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

[Neil]

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.

On the one hand, it's good that the court decided that US laws and your constitution applies to the States.  That way, states like Mississippi are kept from bringing back slavery, and Kansas isn't allowed to teach creationism and ban abortion.  On the other hand, it's a bad thing that a terrible, corrupt Supreme Court decision is being promulgated like this.

[derspiess]

True, but in all seriousness I don't understand your politics.  You're aligned with people who'd put you in a camp. 

[CountDeMoney]

True, but in all seriousness I don't understand your politics.  You're aligned with people who'd put you in a camp. 

Well, to their credit, they'd at least try to cure him first.


Hey, they're your crew, derfetuss.

[derspiess]

I like you guys, but the rampant mischaracterization here of Republicans gets old after a while.

[Ideologue]

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."

Is it inhuman in all circumstances to forcibly sterilize people?  The Nazis built roads too.  Should we stop building roads?  Jeez.

[Ideologue]

I like you guys, but the rampant mischaracterization here of Republicans gets old after a while.

I'll happily concede that not all Republicans want to put gays and blacks into camps or otherwise infringe upon their existences.

But the fact is a lot of Republicans do, to a greater and louder degree than avowed Democrats wish harm upon their (real or imagined) enemies.  This isn't really deniable, is it?

[CountDeMoney]

I like you guys, but the rampant mischaracterization here of Republicans gets old after a while.

They don't do themselves any favors, dude.

On the eve of hurricane season, and with half of Florida already under water from one storm already,
Rand Paul holds up Senate's Flood Insurance Bill with a "Fetal Personhood" Amendment.

And that's just on a Tuesday.

[DGuller]

The Nazis built roads too.

Ugh, don't remind me. 

[dps]

Is it inhuman in all circumstances to forcibly sterilize people?

Serious question, not trolling--should this be taken to imply that you think that there are circumstances in which it's acceptable to forcibly sterilize people?

[derspiess]

I like you guys, but the rampant mischaracterization here of Republicans gets old after a while.

I'll happily concede that not all Republicans want to put gays and blacks into camps or otherwise infringe upon their existences.

But the fact is a lot of Republicans do, to a greater and louder degree than avowed Democrats wish harm upon their (real or imagined) enemies.  This isn't really deniable, is it?

I can't remember hearing any Republicans state that they want to put gays or black into camps.

[Ideologue]

Is it inhuman in all circumstances to forcibly sterilize people?

Serious question, not trolling--should this be taken to imply that you think that there are circumstances in which it's acceptable to forcibly sterilize people?

Well, I was being facetious, but of course a winning argument can be made that certain unions likely to give rise to offspring with serious genetic disorders--and shortened and agonizing lives--should only be permitted under a system in which conception or at least birth cannot occur.  No one should ever be born with Tays-Sachs, for example.  And while not begrudging anyone whose life is owed to their parents' horrific perseverance, but if a couple has four kids with painful, fatal genetic disorders before producing a successful offspring, it's still kind of fucked up that they thought the fifth time was the charm.  Feeling creatures are not to be testing grounds for their parents.

Our knowledge, both factual and moral, far outstrips the eugenicists of yore, so the ethical dangers inherent in regulating conception and birth are far less obvious for us than they would be for, say, 1930s Virginia.

[garbon]

But the fact is a lot of Republicans do, to a greater and louder degree than avowed Democrats wish harm upon their (real or imagined) enemies.  This isn't really deniable, is it?

Well certainly Dem politicians don't have to do that. They have their fanatical partisans for the dirty work.

[Ideologue]

I like you guys, but the rampant mischaracterization here of Republicans gets old after a while.

I'll happily concede that not all Republicans want to put gays and blacks into camps or otherwise infringe upon their existences.

But the fact is a lot of Republicans do, to a greater and louder degree than avowed Democrats wish harm upon their (real or imagined) enemies.  This isn't really deniable, is it?

I can't remember hearing any Republicans state that they want to put gays or black into camps.

Fine, I'm being hyperbolic.  At the same time, there have been plenty of moves from the GOP based entirely upon fear and/or hatred toward those groups.  E.g., Gingrich's use of coded language in regard to blacks, and uncoded contempt for gay folk.

Also women, and scientists.  And dogs.

I understand that you don't necessarily feel that way (except about whore pills, or maybe that was deeps ).  But that doesn't change the fact that the GOP relies on a wing of America's worst elements to win elections.

Truthfully, I guess I'd be somewhat discomfited if they didn't, because then they'd become a much more viable party moving forward.  Their discipline, their money, and their election-manipulating capabilities are facts to envy for a Democrat.

[Sheilbh]

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.

On the one hand, it's good that the court decided that US laws and your constitution applies to the States.  That way, states like Mississippi are kept from bringing back slavery, and Kansas isn't allowed to teach creationism and ban abortion.  On the other hand, it's a bad thing that a terrible, corrupt Supreme Court decision is being promulgated like this.

Yeah, I basically agree - though I doubt the decision's corrupt.

[grumbler]

On the one hand, it's good that the court decided that US laws and your constitution applies to the States.

Yeah, the Marshall Court was good about stuff like that.