QuoteSupreme Court strikes down Montana's campaign finance law
WASHINGTON — In a closely watched case, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday threw out a 100-year-old Montana law barring corporations from spending money on political campaigns.
The decision reaffirms and expands to Montana the Supreme Court's position in the Citizens United case that it's constitutional for companies and unions to spend unlimited amounts of money to advocate for candidates and issues.
Many Democrats in Montana decried the decision as political.
"It is a sad day for our democracy and for those of us who still want to believe that the United States Supreme Court is anything more than another political body," Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock said.
Gov. Brian Schweitzer, a Democrat, said this ruling ends a century of clean elections in Montana.
"We've got a Supreme Court in Washington, D.C., who says they know better and they now say it's OK to have dirty, secret, corporate, foreign money buying elections from the White House to the court house," he said.
Montana had refused to adhere to the 2010 Citizens United ruling, citing the state's 1912 law that banned corporate political spending. The case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, challenged that position and the state Supreme Court sided with Montana. Monday's decision, made without oral arguments, summarily reverses that ruling, thereby nullifying the century-old Montana law.
It also upends the landscape in one of the most contested U.S. Senate races in the country: Sen. Jon Tester vs. Rep. Denny Rehberg.
Tester, a Democrat, said the ruling doesn't guarantee free speech — it guarantees corruption.
"Today's ruling is an endorsement of secret spending and the backwards notion that corporations somehow have the same constitutional rights as American citizens," he said, adding that the ruling will "open the gates to even more out-of-state money from secretive special interests."
Fellow Montana Democrat, Sen. Max Baucus, also denounced the decision, calling it a "dangerous blow to democracy." Baucus has proposed a constitutional amendment that would give Congress the authority to set campaign finance laws.
"My constitutional amendment would right this wrong once and for all, and today's announcement makes me more determined than ever to get it done," he said.
Meanwhile, Rehberg, a Republican, praised the decision, saying that free speech is guaranteed by the Constitution no matter if you are a member of a labor union, private business or political party.
"Instead of trying to silence political dissent, let's focus on improving transparency and creating stricter reporting requirements," he said. "There's no excuse for letting powerful special interest groups exert influence on our elections from behind a veil of secrecy and anonymity."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., also hailed the ruling, calling it "an important victory for free speech."
The Citizens United decision opened the door to unlimited spending by organizations and wealthy donors via shadowy groups called "super PACs," which can raise and spend unlimited amounts of money as long as they do not coordinate their message with the candidates they support.
Campaign finance reform advocates had flocked to the Montana case, hoping for an opportunity to revisit the Citizens United case.
"It's devastating because this was one of our main strategies for dealing with Citizens United," said Rob Hager, an attorney for Essential Information, a nonprofit citizen action group founded by Ralph Nader.
He and others had urged Montana to argue that the Supreme Court lacked jurisdiction, based on the 11th Amendment, which bars federal courts from hearing lawsuits brought by private parties against states.
"The state should have raised the jurisdiction argument right away," said Carl Mayer, who filed a brief in support of Montana on behalf of the Eleventh Amendment Movement (TEAM) group. "We predicted this outcome. Everyone knows that the majority wasn't going to be persuaded to reconsider Citizens United on its merits."
The court's 5-4 vote fell largely along political lines, with the court's majority ignoring pleas from the court's more liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because the massive campaign spending since the 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.
Twenty-two states and the U.S. capital area, as well as Sen. John McCain, the former Republican presidential candidate, and other congressional champions of stricter regulations on campaign money, joined with Montana.
In an unsigned one-page opinion, the court's majority wrote that on the question of whether the Citizens United ruling applies to Montana law: "There can be no serious doubt that it does."
"Montana's arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case," the majority wrote.
Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote the dissent.
"Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so," Breyer wrote. "Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case."
Oh, Amerika!
Don't really see the cause for concern here...other than Montana wasting the money of the few taxpayer's that it has.
My guess is that far into the future, the Roberts Court will be viewed about the same as the Taney Court. Of course, I'm being optimistic, because that assumes that the present state of things is a sociopathic aberration that would be denounced by the generations that follow, and is not a permanent step away from civilization.
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 08:51:11 AM
Don't really see the cause for concern here...other than Montana wasting the money of the few taxpayer's that it has.
ZOMG the evol corporations are buying elections!!!111
Quote from: DGuller on June 26, 2012, 08:57:15 AM
My guess is that far into the future, the Roberts Court will be viewed about the same as the Taney Court. Of course, I'm being optimistic, because that assumes that the present state of things is a sociopathic aberration that would be denounced by the generations that follow, and is not a permanent step away from civilization.
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 think that's what you're hoping for with the Roberts court.
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 08:51:11 AM
Don't really see the cause for concern here...
Of course you don't.
Meh. It's not like your system can be fixed anyways. Born in treason and too different from Westminster to prosper, you guys might as well pack it in.
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2012, 10:06:01 AM
Meh. It's not like your system can be fixed anyways. Born in treason and too different from Westminster to prosper, you guys might as well pack it in.
