Activist GOP Court Reveals True GOP Agenda

[veritas]

It doesn't favor anybody but corporate hegemony. The Republicans are all happy about it, it's not that the democrats think the 'R's will benefit, although.......it is a neocon wet dream.

 

[MIPS]

It doesn't favor anybody but corporate hegemony. The Republicans are all happy about it, it's not that the democrats think the 'R's will benefit, although.......it is a neocon wet dream.

Newsflash it's also a progressive wet dream (Straussian neocons being just another strain of statist progressives anways). The fact that left wing politician critters are whining about the SCOTUS decision boils down to nothing more than posturing for their "base".

The SCOTUS decision was a good one since a law that the majority of the court found unconstitutional was struck and that's the function of SCOTUS, not to determine whether the effects of striking the law would have negative impacts. If SCOTUS acted in any other fashion (i.e. upholding a law that it believed to be unconstitutional) the rule of law is rendered impotent and we become a nation ruled by the whims of men.

If the left wants to blame anybody, they should be blaming the idiots that wrote and passed an unconstitutional law instead of finding a way to accomplish the objective that was within the boundaries of the constitution.

 

[Toronado3800]

there's not a dime's worth of difference between the remocrats and depublicans

lol! That made me laugh.

I also don't know if it favors dems or rebubs more. Interesting how the court split though.

 

[immto]

This is an interesting development, the highest court of the land has decided to overturn a major provision of the largest and most comprehensive campaign finance reform to date. The court in a 5-4 split said Corporations can now spend as much as they like on Presidential and Congressional elections but keeps the restriction on individual candidates. The first thought that comes to mind is that this is a huge win for Republicans, who are usually the supports of big business. This would not necessarily be the case. Even though the court split down a familiar line the supporters of this do not.

It turns out the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the AFL-CIO both urged the court to strike down the provision, as did the NRA and the American Civil Liberties Union. The Democratic National Committee and Sen. McCain both argued for the law's constitutionality. Did that make sense you? It didn't make sense to me at first either but upon closer examination it may make more sense than it seems.

If you believe John McCain's words of the last several years he really believes in campaign finance reform. The Democrats as a party know that dollar for dollar they can't compete with the republicans in each and every election. They were able to raise record dollars for Obama and several others in 2008 but that's with the McCain Feingold provision in place. If that were not in effect in 2008 corporate donations would have been a major game changer.

The National Rifle Association for the most part supports Republicans but has on occasion been known to champion a democrat with a positive voting record on gun rights. The AFL-CIO mainly backs Democrats as the main supporter of Labor Unions even though they will endorse a republican from time to time if they pander to labor. Similar splits down party lines exist for the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the American Civil Liberties Union.

What does this mean? Well simplified it means that both sides realize that they can muster more support for their individual causes by using corporate dollars on their side of any given piece of legislation or on a particular candidate running for office. Who really looses? Well in my opinion the American People do. Once again we move backwards instead of forwards on an issue that has major implications for the future of our nation. We really need tighter campaign finance reform that removes money from the equation.

I understand the 1st amendment argument of removing corporations ability to voice their support but what's wrong with running a commercial or an advertisement that says, "My Corporation supports John Doe for president." They could use their own money and put it all on the line right there for everyone to see rather than doing it behind the scenes by donating to the national convention where donations are only visible to those who choose to do the research.

This is another issue that I would like to see the TEA Party movement embrace in the near future. In the short run the court decision will probably benefit my side of the argument but in the long run we need to realize this only damages our freedom by allowing big corporate dollars to have more influence than individual citizens.

 

[MIPS]

We really need tighter campaign finance reform that removes money from the equation.
.

Good post, however I'm only going to address this portion of it (for various reasons none of which have anything to do with the merits of your arguments), I agree with your conclusion however you're suggestion is incomplete to whit; "We really need tighter campaign finance reform that removes money from the equation without violating the constitution"

I actually don't totally agree with that conclusion because contrary to populist misconceptions , money does indeed equal speech, as in if I pay you to speak for me, I am converting my money (a medium of exchange) into speech just as if I pay you for a dozen oranges I am converting my money into a dozen oranges.

