Are you a 20%er?

[Wry Catcher]

As evidence that those who vehemently supported the recent USSC decision are members of the idiot fringe, and you know who you are:

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

20100205CitizensUnited

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I guess this is just one of the occasions where 80% of the population is wrong. It won't be the first time, it won't be the last.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss1CXo8QMi8]YouTube - OKLAHOMA "The Surrey With The Fringe On Top" with lyrics[/ame]

 

[ItHappens]

So 80% is really the percentage of persons in this country who can't think for themselves?
I'd thought it'd be higher.

 

[del]

So 80% is really the percentage of persons in this country who can't think for themselves?
I'd thought it'd be higher.

me too.

 

[JimH52]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

What a totally botched decision. Congress needs to move quickly to lessen the impact on future political campaigns.

 

[Bern80]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

What a totally botched decision. Congress needs to move quickly to lessen the impact on future political campaigns.

The fact that people don't like the ramifications of the decision (including myself) does not mean the USSC made the wrong decision.

The role of the superme court is to hear cases in which there is a question of constiutionality. It simply can't be argued that there is something unconstitutional about alloying anyone and everyone to donate as much or as little as they would like to someone's campaign. This is considered a form of free speech.

If they had gone the other way, then you actually would have an issue of constitutionality because you would have to come up with a good argument as to why corporations should or even very rich people should not have the protection of the first ammendment.

It isn't the job of the courts to fix unfairness in the system. Congress has to do that (and I believe are).

 

[George Costanza]

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

What a totally botched decision. Congress needs to move quickly to lessen the impact on future political campaigns.

The fact that people don't like the ramifications of the decision (including myself) does not mean the USSC made the wrong decision.

The role of the superme court is to hear cases in which there is a question of constiutionality. It simply can't be argued that there is something unconstitutional about alloying anyone and everyone to donate as much or as little as they would like to someone's campaign. This is considered a form of free speech.

If they had gone the other way, then you actually would have an issue of constitutionality because you would have to come up with a good argument as to why corporations should or even very rich people should not have the protection of the first ammendment.

It isn't the job of the courts to fix unfairness in the system. Congress has to do that (and I believe are).

Prior to this recent decision, campaign spending was limited on the theory that the evils it creates outweigh the right of corporations to free speech. The only reason that rule has been changed is that we now have a conservative majority on The Supremes.

First of many, I am sad to say . . .

 

[antagon]

did you guys miss that direct contribution limits remain unchanged?

 

[boedicca]

So 80% is really the percentage of persons in this country who can't think for themselves?
I'd thought it'd be higher.

If 20% opposing the SCOTUS bill is a valid reason to overturn the decision - they 53%+ of the population opposing ObamaCare is more than a valid reason for the bill to be abandoned.

Just sayin'.

 

[boedicca]

Prior to this recent decision, campaign spending was limited on the theory that the evils it creates outweigh the right of corporations to free speech. The only reason that rule has been changed is that we now have a conservative majority on The Supremes.

First of many, I am sad to say . . .

Campaign spending wasn't really limited prior to this decision. Candidates can raise as much money as they are able (unless they do federal matching) - and other organizations can spend a great deal of money advocating on issues related to the campaign. (There's also the huge ability to commit fraud via donations on the internet that financed Obama's campaign, but that's another topic.)

 

[Avatar4321]

Prior to this recent decision, campaign spending was limited on the theory that the evils it creates outweigh the right of corporations to free speech. The only reason that rule has been changed is that we now have a conservative majority on The Supremes.

First of many, I am sad to say . . .

Yeah. Heaven forbid Congress be prevented from making a law forbidding speech. You'd almost think it was a Constitutional provision or something. But hey, what kind of radical nutjob would provide a right to free speech to the people?

 

[George Costanza]

Prior to this recent decision, campaign spending was limited on the theory that the evils it creates outweigh the right of corporations to free speech. The only reason that rule has been changed is that we now have a conservative majority on The Supremes.

First of many, I am sad to say . . .

Yeah. Heaven forbid Congress be prevented from making a law forbidding speech. You'd almost think it was a Constitutional provision or something. But hey, what kind of radical nutjob would provide a right to free speech to the people?

Historically, there have been exceptions carved into the guarantee of free speech. The well-known example is that the right to freedom of speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists. The reason for the example is obvious.

But actual exceptions that come to mind immediately are libel and slander. There are some areas where the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech has to give way to considerations of the general, public good. Up until now, limits on campaign contributions have been another such exception. It was felt (and properly so) that the evils created by allowing unlimited campaign contributions outweigh the right to freedom of speech claimed by the would be donors.

Wrap it up in any kind of pretty packaging you like - the bottom line is that, now, Big Business is free to dictate who gets elected and what type of government we are going to have. Of course, since Republicanism (excuse me - Republicanitis) is synonymous with Big Business, small wonder that the cons are applauding this horrible decsion.

 

[The Rabbi]

Prior to this recent decision, campaign spending was limited on the theory that the evils it creates outweigh the right of corporations to free speech. The only reason that rule has been changed is that we now have a conservative majority on The Supremes.

First of many, I am sad to say . . .

Yeah. Heaven forbid Congress be prevented from making a law forbidding speech. You'd almost think it was a Constitutional provision or something. But hey, what kind of radical nutjob would provide a right to free speech to the people?

Historically, there have been exceptions carved into the guarantee of free speech. The well-known example is that the right to freedom of speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists. The reason for the example is obvious.

But actual exceptions that come to mind immediately are libel and slander. There are some areas where the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech has to give way to considerations of the general, public good. Up until now, limits on campaign contributions have been another such exception. It was felt (and properly so) that the evils created by allowing unlimited campaign contributions outweigh the right to freedom of speech claimed by the would be donors.

