Why are Republicans Wrong about Everything?

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
Messages 38841 - 38860 of total 45430 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 17, 2014 - 02:42pm PT
I respectfully disagree, DMT. We don't allow anyone to "buy" elections by purchasing services that disseminate their message. We allow incumbents to buy elections by using tax dollars to pay those who will vote to keep the incumbents in power.

All the crying over Citizens United is nothing more than griping that the other side gets its message out more frequently than it would if it could not purchase the means of spreading its message.

Just as a reminder, the plaintiff in Citizens United was a nonprofit corporation. The dissent in that case had to argue that a group of people acting together could not pool their resources to disseminate their message while, at the same time, arguing that if the group of people happened to own a paper or broadcast license, they could disseminate any message they wanted. The dissent then had to fit that into the First Amendment, which reads in its entirety:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

It wasn't the SCOTUS that invented this restriction, it was the people who adopted the Constitution. It saddens me to see how quickly we would abandon free speech to expedite the victory of our ideological allies.

John
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Jan 17, 2014 - 02:43pm PT
It's easy to say we should take money out of politics.

It's not so easy to define exactly what that means.
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 17, 2014 - 02:57pm PT
Well ok then John,

can I invite you to post your argument AGAINST Citizens United?

you know, the other side that you so carefully examined and reasoned out before you took your opposite position?

Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
U.N. Ambassador, Crackistan
Jan 17, 2014 - 03:01pm PT
We don't allow anyone to "buy" elections by purchasing services that disseminate their message.

I find that to be an incredible statement. That's exactly what we allow.

DMT
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 17, 2014 - 03:37pm PT
My argument against Citizens United, Norton? You mean the alleged reasoning of the dissent?

I could summarize the dissent's argument: a careful examination of the Constitution reveals that its authors never contemplated the existence of corporations that would want to disseminate a message, therefore [sic] abridging the ability of a corporation to send forth its message is not an abridgment of freedom of speech.

Oh, and don't bother us with opposite precedents such as New York Times v. Sullivan. In that case, it was our side that was getting its message out, so of course no one can hamper that activity. And for heaven's sake, let's not discuss the lines of cases holding that a content-dependent restriction or speech requires particularly strict scrutiny. After all, even though McCain-Feingold explicitly dealt only with political content that attempted to influence the outcome of elections, the restrictions were really content-neutral.

After all, you wouldn't want freedom of speech to allow someone to convince someone else how to vote, would you?

In a way, the dissent reminds me of the arguments one would need to make to explain that all other heavenly bodies revolve around the earth. The sun and moon have one kind of orbit, and the stars a slightly different orbit. The planets have an orbit that contains lots of loops, and comets are even more bizarre. The twists and turns contained in the dissent -- needed to try to evade the plain language of the First Amendment -- belie any claim to logic.

John
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Jan 17, 2014 - 03:40pm PT
I just remembered why I did not choose law as a profession.
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jan 17, 2014 - 03:40pm PT
Every one of those issues shall be a non issue once TRU and thorough campaign reforms are achieved. Its the plug that needs pulling to drain the backed up sewer.

Nipping the corruption bud of politics HAS to start with the campaign...
Brandon-

climber
The Granite State.
Jan 17, 2014 - 04:59pm PT
Look at this guy.

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2014/01/gop-congressional-candidate-richard-dick-black-spousal-rape-not-a-crime
TGT

Social climber
So Cal
Jan 17, 2014 - 10:10pm PT
Norton

Social climber
the Wastelands
Jan 17, 2014 - 10:22pm PT
No, John

We all already are very aware that you agree with citizens

What I would like to read is you personally advocating against Citizens

we both went to law school, John...

pretend you were appointed the attorney to ready and present the case against.....

why am I asking this?

because I just would like to believe that you are capable of forming opinion first without bias
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath

Social climber
SLO, Ca
Jan 17, 2014 - 10:57pm PT
Whether or not correctly decided Citizens has had a massive and unprecedented effect on our politics. Even pre-Citizens I've never bought into the "spending money = speech" argument. How can it be that having more money equals more "free speech" if we all have the same rights? If that is in fact what the first amendment requires then it should be amended. I know I am in the minority but I think the first amendment is read far too broadly.
Byran

climber
San Jose, CA
Jan 17, 2014 - 11:06pm PT
Corporate campaign contributions are not a matter of freedom of speech. They are bribes paid to the candidates, which are then repaid as special considerations after he/she wins the election.