That being said you have managed to convey that you understand the totality of the circumstances surrounding this decision much better than the vast majority of the posters here that have attempted to address it as well as adding some cogent supporting material, well done and much appreciated!

 

[immto]

We really need tighter campaign finance reform that removes money from the equation.
.

Good post, however I'm only going to address this portion of it (for various reasons none of which have anything to do with the merits of your arguments), I agree with your conclusion however you're suggestion is incomplete to whit; "We really need tighter campaign finance reform that removes money from the equation without violating the constitution"

I actually don't totally agree with that conclusion because contrary to populist misconceptions , money does indeed equal speech, as in if I pay you to speak for me, I am converting my money (a medium of exchange) into speech just as if I pay you for a dozen oranges I am converting my money into a dozen oranges.

That being said you have managed to convey that you understand the totality of the circumstances surrounding this decision much better than the vast majority of the posters here that have attempted to address it as well as adding some cogent supporting material, well done and much appreciated!

Good Point, "without violating the constitution"

I would like to see a day where money is a non factor in elections. I understand you're point about money equally speech but that only applies today where you need money to make you speech count. Imagine if all candidates where truly given equal time on TV and Radio at no cost. If a station did not want to give the time away for free than they simply would not cover ANY political content. Corporations could then choose to run ads telling everyone who they support. Currently it's between those and only those who can raise the money. We don't even know how many other better candidates we might have had, if they could have afforded to run. So what we are left with is a system where you can't run if you can't raise funds to do so.

 

[MIPS]

Imagine if all candidates where truly given equal time on TV and Radio at no cost.

Impossible since time on TV and Radio isn't free, never has been, never while be, it always costs somebody and you cannot simply mandate the use of private property (including labor) without offering compensation which is acceptable to the owner of said property. For example you cannot simply demand that I allow all politicians equal access to my front lawn to make stump speeches without any of them having to pay me for it (actually you cannot even mandate that I allow ANY politician access to my front lawn to make stump speeches whether they want to pay my price or not).

If a station did not want to give the time away for free than they simply would not cover ANY political content.

Unconstitutional as hell, as the recent SCOTUS ruling points out, the legislative branch is not permitted by the first amendment to restrict free speech based on arbitrary categorizations.

Corporations could then choose to run ads telling everyone who they support.

That's already required under the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold (which were not struck by SCOTUS).

Currently it's between those and only those who can raise the money. We don't even know how many other better candidates we might have had, if they could have afforded to run. So what we are left with is a system where you can't run if you can't raise funds to do so.

This isn't anything new, it's been that way since (at least) the Roman Republic, I'm open to alternative suggestions but I haven't seen any yet that don't violate natural property rights.

 

[cathlab3]

While the left wing shreeks and cries and holds their breath,the Supreme Court upholds the Constitution and reverses a left wing law that tries to squash free speech.This is such a great example of left wing liberal supporting a trashing of the rights of everyone in this country.

 

[Avatar4321]

You know what is becoming very clear....right wingers have no real moral or deep seated beliefs about politics really. they just follow what the GOP tells them is good. They rally with tea parties protesting against affordable health insurance and for tax cuts for the rich. They cheer for a supreme court ruling that diminishes individual rights and power. They claim money = speech and corporation = a person. They claim this levels the playing field when a corporation can spend a billion dollars on ads for a candidate, AND SO CAN WE!

LOL!

I don't understand the mindset that would have people vote against their own interests.

You cant possibly be serious. No real moral or deep seated beliefs about politics? So we arent calling out for limited federal government? We arent calling out for fiscal responsibility? We aren't calling out for government to respect and honor life? We aren't encouraging government to cut taxes for all people because it will help the economy?

You're saying we just do these things because the GOP tells us despite the fact that half the time they completely ignore their base and do what they want? On what planet could this theory possibly be true?

Obviously you understand the mindset very well, you continue to vote for Democrats.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Dante Speaketh
* * * *

Dainty babble-eth.

The "headline" of his absurd OP underscores how utterly ignorant Dainty is.

Dainty doesn't even comprehend that this SCOTUS decision wasn't even remotely "activist."

Words have actual meaning but most of them tend to sail over Dainty's pinhead.

 

[immto]

Imagine if all candidates where truly given equal time on TV and Radio at no cost.

