you folks nuts ? You are ignoring evil-assed decisions of great import . .  

Such as the one on gerrymandering last week - predicted by me. (Wish I had been wrong) 

It is a clear violation of the 14th amendment, but the judicial activist Reichist SCOTUS is just fine with that. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

.

38 minutes ago, Jules said:

As for Citizens United, I don't need to read the opinions of others.  I read the decision.  That decision made possible SuperPACs, anonymous donors and unlimited campaign donations.  And lo and behold look at how many politicians are jumping through hoops to get at some of that big money, some of it Russian money.  How could the brilliant justices on the Supreme Court ever have known their decision would ever lead to such a thing?  No, you're right.  There's nothing wrong with the Citizens United decision.

.Did you really read all of them without realizing that we still have campaign donation limits?

Did you not know that we had SuperPACs and anonymous donors prior to the decision?

I haven't said there's nothing wrong.

On 6/7/2015 at 3:47 PM, Importunate Tom said:

On CU,

 

 

On 8/19/2012 at 10:28 AM, Tom Ray said:

 

...

I don't think the Supreme Court got everything right in Citizens United. I have said before that if my opinion were published with the rest, it would look like the rest: concurring in part, dissenting in part, and going off on my own wild tangent because the issues are so incredibly complex.

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2/14/2019 at 5:51 AM, cmilliken said:

I think he would call you importunate :)


BTW:  In my entire life, I have never before had an opportunity to use that word.  ** GO ME! **

It was a good one, but all good things come to an end.

Quote

Friends, Judge Selya of the First Circuit has seen fit to give us this vocab quiz: encincture, rescript, assay, gainsay, repastinate, algid.

 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jules said:

Not so much the unions anymore. 

Did you really even get as far as the very first line of Kennedy's opinion?

 

Quote

 

Justice Kennedy delivered the opinion of the Court.

     Federal law prohibits corporations and unions from using their general treasury funds to make independent expenditures for speech defined as an “electioneering communication” or for speech expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate.

 

The topic opinion applies every bit as much to unions (which are generally organized as corporations) as to other non-pre$$ corporations. Union$ $till have a lot to $ay in each election, as readers of Open Secrets know.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Sol Rosenberg said:
2 hours ago, Jules said:

Not so much the unions anymore. 

Yeah they’ve been neutered, but the economy is going like gangbusters for the Best Americans, so who cares?

Open Secrets

OpenSecretsTop10for2018.jpg

Gee, looks like Union$ comprise almost half of the top ten $peaker$.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
11 hours ago, Olsonist said:
13 hours ago, Blue Crab said:

Yep. I'd like to ban lobbyists. Period. 

I think overturning Citizens United would go a long way.

Corporations have been very very good to me. We have them for a reason. Entrepreneurs would not take risks if they were personally liable for their companies. We instead allow them to create entities, legal structures with a bundle of rights. I think that's a good thing but giving them personhood goes to far and makes no sense. Giving corporations (and their money) free speech rights makes no sense.

Overturning CU would leave NAACP v Button undisturbed so would not address the great evil of the NAACP's corporate first amendment rights.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 4 months later...

Decade in review: Citizens United and campaign spending

Quite a few interesting issues in the various scotusblog "decade in review" series and the topic case made the list.

 

Quote

 

One of the first blockbuster Supreme Court decisions of the past 10 years will surely affect the election taking place at the beginning of the new decade. In January 2010, the court ruled 5-4 in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission that corporations and unions have a First Amendment right to engage in independent spending to influence elections, overturning precedent to strike down part of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.

...

Citizens United, together with an appeals court decision issued in its wake, led to the rise of so-called “super PACs,” political action committees that can raise unlimited funds from individuals, corporations, unions and other groups and can engage in unlimited spending on political campaigns as long as they do not coordinate directly with the candidates. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, super PACs spent $820,000,000 in the 2018 election cycle.

 

"...the court ruled 5-4" is shorthand for

 

Quote

 

Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded.

Kennedy, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which Roberts, C. J., and Scalia and Alito, JJ., joined, in which Thomas, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, JJ., joined as to Part IV. Roberts, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined. Scalia, J., filed a concurring opinion, in which Alito, J., joined, and in which Thomas, J., joined in part. Stevens, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Ginsburg, Breyer , and Sotomayor, JJ., joined. Thomas, J., filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.

