Ronald Reagan Profile In Alzheimer's Award Goes To: Justice Kennedy

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ronald Reagan Profile In Alzheimer's Award Goes To: Justice Kennedy

Here we have an elderly man, who in the most public fashion, exhibited cognitive as well as intellectual deterioration, to an extent that should have embarrassed all who witnessed it.

In his reasoning for Citizens United:

“We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

"Favoritism and influence are not . . . avoidable in representative politics. It is in the nature of an elected representative to favor certain policies, and, by necessary corollary, to favor the voters and contributors who support those policies."

Citizens United: How Justice Kennedy has paved the way for the return of soft money - Slate Magazine

Boston Review — Lawrence Lessig: Democracy After Citizens United

"...adding the words “and contributors” not only makes the statement not obvious (as Justice Kennedy seems to believe), but in my view, plainly wrong. The framers did not intend to make representatives dependent upon contributors. Representatives were to be dependent upon voters, or, more generally, “the People alone.” - Lawrence Lessig

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell, who attended the announcement of the ruling, said the court "struck a blow for the First Amendment".[41]

Republican campaign consultant Ed Rollins opined that the decision adds transparency to the election process and will make it more competitive.[42]

- wikipedia

---

In justifying his ruling, Justice Kennedy also noted that since there was no way to distinguish between media and other corporations, these restrictions would allow Congress to suppress political speech in newspapers, books, television and blogs.
-----------------

Hello? Is there a doctor in the court?

 

[Dot Com]

NOW he's having 2nd thoughts about it

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

NOW he's having 2nd thoughts about it

ouch!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

One of Kennedy's best opinions

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

One of Kennedy's best opinions

yeah, right up there with Reagan's great idea to trade arms for hostage and lie about it. The only thing that comes close is cutting and running in Lebanon where we lost so many US Marines that Reagan put at risk

 

[whitehall]

The Vice President is a real victim of not one but two brain aneurysms and judging by his inappropriate behavior he has lost some mental acuity and yet he is 2nd in command, behind a former community activist, of the most powerful Nation in the world. A CAT scan might be appropriate for a senator who raved to the world that "the war in Iraq is lost" just before the Troop Surge. Harry Reid seems like a senior citizen on drugs.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The Vice President is a real victim of not one but two brain aneurysms and judging by his inappropriate behavior he has lost some mental acuity and yet he is 2nd in command, behind a former community activist, of the most powerful Nation in the world. A CAT scan might be appropriate for a senator who raved to the world that "the war in Iraq is lost" just before the Troop Surge. Harry Reid seems like a senior citizen on drugs.

yeah, and a man suffering dementia and a woman consulting astrologers and psychics ran the nation during the 1980s

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Ronald Reagan Profile In Alzheimer's Award Goes To: Justice Kennedy

Here we have an elderly man, who in the most public fashion, exhibited cognitive as well as intellectual deterioration, to an extent that should have embarrassed all who witnessed it.

In his reasoning for Citizens United:

“We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

"Favoritism and influence are not . . . avoidable in representative politics. It is in the nature of an elected representative to favor certain policies, and, by necessary corollary, to favor the voters and contributors who support those policies."

Citizens United: How Justice Kennedy has paved the way for the return of soft money - Slate Magazine

Boston Review — Lawrence Lessig: Democracy After Citizens United

"...adding the words “and contributors” not only makes the statement not obvious (as Justice Kennedy seems to believe), but in my view, plainly wrong. The framers did not intend to make representatives dependent upon contributors. Representatives were to be dependent upon voters, or, more generally, “the People alone.” - Lawrence Lessig

Weird how ignoramuses always agree with the political class, even when the real world evidence clearly contradicts what they are being told.

Tell me something, why shouldn't outside groups have a right to talk about politics? Can you think of any rational reason only inside groups should be able to talk to people during an election cycle? Does the thought of actually having a choice scare you that much?

 

[Dot Com]

You never hear a con mention the decision was a narrow 5-4 one either. If its such a good idea, why wasn't it 9-0?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Ronald Reagan Profile In Alzheimer's Award Goes To: Justice Kennedy

Here we have an elderly man, who in the most public fashion, exhibited cognitive as well as intellectual deterioration, to an extent that should have embarrassed all who witnessed it.

In his reasoning for Citizens United:

“We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

"Favoritism and influence are not . . . avoidable in representative politics. It is in the nature of an elected representative to favor certain policies, and, by necessary corollary, to favor the voters and contributors who support those policies."