Impossible since time on TV and Radio isn't free, never has been, never while be, it always costs somebody and you cannot simply mandate the use of private property (including labor) without offering compensation which is acceptable to the owner of said property. For example you cannot simply demand that I allow all politicians equal access to my front lawn to make stump speeches without any of them having to pay me for it (actually you cannot even mandate that I allow ANY politician access to my front lawn to make stump speeches whether they want to pay my price or not).

If a station did not want to give the time away for free than they simply would not cover ANY political content.

Unconstitutional as hell, as the recent SCOTUS ruling points out, the legislative branch is not permitted by the first amendment to restrict free speech based on arbitrary categorizations.

Corporations could then choose to run ads telling everyone who they support.

That's already required under the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold (which were not struck by SCOTUS).

Currently it's between those and only those who can raise the money. We don't even know how many other better candidates we might have had, if they could have afforded to run. So what we are left with is a system where you can't run if you can't raise funds to do so.

This isn't anything new, it's been that way since (at least) the Roman Republic, I'm open to alternative suggestions but I haven't seen any yet that don't violate natural property rights.

I realize my suggestions would require MAJOR reform and probably a constitutional amendment but I think it would yield a solution to the problem our system currently faces. The 1st amendment would not be an issue becasue the media (press) would be making the choice. Either they cover or they do not cover. If they cover than the cost of that choice would be allowing the equal time. Yes, this is radical and yes I realize it probably will never happen but I'd rather see this kind of change than the kind we might see if we keep down the road we're currently heading.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

* * * *

Dante Speaketh
* * * *

...

It was about as activist as IT gets.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

It doesn't favor anybody but corporate hegemony. The Republicans are all happy about it, it's not that the democrats think the 'R's will benefit, although.......it is a neocon wet dream.

egg-zactly!

GOP is no friend of mom and pop, or junior.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The ACLU says this kind of thing all the time. Yet people attack the ACLU for it's principles.

You know what is becoming very clear....right wingers have no real moral or deep seated beliefs about politics really. they just follow what the GOP tells them is good. They rally with tea parties protesting against affordable health insurance and for tax cuts for the rich. They cheer for a supreme court ruling that diminishes individual rights and power. They claim money = speech and corporation = a person. They claim this levels the playing field when a corporation can spend a billion dollars on ads for a candidate, AND SO CAN WE!

LOL!

I don't understand the mindset that would have people vote against their own interests.

Hate. Some of them hate progress. Some of them hate other Americans. Some of them are just reactionaries.

 

[Liability]

* * * *

Dante Speaketh
* * * *

...

It was about as activist as IT gets.

Since your inability to be coherent led you to snip the part of my earlier post to which your ridiculous post was supposedly responsive, it is necessary to clarify.

You use of the indefinite pronoun "it" was in reference to the portion of my prior post where I wrote: "Dainty doesn't even comprehend that this SCOTUS decision wasn't even remotely 'activist.'"

Since words have actual meaning, which retards such as you cannot fathom, it is helpful to define "activist" in this context.

Judicial activism is a critical term used to describe judicial rulings that are suspected to be based upon personal and political considerations other than existing law.

-- Wiki. Wiki, as sources go, often sucks. But they did capture the essence of the term "judicial activism" fairly well, here, anyway.

Since the decision of the SCOTUS in the case we have been discussing in this thread was based on the CLEAR (crystal clear) words of the First Amendment, it doesn't even come REMOTELY close to being an activist decision.

You fail to grasp the actual meaning of what is intended by the term "activist."

Cases "finding" that the Constitutional authority granted to Congress to make the laws affecting "interstate commerce" is so broad as to encompass areas not explicitly given to them as actual grants of authority (i.e, going far beyond the original notion of a limited government) are activist decisions. It takes strained and ridiculous posturing to make such findings thereby giving Congress authority in entire realms never ceded to them in the first place.

By contrast, it takes NO straining whatsoever to conclude that "no law" means "no law."

That's not activism. That's faithful adherence to clear unequivocal mandate.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

...
...
...That's not activism. That's faithful adherence to clear unequivocal mandate.

What an idiot.

 

[RodISHI]

Imagine if all candidates where truly given equal time on TV and Radio at no cost.