For example,

Three of the top five campaign contributors to John McCain in 2008 were:
Citigroup Inc
Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase & Co

Now you could say that these banks are just trying to get the word out about their boy McCain, about how great a president he'll be and how you should vote for him. It's freedom of speech and all that, right? Wrong! They don't give a fuk what McCain does with the money, and they don't give a fuk if he wins the election. How do we know? Well because...

Three of the top five campaign contributors to Barrack Obama in 2008 were:
Citigroup Inc
Goldman Sachs
JPMorgan Chase & Co

It's a bribe, plain and simple.
rottingjohnny

Sport climber
mammoth lakes ca
Jan 17, 2014 - 11:07pm PT
Rush Limbaugh should be throwing a sh#t fit with a Supreme court justice having the final say on Citizens United but since it was a conservative appointee making the call and benefitting Rush's sponsors , he'll take the 5th...
Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jan 17, 2014 - 11:26pm PT
as a general rule, republitards are shameless, baffling, and out of touch with reality…


Wade Icey

Trad climber
www.alohashirtrescue.com
Jan 18, 2014 - 12:38am PT
Credit: Cheesegraphs
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Haaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa!
Credit: cockroach in amber
JEleazarian

Trad climber
Fresno CA
Jan 18, 2014 - 01:09am PT
Norton, as a civil libertarian from way back (I was even [gasp] an ACLU member until they decided that enumerated civil liberties took a back seat to liberal politics) I would refuse to represent the side trying to uphold McCain-Feingold.

If I were writing a law school exam asked to discuss its constitutionality (before the Citizens United decision) I would certainly discuss (but ultimately demolish) the following arguments:

1. Paying money to air a campaign ad is not speech. This has no merit whatsoever, though, because even commercial messages have been recognized as "commercial speech" almost from the beginning. If nothing else, the holding in Bates v. State Bar recognized advertising as speech, protected by the First Amendment. (For the non-lawyers, Bates overturned an Arizona ban on lawyer advertising on First Amendment grounds).

2. McCain-Feingold constitutes a reasonable time, place or manner restriction. The right to free speech does not imply a right to say anything anywhere. In particular, the government has a right to prohibit actions that interfere with the intended use of public spaces. For example, it does not violate the First Amendment to ban speaking in the middle of a roadway, or to prohibit a sound truck from passing through a residential neighborhood in the middle of the night with its speakers blaring.

The problem with this argument, however, is that McCain-Feingold attempts to limit information transmission to prevent its content from being heard, but information transmission's object is to transmit content. I am aware of no case upholding content restrictions on time, place or manner grounds.

3. McCain-Feingold is a justified regulation of the election process, whose fairness is foundational to a free society. While this has a do-gooder appeal, First Amendment jurisprudence has rejected it at every possible instance, except for sedition during wartime, and even then, decisions since at least the 1920's -- and continuously since -- have rejected even the sedition notion of speech restriction.

Because each of the above arguments are non-starters, the dissent was forced to rely on the argument articulated, viz.

4. Freedom of speech is an individual right. The Constitution does not grant that right to corporations, but only to individuals. It is clear that the framers of the Constitution could not have contemplated the sorts of corporations, with the control of enormous amounts of money, that exist today. The amounts of money in control of corporations can dwarf resources available to individuals, making the individual right of free expression, which is the core of the First Amendment, meaningless. In any case, the text of the Constitution mentions only the words "freedom of speech" without defining whose speech. Corporations are not individuals and do not have the rights of individuals. McCain-Feingold properly limits the influence of these non-individuals to guaranty meaningful freedom of speech to the individuals, to whom it belongs. Invalidating McCain-Feingold on First Amendment grounds would extend protections to corporations that were never in existence before and upset centuries of precedent.

