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

[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.

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.

You think there's a lot of cash getting dumped into the Presidential campaign by anonymous Super PACs?  Wait until you see what kind of cash gets dumped into the Montana Public Service Commission races, now that the SCOTUS has overturned state law barring Citizens United nonsense.

Mitt Romney's campaign energy advisor is Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, and Forbes' 36th wealthiest man in America at over $11 Billion...think Romney's got a fucked up energy policy now by not having an energy policy, wait until his cronies bury the MPSC races with cash.

But the decision's not corrupt or anything. 

[Eddie Teach]

You think there's a lot of cash getting dumped into the Presidential campaign by anonymous Super PACs?  Wait until you see what kind of cash gets dumped into the Montana Public Service Commission races, now that the SCOTUS has overturned state law barring Citizens United nonsense.

Mitt Romney's campaign energy advisor is Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, and Forbes' 36th wealthiest man in America at over $11 Billion...think Romney's got a fucked up energy policy now by not having an energy policy, wait until his cronies bury the MPSC races with cash.

But the decision's not corrupt or anything.

I'm not sure what influence you think either Romney or Hamm have on SC decisions. 

[CountDeMoney]

I'm not sure what influence you think either Romney or Hamm have on SC decisions. 

I'm not sure where you get that I said that.  Didn't I just say the decision's not corrupt?

Not the SC, you knob. The SC simply opened the floodgates for them.  Citizens United now applies to the state level.  Yahoo.

[Neil]

I'm not sure what influence you think either Romney or Hamm have on SC decisions. 

I'm not sure where you get that I said that.  Didn't I just say the decision's not corrupt?

Not the SC, you knob. The SC simply opened the floodgates for them.  Citizens United now applies to the state level.  Yahoo.

It always did, except in Montana.  And even then, they couldn't really have thought that their law would hold up.

[garbon]

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.

You think there's a lot of cash getting dumped into the Presidential campaign by anonymous Super PACs?  Wait until you see what kind of cash gets dumped into the Montana Public Service Commission races, now that the SCOTUS has overturned state law barring Citizens United nonsense.

Mitt Romney's campaign energy advisor is Harold Hamm, CEO of Continental Resources, and Forbes' 36th wealthiest man in America at over $11 Billion...think Romney's got a fucked up energy policy now by not having an energy policy, wait until his cronies bury the MPSC races with cash.

But the decision's not corrupt or anything. 

Again you might feel like that saying that about CU decision, but in this decision all they did was confirm that you can't opt out of the CU decision, which we already knew.

[CountDeMoney]

Again you might feel like that saying that about CU decision, but in this decision all they did was confirm that you can't opt out of the CU decision, which we already knew.

Yeah, it's the 1999 Commodities Act all over again.  Derivatives trading banned by the states for 100 years?  Fuck it! Now they can't! WHAT COULD HAPPEN

Yay for us.

[garbon]

Again you might feel like that saying that about CU decision, but in this decision all they did was confirm that you can't opt out of the CU decision, which we already knew.

Yeah, it's the 1999 Commodities Act all over again.  Derivatives trading banned by the states for 100 years?  Fuck it! Now they can't! WHAT COULD HAPPEN

Yay for us.

Well wasn't CU decided saying that it was in violation of the free speech clause in the 1st amendment? Wouldn't that go back to what Ide said about how shocking it is that states can't take actions to violate the 1st amendment?

[CountDeMoney]

Well wasn't CU decided saying that it was in violation of the free speech clause in the 1st amendment? Wouldn't that go back to what Ide said about how shocking it is that states can't take actions to violate the 1st amendment?

I'm not bemoaning the constitutionality of the ruling--they've square-pegged constitutional round holes before successfully.  If cash = free speech, then hey, cash = free speech.  There's a democratic way around that.

Just so happens that this Court has, over the last 20 years, the unfortunate habit of not ruminating beyond the actual impacts of their rulings, unlike, say....the Warren and Burger SCOTUS.  Now THERE were Courts you could rely on.

[Admiral Yi]

Open question:

If you were completely free to rewrite the 1st Amendment, what would it say?

[DGuller]

Open question:

If you were completely free to rewrite the 1st Amendment, what would it say?

It would say exactly the same thing it now says.  If someone is retarded enough to think that it applies to corporations, then no amount of lawyering with the language is going to mitigate that disability.

[Ed Anger]

Open question:

If you were completely free to rewrite the 1st Amendment, what would it say?

I'd scratch out the press bit, or add a bunch of restrictions. I hate the press.

[Admiral Yi]

It would say exactly the same thing it now says.  If someone is retarded enough to think that it applies to corporations, then no amount of lawyering with the language is going to mitigate that disability.

That's obviously not true.  It would take a minute amount of lawyering to guard against that risk.

[Admiral Yi]

BTW Guller, tomorrow is pay day.

[garbon]

Open question:

If you were completely free to rewrite the 1st Amendment, what would it say?

I'd scratch out the press bit, or add a bunch of restrictions. I hate the press.

Without the press, what would we do on languish?

[Sheilbh]

BTW Guller, tomorrow is pay day.

What about the bet with AR(?) on whether the odds shift in one direction or other?