 

What a mess, especially that Part IV.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Plenipotentiary Tom said:

Decade in review: Citizens United and campaign spending

Quite a few interesting issues in the various scotusblog "decade in review" series and the topic case made the list.

"...the court ruled 5-4" is shorthand for

What a mess, especially that Part IV.

 

"There is very little evidence that money changes minds.  Politicians don't go from anti-something to pro-something because of a donation.  Its much easier and cheaper to just find someone who already agrees with you.  So rather than try and recruit a mercenary politician, they look for a principled activist they can amplify".

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, cmilliken said:

 

"There is very little evidence that money changes minds.  Politicians don't go from anti-something to pro-something because of a donation.  Its much easier and cheaper to just find someone who already agrees with you.  So rather than try and recruit a mercenary politician, they look for a principled activist they can amplify".

 

 

Somewhere back in the deep recesses of my memory I remember some politician or lobbyist saying: “ the problem with buying a politician is making sure he stays bought.”

Robert Heinlein in “Stranger in a Strange Land” describes an honest politician as someone who stays bought.

  • Like 3
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/4/2020 at 7:45 AM, cmilliken said:

"There is very little evidence that money changes minds.  Politicians don't go from anti-something to pro-something because of a donation.  Its much easier and cheaper to just find someone who already agrees with you.  So rather than try and recruit a mercenary politician, they look for a principled activist they can amplify"

That seems a bit of a rosy view.

But whatever politicians may do, does money change voter behavior is the better question.

Bloomberg is and has been betting big that it does. He was also, until recently, paying Oklahoma prisoners to call California voters. He quit due to embarrassment over them being prisoners. Fair enough but on the list of things that might influence a California voter, I'd have to think "a call from a prisoner in Oklahoma" would be pretty near the bottom.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 6 months later...
15 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:


Yes, and I continue to support the NAACP's long-established corporate first amendment rights.

Horrible decisions by Tom Ray. You use the NAACP for YOUR purposes, wily nilly.  You use Eugene in the same way, and MLK the same. You use the gangstas with the same form.

Frederick Douglas got yhe same treatment from you .You are about sketchy causes, not the NAACP.

 

You seem to have no feeling for this situation, but you capitalize on the problem IMO...for propaganda, narcicism, and entertainment. You are a POS IMO.

Quote

WORKING DRED SCOTT LIKE A RENTED MULE, 2019

 (score: 14 dreds/yr)

Today, Search > Dred > Tom Ray FOUND 32 RESULTS

  1. TheDred Scott case was well before 1974 and said that citizens could keep and carry arms wherever they went. Just because you don't read the cases you like to discuss doesn't mean the rest of us join you in your ignorance.October 30
  2. ...fromDred Scott to Jack Miller to Dick Heller and then Otis McDonald, none of the people whose gun rights have been discussed by the Supreme Court were in an organized militia unit at the time. Possibly because "the people" meant and means "the people." I don't see how that's inconsistent with...October 9
  3. ...I have agreed that the result inDred Scott is but that avoids my question. Where do you suppose that bold part at the end came from? The question can have an answer whether you agree with the bolded part or not. Where did it come from?August 15
  4. ...as the Beard andDred Scott cases, among others, have shown over and over.August 8
  5. ...why do you suppose the Supreme Court thought it applied to Jack Miller and could apply toDred Scott if they were not in any militia? I think it's because they're "the people." You know, like illegal immigrants.August 7
  6. ...racist application of laws to either of them would be as wrong as it was with MLK orDred Scott.July 15
  7. ...And why useDred Scott's picture? Do you enjoy reliving the glory days when blacks could not be considered citizens because June 14
  8. ...The reason was the same one that SCOTUS used to denyDred Scott the right to keep and carry arms wherever he went. Bull Gator, I hope you appreciate my effort to split this up into several posts over multiple days.June 6 
  9. ...Also notable in his absence:Dred Scott and what the Supreme Court had to say about why black people could not be full citizens. I can see why this guy is jocal's favorite cherry picker. Leaves those bad ones for the squirrels.May 31
  10. ...I'll take a wild guess that you might be talking about decisions likeDred Scott v Sanford. Or, as my elk call it, The big problem with recognizing black people as citizens was: None of which seem to be problems to me. Not even that last one. But I'm not sure what this...May 17
  11. ...I'd suggest starting with what the Supreme Court had to say on the issue when it came toDred Scott and then work forward toward the present day.April 15
  12. ...Even the minority agreed: That's why Justice Taney was worried so many years ago thatDred Scott might be able to "keep and carry arms" if he were considered a citizen. Our Supreme Court knew in 1856 what "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" meant to him.March 27
  13. ...it's hard to explain what Justice Taney had to say aboutDred Scott being able to "keep and carry arms" or to explain why they heard Jack Miller's case in the first place. Those are a couple of reasons Lawrence Tribe rejected that idea before the Supreme Court did.March 22
  14. ..Or possiblyDred Scott? Catch up. Lawrence Tribe figured out that "the people" means "the people" before the Supreme Court did in the case of noted militiaman Dick Heller and his 9 round revolver.March 22