Citizens United: How Justice Kennedy has paved the way for the return of soft money - Slate Magazine

Boston Review — Lawrence Lessig: Democracy After Citizens United

"...adding the words “and contributors” not only makes the statement not obvious (as Justice Kennedy seems to believe), but in my view, plainly wrong. The framers did not intend to make representatives dependent upon contributors. Representatives were to be dependent upon voters, or, more generally, “the People alone.” - Lawrence Lessig

Weird how ignoramuses always agree with the political class, even when the real world evidence clearly contradicts what they are being told.

Tell me something, why shouldn't outside groups have a right to talk about politics? Can you think of any rational reason only inside groups should be able to talk to people during an election cycle? Does the thought of actually having a choice scare you that much?

who said anything about outside groups NOT being allowed to participate? limits.

the real world data shows that money does indeed corrupt. have you bothered to read what Justice Douchebagh Kennedy has written:

“We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You never hear a con mention the decision was a narrow 5-4 one either. If its such a good idea, why wasn't it 9-0?

Probably because conservatives tend to think people are intelligent, and that there is no need to explain things that everyone already knows.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

who said anything about outside groups NOT being allowed to participate?

That would be Congress. They specifically banned any ads, movies, or books by any outside group that mentioned any candidate during the months leading up to an election. IS there some reason you are talking about a decision that overturned a law you claim to support when you don't even know what that law actually said?

limits.

To my patience? Undoubtedly, but God's grace keeps me going.

the real world data shows that money does indeed corrupt. have you bothered to read what Justice Douchebagh Kennedy has written:

“We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Power corrupts more. Maybe we should require anyone who holds political office to go to prison as long as they hold office.

 

[Liability]

You never hear a con mention the decision was a narrow 5-4 one either. If its such a good idea, why wasn't it 9-0?

Because there are lots of nutbar libs on the Court.

Simple enough.

 

[jillian]

NOW he's having 2nd thoughts about it

sweet... just like sandra day o'connor did after bush v gore.

remind me to send them both thank you cards.

 

[jillian]

You never hear a con mention the decision was a narrow 5-4 one either. If its such a good idea, why wasn't it 9-0?

Because there are lots of nutbar libs on the Court.

Simple enough.

funny... i think there are enough nutbar "originalists" on the Court.

just sayin'

 

[Liability]

You never hear a con mention the decision was a narrow 5-4 one either. If its such a good idea, why wasn't it 9-0?

Because there are lots of nutbar libs on the Court.

Simple enough.

funny... i think there are enough nutbar "originalists" on the Court.

just sayin'

I don't.

Just answerin'.

It's not BEING a nutbar to argue that the Constitution actually means what it says.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

who said anything about outside groups NOT being allowed to participate?

That would be Congress. They specifically banned any ads, movies, or books by any outside group that mentioned any candidate during the months leading up to an election. IS there some reason you are talking about a decision that overturned a law you claim to support when you don't even know what that law actually said?

limits.

To my patience? Undoubtedly, but God's grace keeps me going.

the real world data shows that money does indeed corrupt. have you bothered to read what Justice Douchebagh Kennedy has written:

“We now conclude that independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

Power corrupts more. Maybe we should require anyone who holds political office to go to prison as long as they hold office.

Limits not banning


get a grip

The US has always had limits on speech

 

[jillian]

Because there are lots of nutbar libs on the Court.

Simple enough.

funny... i think there are enough nutbar "originalists" on the Court.

just sayin'

I don't.

Just answerin'.

It's not BEING a nutbar to argue that the Constitution actually means what it says.

I'm going to bet your con law professors also taught you that we're a common law country and that the constitution and the caselaw have equal weight.

Absent caselaw, "unreasonable search and seizure" has no meaning. What constitutes a reasonable search is only defined by the caselaw.

What is a fundamental right?

Answer: it's defined by the caselaw. Marriage happens to be one. The right to govern one's own body and use contraception if one wishes and terminate a pregancy within a given timeperiod is another.

What is "commerce"? Answer: it's defined by the caselaw.

What is the "general welfare". Answer: it's defined by the caselaw.

Is that imperfect. Yep... just like Citizens United is a horrible decision... and Dred Scott was a horrible decision... and Ledbetter was a horrible decision...

The court has to fix it's screw ups sometimes.

But it's sure better than a bunch of "originalists"...

you want to know what was "original"?

slavery
women not having the vote
only white, male, landed gentry voting
interracial marriage being prohibited... well, heck with being prohibited, blacks were 3/5 of a person.

i'm thinking that's not the world you want to live in today. i know i don't.

 

[Dot Com]

This narrow decision will be overturned eventually if there is any justice.