Then where you gonna get your football?
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2012, 09:35:07 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 08:51:11 AM
Don't really see the cause for concern here...
Of course you don't.
Taking issue with the Citizen's United decision sure - but getting concerned that states are being told they can't refuse to comply? Seems like a logical next step...
States are sovereigns. Sovereigns don't have rights, they have powers.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2012, 10:09:47 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2012, 10:06:01 AM
Meh. It's not like your system can be fixed anyways. Born in treason and too different from Westminster to prosper, you guys might as well pack it in.
Then where you gonna get your football?
Hey now. Your political system might be trash, but the NFL is the best sport in the world. You can fix one without ruining the other.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
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.
The Court was not criticized for all of its decisions, of course. The decision on the non-justiciable nature of political disputes like those in Rhode Island is, I believe, still the precedent for the court. Its work on the distinction between Federal and state responsibilities in interstate commerce still stands.
Taney as a man has remained a fairly admirable figure in historians' eyes, for some reason. He suffered from the inherent contradictions between what he thought as a white man's white man, and what he thought as a human being. He freed his own slaves, but never thought that blacks were really people. He ruled in favor of the supremacy of the Supreme Court over state courts, but against the equivalent supremacy of Congress. Me, I think he was a dick, and I am glad he lived long enough to see everything he worked for in the area of "states' rights" and white supremacy destroyed.
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
States are sovereigns. Sovereigns don't have rights, they have powers.
I've never understood why so many people don't get that distinction.
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2012, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
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.
The First Amendment applies to states as well? NO WAI
Hmmm, grumbler and the Languish law firm bitching about the proper use of archaic terminology. Imagine that.
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2012, 01:36:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2012, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 01:56:47 PM
The First Amendment applies to states as well? NO WAI
I won't be having that in my state! :angry:
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 08:51:11 AM
Don't really see the cause for concern here...other than Montana wasting the money of the few taxpayer's that it has.
By...what? Passing a law 100 years ago? A century ago they were supposed to anticipate this court challenge somehow?
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2012, 02:22:02 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 08:51:11 AM
Don't really see the cause for concern here...other than Montana wasting the money of the few taxpayer's that it has.
By...what? Passing a law 100 years ago? A century ago they were supposed to anticipate this court challenge somehow?
No the waste on defending against this and all their politicians rallying as if this is some hot button issue.
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 26, 2012, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 08:51:11 AM
Don't really see the cause for concern here...other than Montana wasting the money of the few taxpayer's that it has.
ZOMG the evol corporations are buying elections!!!111
Not really. They buy off both sides so they win either way.
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 02:24:47 PM
No the waste on defending against this and all their politicians rallying as if this is some hot button issue.
I consider massive corruption and legalized bribery a pretty big issue personally.
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.
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2012, 02:26:07 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 26, 2012, 09:03:08 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 08:51:11 AM
Don't really see the cause for concern here...other than Montana wasting the money of the few taxpayer's that it has.
ZOMG the evol corporations are buying elections!!!111
Not really. They buy off both sides so they win either way.
I don't believe that. Seedster has convinced me that corporations only buy elections for Republicans. Pretty sad state of affairs though as even with all their cash, they seem unable to even buy up most of the seats!
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2012, 02:26:56 PMI 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.
Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2012, 02:30:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2012, 02:26:56 PMI 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.
Not really. :)
Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2012, 02:30:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2012, 02:26:56 PMI 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. :hug:
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2012, 02:26:56 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 02:24:47 PM
No the waste on defending against this and all their politicians rallying as if this is some hot button issue.
I consider massive corruption and legalized bribery a pretty big issue personally.
From the article it seemed like everyone knew from the outset that their defense was likely to fall on deaf hears...and the politicians now raising a stink, well I guess that might warm some voters' hearts but not sure what practical use that has.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2012, 02:30:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2012, 02:26:56 PMI 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. :hug:
Unlike Marti, I never claimed to brush elbows with the "movers and shakers" of the world. :P
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2012, 02:27:50 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 02:32:46 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:31:30 PM
Quote from: Jacob on June 26, 2012, 02:30:15 PM
Quote from: Valmy on June 26, 2012, 02:26:56 PMI 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. :hug:
Unlike Marti, I never claimed to brush elbows with the "movers and shakers" of the world. :P
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:37:30 PM
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. :)
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:37:30 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 02:47:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:37:30 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on June 26, 2012, 03:52:28 PM
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 02:47:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:37:30 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:13:36 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2012, 01:36:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2012, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
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."
Quote from: garbon on June 26, 2012, 02:47:04 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:37:30 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2012, 02:27:50 PM
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.
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2012, 11:51:03 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 26, 2012, 03:59:15 PM
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! :o
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2012, 05:22:20 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2012, 02:27:50 PM
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.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2012, 05:22:20 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2012, 11:51:03 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on June 26, 2012, 09:31:48 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2012, 07:27:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2012, 02:27:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:37:30 PM
True, but in all seriousness I don't understand your politics. You're aligned with people who'd put you in a camp.