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
48 minutes ago, Cacoethesic Tom said:


Yes, (I have a current grasp of the issues facing the NAACP) and I continue to support the NAACP's long-established corporate first amendment rights.

Hey, take your current wisdom on improving racial relations to the Black Lives Matter thread. Most of us are not as informed by the NAACP as yourself. I'd love to have a glimpse at their focus, at how they see the big picture right now.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 months later...

Case Appealed to Supreme Court Seeks to Prevent Widespread Harassment Of Nonprofit Donors
 

Quote

 

Can the government demand to know your name and home address merely because you’ve contributed to an organization you believe in? Unless the U.S. Supreme Court accepts and overturns the case of Americans for Prosperity Foundation v. Becerra, that is exactly what will take place in California—opening the way for other states to do likewise, and putting the safety of donors and the financial footing of nonprofits at risk.

The threat to donor safety and the financial wellbeing of nonprofits is not theoretical.

The U.S. Supreme Court has long held that the First Amendment protects the privacy of charitable donors. In the 1950s, the Court rejected an attempt by the State of Alabama to force the NAACP to turn over the names of its donors, recognizing that the risk of donors being harassed or threatened would undermine the civil rights organization’s base of financial support. But in September 2018, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a similar disclosure requirement in the Americans for Prosperity (AFP) case.

“Multiple people associated with Americans for Prosperity have received death threats or otherwise been harassed,” said Paul Sherman, a senior nutjob with the Institute for Justice, which filed a friend of the court brief on behalf of AFP urging the Court to take up the case. “At the same time, California has done a terrible job of keeping the nonprofit records it receives confidential; Americans for Prosperity’s expert witness was easily able to access all 350,000 of the supposedly ‘confidential’ documents stored on the Attorney General’s website.”

The 9th Circuit downplayed concerns that AFP donors might face harassment if their identities were known, citing the fact that the state does not intentionally disclose that information to the public.

Sherman said, “A fundamental purpose of privacy of association is to protect citizens from what government might do with that information. At a time when trust in government is near historic lows, charitable donors have every reason to want to keep their identities private. If the government thinks that information is necessary to investigate violations of the law, it can do what the government is supposed to do: get a warrant.”

...

 

"Get a warrant" should be the correct and legal response to fishing expeditions.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Quotidian Tom said:


 

"Get a warrant" should be the correct and legal response to fishing expeditions.

 The problem Tom is that it is not fishing when the organization is exempt from government taxation and/or donations to the organization are exempt from government taxation.

In other words, as long as all of our tax dollars subsidize §501organizations because of the public benefit they purportedly provide, their should be some transparency in how they run and are funded. 

Do you support equalizing the tax treatment of normal businesses and §501 orgs/donors?  

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, MR.CLEAN said:

as long as all of our tax dollars subsidize §501organizations because of the public benefit they purportedly provide, their should be some transparency in how they run and are funded. 

This sounds like an argument that may have been made in NAACP v Alabama.

I continue to think that revealing NAACP donations in 1950's Alabama may have been hazardous to one's health.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, badlatitude said:

"Intermittent fever" Tom?

No, that doesn't sound like a good one.

Find a single word that means "intermittent fever" and I'll consider it as my next screen name, but since I just changed it will be a while.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Quotidian Tom said:

No, that doesn't sound like a good one.

Find a single word that means "intermittent fever" and I'll consider it as my next screen name, but since I just changed it will be a while.

quotidian

 [kwo-tid´e-an] 

1. recurring every day.
2. a form of intermittent malarial fever with daily recurrent paroxysms.
quotidian fever a fever that recurs every day, such as with a type of malaria.
Miller-Keane Encyclopedia and Dictionary of Medicine, Nursing, and Allied Health, Seventh Edition. © 2003 bySaunders, an imprint of Elsevier, Inc. All rights reserved.
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 1 month later...