The other SCOTUS ruling: yeah, Citizens United can fuck states' rights, too

[Ideologue]

That Montana law sounds like the sort of idea you have of a Progressive, trust-busting, anti-corporate West.  It seems very of its time.

I busted a trust once and accidentally hit the cat.

[Ideologue]

I consider massive corruption and legalized bribery a pretty big issue personally.

garbon likes to pretend that he's got things in common with the people who carry out the massive corruption and legalized bribery, so of course he's in favour of it.

Sick burn.  I forgive you for your pun in the other thread.

Unlike Marti, I never claimed to brush elbows with the "movers and shakers" of the world.

True, but in all seriousness I don't understand your politics.  You're aligned with people who'd put you in a camp.  Two separate camps, really.  And beyond that people who would impoverish you to extract as much value from your labor as possible.

I don't agree with every Democrat on every issue, but I doubt any of them wish Hell, death or destitution upon me.

[garbon]

True, but in all seriousness I don't understand your politics.  You're aligned with people who'd put you in a camp.  Two separate camps, really.  And beyond that people who would impoverish you to extract as much value from your labor as possible.

I don't agree with every Democrat on every issue, but I doubt any of them wish Hell, death or destitution upon me.

That's because I don't really trust either party. I like the relative power of each to be balanced so neither can implement the fucked up shit they want.

[garbon]

I don't agree with every Democrat on every issue, but I doubt any of them wish Hell, death or destitution upon me.

Oh I doubt this. There are definitely anti-white Dem politicos out there.

[dps]

I don't agree with every Democrat on every issue, but I doubt any of them wish Hell, death or destitution upon me.

Oh I doubt this. There are definitely anti-white Dem politicos out there.

There's no doubt large numbers of Democrats if different flavors that would wish Hell, death, destitution, or some combination thereof upon Ide, for various reasons.  Not singling Ide out--there probably isn't a poster here that someone in both of our major parties wouldn't have killed if they could get away with it.

[DGuller]

I don't agree with every Democrat on every issue, but I doubt any of them wish Hell, death or destitution upon me.

Oh I doubt this. There are definitely anti-white Dem politicos out there.

There's no doubt large numbers of Democrats if different flavors that would wish Hell, death, destitution, or some combination thereof upon Ide, for various reasons.  Not singling Ide out--there probably isn't a poster here that someone in both of our major parties wouldn't have killed if they could get away with it.

I would agree with that statement.  I'm sure that out of two groups with tens of millions of members each, you can find at least one member in both of them that would kill you if they could get away with it.

[The Minsky Moment]

While the Taney Court is of course denounced for the Dred Scott decision, with that exception isn't the Taney Court well viewed by historians?

I don't know that is true; if it is, it is unwarranted.

I've have heard it claimed that Taney was perceived as a eminent person before Dred Scott and that the decision forever destroyed his reputation.  IMO that makes for nice historical narrative, but to what extent it is true is another question.

Taney served in high cabinet positions, but my own view is that being Andrew Jackson's Treasury Secretary (for example) is a qualification along the lines of being Taft's official dietician. 

The Taney Court was most notable in its earlier years for the presence of Justice Story, whose eminence easily outshone the Chief.  After Story's retirement, the composition of the Court probably ranks as among the least impressive in its history.  The most notable personality other than Taney himself was McLean, and his fame (such as it was) stemmed from his raw ambition and erratic political career more than any judicial acumen. 

[Scipio]

States are sovereigns.  Sovereigns don't have rights, they have powers.

I've never understood why so many people don't get that distinction.

It's very convenient to be ignorant of that fact.  Southerners get to elide racism out of the civil war, and progressives get to elide humanity out of the state.  Everyone gets what they want, and they get to use the same bad terminology to advance their agendas.

Yilaborate.

To quote Oliver Wendelle Holmes, Jr., progressive hero and champion of judicial restraint, on the forced sterilization of the mentally ill or mentally retarded: "Three generations of imbeciles is enough."

[CountDeMoney]

I don't agree with every Democrat on every issue, but I doubt any of them wish Hell, death or destitution upon me.

Oh I doubt this. There are definitely anti-white Dem politicos out there.

Well, at least your ant-black GOP politico ass cancels someone out.

[grumbler]

That Montana law sounds like the sort of idea you have of a Progressive, trust-busting, anti-corporate West.  It seems very of its time.

Nullification is very much of its time, as well.  This case was just silly for Montana to defend.

[jimmy olsen]

While the Taney Court is of course denounced for the Dred Scott decision, with that exception isn't the Taney Court well viewed by historians?

Not really.  The Taney Court took many stances that seemed contrary to any reasonable interpretation of actual law, for instance.

Taney's court ruled, for instance, that the US Congress could not restrict the spread of slavery, and that all of the compromises designed to do so were unconstitutional.  This was pulling-law-out-the-ass on a scale exceeding that of decision based on Dred Scott's actual status. Taney's  repeated reference to "states' rights" and "community rights" despite the fact that those rights existed nowhere under the US system of government now seem vaguely activist, despite Taney's sincere belief that he was merely following precident that was obvious to him, if nowhere articulated.

Well even though that did not deal with Dred Scott's status, that was decided under the Dred Scott case, which as I said is the exception.

[garbon]

I would agree with that statement.  I'm sure that out of two groups with tens of millions of members each, you can find at least one member in both of them that would kill you if they could get away with it.

Hopefully we don't have tens of millions of politicians!

[grumbler]

Well even though that did not deal with Dred Scott's status, that was decided under the Dred Scott case, which as I said is the exception.

You didn't say anything.  You asked a question.  If you wish to assert that the Dred Scott case is the exception to a well-regarded court, by all means do so, with some evidence.  The Yicratic method only works for Yi.

[CountDeMoney]

That Montana law sounds like the sort of idea you have of a Progressive, trust-busting, anti-corporate West.  It seems very of its time.

And it was, with the copper industry.
Unfortunately, it is again, now with the oil shale discoveries.  The energy industry barons just got confirmation that the state won't be able to stop them this time.

[dps]

While the Taney Court is of course denounced for the Dred Scott decision, with that exception isn't the Taney Court well viewed by historians?

Not really.  The Taney Court took many stances that seemed contrary to any reasonable interpretation of actual law, for instance.

Taney's court ruled, for instance, that the US Congress could not restrict the spread of slavery, and that all of the compromises designed to do so were unconstitutional.  This was pulling-law-out-the-ass on a scale exceeding that of decision based on Dred Scott's actual status. Taney's  repeated reference to "states' rights" and "community rights" despite the fact that those rights existed nowhere under the US system of government now seem vaguely activist, despite Taney's sincere belief that he was merely following precident that was obvious to him, if nowhere articulated.

Well even though that did not deal with Dred Scott's status, that was decided under the Dred Scott case, which as I said is the exception.

Actually, the Dred Scott case is a good, if somewhat early, example of judicial activism.  While there ruling on the narrow issue of Scott's status is repugnant to modern sensibilities, it wasn't unreasonable given the understanding of constitutional and statuatory law which existed at the time.  But the Court choose to go waaaay beyond that.