:rolleyes:
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2012, 09:32:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:37:30 PM
True, but in all seriousness I don't understand your politics. You're aligned with people who'd put you in a camp.
:rolleyes:
Well, to their credit, they'd at least try to cure him first.
Hey, they're your crew, derfetuss.
I like you guys, but the rampant mischaracterization here of Republicans gets old after a while.
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2012, 04:55:49 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 02:13:36 PM
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2012, 01:36:38 PM
Quote from: grumbler on June 26, 2012, 11:53:17 AM
Quote from: Scipio on June 26, 2012, 10:43:05 AM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2012, 09:59:12 PM
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?
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2012, 09:59:12 PM
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 (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/26/rand-paul-fetal-personhood-flood-insurance_n_1628128.html).
And that's just on a Tuesday.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 10:01:28 PM
The Nazis built roads too.
Ugh, don't remind me. :mad:
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 10:01:28 PM
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?
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 10:03:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2012, 09:59:12 PM
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.
Quote from: dps on June 26, 2012, 10:32:22 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 10:01:28 PM
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.
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 10:03:25 PM
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.
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2012, 11:31:05 PM
Quote from: Ideologue on June 26, 2012, 10:03:25 PM
Quote from: derspiess on June 26, 2012, 09:59:12 PM
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 :P ). 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.
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2012, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2012, 07:27:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2012, 02:27:50 PM
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.
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2012, 08:34:07 PM
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.
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2012, 03:52:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2012, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2012, 07:27:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2012, 02:27:50 PM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 07:18:49 AM
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. :hmm:
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2012, 07:24:21 AM
I'm not sure what influence you think either Romney or Hamm have on SC decisions. :hmm:
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 07:28:47 AM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on June 27, 2012, 07:24:21 AM
I'm not sure what influence you think either Romney or Hamm have on SC decisions. :hmm:
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 07:18:49 AM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2012, 03:52:28 AM
Quote from: Neil on June 26, 2012, 08:34:07 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 26, 2012, 07:27:25 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 26, 2012, 02:27:50 PM
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.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:10:38 AM
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.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 08:14:27 AM
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:10:38 AM
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?
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 08:18:29 AM
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. :P
Open question:
If you were completely free to rewrite the 1st Amendment, what would it say?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 05:07:26 PM
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.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 05:07:26 PM
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.
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 05:13:16 PM
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.
BTW Guller, tomorrow is pay day.
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 27, 2012, 05:22:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 05:07:26 PM
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?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 05:38:52 PMBTW Guller, tomorrow is pay day.
What about the bet with AR(?) on whether the odds shift in one direction or other?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2012, 05:42:54 PM
What about the bet with AR(?) on whether the odds shift in one direction or other?
Never consumated.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 05:46:15 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2012, 05:42:54 PM
What about the bet with AR(?) on whether the odds shift in one direction or other?
Never consumated.
Ah. Out of interest, any movement?
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 05:38:52 PM
BTW Guller, tomorrow is pay day.
I know. You got the money?
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2012, 05:47:18 PM
Ah. Out of interest, any movement?
Last time I checked was maybe a month ago. Still around 60 cents then.
BTW, all those scenarios being discussed make me a little concerned that our terms may be unclear. Are we betting on the individual mandate, or the Obamacare in its entirety being overturned? My understanding is that my side is a 5-4 decision killing the mandate at the very least.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 05:55:04 PM
Quote from: Sheilbh on June 27, 2012, 05:47:18 PM
Ah. Out of interest, any movement?
Last time I checked was maybe a month ago. Still around 60 cents then.
From ABC:
(https://languish.org/forums/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fa.abcnews.com%2Fimages%2FPolitics%2Fht_health_care_unconstitutional_intrade_graph_ll_120626_wg.jpg&hash=87cfc24e9bd18f922f94cebac6e088730b3dc85f)
I suspect it'll be found constitutional, but perhaps wrongly :ph34r:
Well that's certainly intersting Shelf.
Guller: the bet is on the mandate.
BTW, if fucking InTrade allowed me to register I would be happy to short at 77 cents.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 06:01:53 PM
Well that's certainly intersting Shelf.
Guller: the bet is on the mandate.
All right, that's what I thought.
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 05:13:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 05:07:26 PM
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.
Besides, it's the 2nd Amendment that needs the rewrite. That one's caused more problems than the 1st.
Quote from: garbon on June 27, 2012, 05:40:42 PM
Quote from: Ed Anger on June 27, 2012, 05:22:09 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 05:07:26 PM
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?
Be free of Timmay's tyranny.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on June 27, 2012, 07:04:02 PM
Quote from: DGuller on June 27, 2012, 05:13:16 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on June 27, 2012, 05:07:26 PM
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.
Besides, it's the 2nd Amendment that needs the rewrite. That one's caused more problems than the 1st.
And here I thought you were going to say the 13th or 14th!