Wrap it up in any kind of pretty packaging you like - the bottom line is that, now, Big Business is free to dictate who gets elected and what type of government we are going to have. Of course, since Republicanism (excuse me - Republicanitis) is synonymous with Big Business, small wonder that the cons are applauding this horrible decsion.

Are you this ill-informed in real life?

Let's start with the decision. "Congress shall make no law." What part of that is unclear to you? The Supremes merely upheld that.
And which party is the tool of "big business"?? It isn't the GOP. Most contributions from big corporations (adn that's a misnomer because corporations are barred from contributing) go to Democrats, not Republicans.
The decision also applied to unions so Dems ought to be happy there.
The conservatives are applauding this decision because restriction on political speech is the mark of dictators and tyrants.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Yeah. Heaven forbid Congress be prevented from making a law forbidding speech. You'd almost think it was a Constitutional provision or something. But hey, what kind of radical nutjob would provide a right to free speech to the people?

Historically, there have been exceptions carved into the guarantee of free speech. The well-known example is that the right to freedom of speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists. The reason for the example is obvious.

But actual exceptions that come to mind immediately are libel and slander. There are some areas where the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech has to give way to considerations of the general, public good. Up until now, limits on campaign contributions have been another such exception. It was felt (and properly so) that the evils created by allowing unlimited campaign contributions outweigh the right to freedom of speech claimed by the would be donors.

Wrap it up in any kind of pretty packaging you like - the bottom line is that, now, Big Business is free to dictate who gets elected and what type of government we are going to have. Of course, since Republicanism (excuse me - Republicanitis) is synonymous with Big Business, small wonder that the cons are applauding this horrible decsion.

Are you this ill-informed in real life?

Let's start with the decision. "Congress shall make no law." What part of that is unclear to you? The Supremes merely upheld that.
And which party is the tool of "big business"?? It isn't the GOP. Most contributions from big corporations (adn that's a misnomer because corporations are barred from contributing) go to Democrats, not Republicans.
The decision also applied to unions so Dems ought to be happy there.
The conservatives are applauding this decision because restriction on political speech is the mark of dictators and tyrants.

If the Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, how do you explain laws prohibiting the mere mention of a bomb while on an airliner? Or laws passed by congress outlawing threats against the President of the United States? If the first amendment is sacrosanct, aren't these laws unconstitutional?

 

[The Rabbi]

Historically, there have been exceptions carved into the guarantee of free speech. The well-known example is that the right to freedom of speech does not include the right to yell fire in a crowded theater when no fire exists. The reason for the example is obvious.

But actual exceptions that come to mind immediately are libel and slander. There are some areas where the Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech has to give way to considerations of the general, public good. Up until now, limits on campaign contributions have been another such exception. It was felt (and properly so) that the evils created by allowing unlimited campaign contributions outweigh the right to freedom of speech claimed by the would be donors.

Wrap it up in any kind of pretty packaging you like - the bottom line is that, now, Big Business is free to dictate who gets elected and what type of government we are going to have. Of course, since Republicanism (excuse me - Republicanitis) is synonymous with Big Business, small wonder that the cons are applauding this horrible decsion.

Are you this ill-informed in real life?

Let's start with the decision. "Congress shall make no law." What part of that is unclear to you? The Supremes merely upheld that.
And which party is the tool of "big business"?? It isn't the GOP. Most contributions from big corporations (adn that's a misnomer because corporations are barred from contributing) go to Democrats, not Republicans.
The decision also applied to unions so Dems ought to be happy there.
The conservatives are applauding this decision because restriction on political speech is the mark of dictators and tyrants.

If the Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, how do you explain laws prohibiting the mere mention of a bomb while on an airliner? Or laws passed by congress outlawing threats against the President of the United States? If the first amendment is sacrosanct, aren't these laws unconstitutional?

It is not my job to school you on First Amendment law. Go look up the history of interpretation and then report back.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

As evidence that those who vehemently supported the recent USSC decision are members of the idiot fringe, and you know who you are:

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

20100205CitizensUnited

Do I like the effects of the outcome of this ruling? No I don't.

Do I agree with them ruling the law was unconstitutional, Yes I do.

Sucks for me doesn't it?

 

[Skull Pilot]

I thought the 80% are those who do 20% of the work but expect to get everything free while the other 20% does 80% of the work and gets to be called selfish and hateful for not wanting to give their money to those lazy 80%

Pareto's Principle - The 80-20 Rule

 

[George Costanza]

The role of the superme court is to hear cases in which there is a question of constiutionality. It simply can't be argued that there is something unconstitutional about alloying anyone and everyone to donate as much or as little as they would like to someone's campaign. This is considered a form of free speech.

Pardon me for reversing the order of your statement, but I wanted to address the above quote first and then move on to the second.

I don't think anyone is arguing that allowing unlimited campaign contributions is not a matter of freedeom of speech. It clearly is. However, there are certain types of speech that will not be allowed, even under our Constitution. The classic example is yelling fire in a crowded theater. Libel and slander are forms of "speech" which are not "free." In other words, when the courts find a form of speech which they determine would be a danger to society in general, an exception to the First Amendment is created, and the potentially dangerous form of speech is not permitted.

This is the basis upon which unlimited campaign contributions have historically been prohibited in the past.

The fact that people don't like the ramifications of the decision (including myself) does not mean the USSC made the wrong decision.

Maybe. Maybe not. The problem I see with this decision is that it is clearly a political decision from a court that is supposed to be free of political taint. This is what comes from "court packing," of course. Both sides do it. It really is a shame that it happens.

How wonderful it would be if we had a Supreme Court that was politically impartial and which made decisions solely on that basis.