Impossible since time on TV and Radio isn't free, never has been, never while be, it always costs somebody and you cannot simply mandate the use of private property (including labor) without offering compensation which is acceptable to the owner of said property. For example you cannot simply demand that I allow all politicians equal access to my front lawn to make stump speeches without any of them having to pay me for it (actually you cannot even mandate that I allow ANY politician access to my front lawn to make stump speeches whether they want to pay my price or not).


Unconstitutional as hell, as the recent SCOTUS ruling points out, the legislative branch is not permitted by the first amendment to restrict free speech based on arbitrary categorizations.


That's already required under the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold (which were not struck by SCOTUS).

Currently it's between those and only those who can raise the money. We don't even know how many other better candidates we might have had, if they could have afforded to run. So what we are left with is a system where you can't run if you can't raise funds to do so.

This isn't anything new, it's been that way since (at least) the Roman Republic, I'm open to alternative suggestions but I haven't seen any yet that don't violate natural property rights.

I realize my suggestions would require MAJOR reform and probably a constitutional amendment but I think it would yield a solution to the problem our system currently faces. The 1st amendment would not be an issue becasue the media (press) would be making the choice. Either they cover or they do not cover. If they cover than the cost of that choice would be allowing the equal time. Yes, this is radical and yes I realize it probably will never happen but I'd rather see this kind of change than the kind we might see if we keep down the road we're currently heading.

Media would fight for the rights to collect campaigning dollars. It would be just another battle for cash verses integrity.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Impossible since time on TV and Radio isn't free, never has been, never while be, it always costs somebody and you cannot simply mandate the use of private property (including labor) without offering compensation which is acceptable to the owner of said property. For example you cannot simply demand that I allow all politicians equal access to my front lawn to make stump speeches without any of them having to pay me for it (actually you cannot even mandate that I allow ANY politician access to my front lawn to make stump speeches whether they want to pay my price or not).


Unconstitutional as hell, as the recent SCOTUS ruling points out, the legislative branch is not permitted by the first amendment to restrict free speech based on arbitrary categorizations.


That's already required under the disclosure provisions of McCain-Feingold (which were not struck by SCOTUS).


This isn't anything new, it's been that way since (at least) the Roman Republic, I'm open to alternative suggestions but I haven't seen any yet that don't violate natural property rights.

I realize my suggestions would require MAJOR reform and probably a constitutional amendment but I think it would yield a solution to the problem our system currently faces. The 1st amendment would not be an issue becasue the media (press) would be making the choice. Either they cover or they do not cover. If they cover than the cost of that choice would be allowing the equal time. Yes, this is radical and yes I realize it probably will never happen but I'd rather see this kind of change than the kind we might see if we keep down the road we're currently heading.

Media would fight for the rights to collect campaigning dollars. It would be just another battle for cash verses integrity.

Many who support this will regret this soon enough. Then you have the legal wannabees here who ignore the dissenters on the SCOTUS.

read the dissent

 

[Liability]

I realize my suggestions would require MAJOR reform and probably a constitutional amendment but I think it would yield a solution to the problem our system currently faces. The 1st amendment would not be an issue becasue the media (press) would be making the choice. Either they cover or they do not cover. If they cover than the cost of that choice would be allowing the equal time. Yes, this is radical and yes I realize it probably will never happen but I'd rather see this kind of change than the kind we might see if we keep down the road we're currently heading.

Media would fight for the rights to collect campaigning dollars. It would be just another battle for cash verses integrity.

Many who support this will regret this soon enough. Then you have the legal wannabees here who ignore the dissenters on the SCOTUS.

read the dissent

Yes. Read the idiotic dissent.

Then read Justice Scalia's concurrence with the majority decision and witness him skewering the dishonesty expressed in the dissent.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Many who support this will regret this soon enough. Then you have the legal wannabees here who ignore the dissenters on the SCOTUS.

read the dissent

Yes. Read the idiotic dissent.

Then read Justice Scalia's concurrence with the majority decision and witness him skewering the dishonesty expressed in the dissent.

Unfortunately, on this subject Scalia threw any judicial objectivity and discretion to the wind. A while back when he went on a rant about gays not being normal. His opinions on this subject are highly suspect.