As I've stated ad nauseum, though, that reasoning suffers from the following flaws:

1. It limits the abilities of people to pool their resources to disseminate their ideas. Since Constitutional jurisprudence has long respected freedom of association, this argument, in effect, nullifies that freedom.

2. It has already been rejected, sub silencio for at least 50 years in the First Amendment context. As Justice Brennan stated in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan First Amendment jurisprudence respects "a profound national commitment to the principle that debate on public issues should be uninhibited, robust, and wide-open, and that it may well include vehement, caustic, and sometimes unpleasantly sharp attacks on government and public officials.. ." upholding the freedom of the press of a corporation.

3. It proves too much. If corporations have no First Amendment rights because they are not parties the Constitution intended to protect, do they then lack, say, Fifth Amendment rights against takings without due process and just compensation, Fourteenth Amendment rights, etc.? Not even the dissent would go that far.

I'm sorry, Norton, but the debate on Citizens United has been so intellectually one-sided, I cannot pretend that the dissent is anything but a naked attempt to silence a political faction. As soon as we give the government the power to determine who can and cannot disseminate messages intended to influence elections, we've given up any meaningful freedom of speech, and repealed the First Amendment protection.

John

Jingy

climber
Somewhere out there
Jan 18, 2014 - 02:36pm PT
I thought dems wanted to grow government?
I thought republitards wanted to shrink government?







 red states are bringing this country down. They need to secede…..
Ron Anderson

Trad climber
Relic MilkEye and grandpoobah of HBRKRNH
Jan 20, 2014 - 11:30am PT
"What is no longer debatable is the body of evidence in intelligence channels that groups directly linked to core-al Qaeda in Pakistan have been coordinating operations with each other across North Africa and that the Benghazi attack is Exhibit A, according to ABC News intelligence sources and government reports."




nghazi-al-qaeda-dead-americans-emerging-threat-212302320--abc-news-topstories.html;_ylt=AwrTcdOZTt1SFX0ArBEPxQt.;_ylu=X3oDMTBsOXB2YTRjBHNlYwNzYwRjb2xvA2dxMQR2dGlkAw--
philo

Trad climber
Is that light the end of the tunnel or a train?
Jan 21, 2014 - 02:20am PT
photo not found
Missing photo ID#341496
Dr. F.

Trad climber
SoCal
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 21, 2014 - 12:48pm PT
Note to Conservatives and the Media: Most of Us Still Don't Give a Sh#t About Benghazi:

http://rudepundit.blogspot.com/

It's getting sad, really. There's Lindsey Graham, in a familiar position, on his knees in front of Benghazi, whose got his pants down. Graham is desperately trying to get Benghazi hard, just sucking and jerking, trying to get Benghazi's flaccid c*#k to have some lift off. Over in the corner, Hillary Clinton's Presidential Ambition is getting bored. Sure, the Right-Wing Conspiracy locked her in this room with Benghazi, promising that he'll f*#k HCPA in the ass at some point, but there's been nothing, even after months and months and months of one conservative lawmaker or pundit coming in here, with Darrell Issa massaging Benghazi's balls, Sean Hannity offering vigorous analingus and a prostate fingering, and Marco Rubio showing him Libyan porn (which Ted Cruz ended up jacking off to). The best Benghazi's managed is a half-hearted barely-semi-erection back at the end of 2012. Now Lindsey Graham has told everyone to step aside, and he's gonna show how you get a dick throbbing. HCPA just rolls her eyes, biding her time.

Dear, sweet Republicans and Fox "news," truly, really, speaking for the vast majority of the nation that doesn't watch Bill O'Reilly after dinner or listen to Rush Limbaugh while driving or have Glenn Beck on in the background while boning a blow-up doll, we don't give a happy monkey f*#k about Benghazi. Beyond "Man, that was a bad thing that happened. Let's try to stop it from happening again," there is nothing there. No cover-up. No one had any heads up. There were a few tragic errors in judgment on security that, had they not been made, might have prevented sh#t from going south. That's it. If you read the actual Senate intelligence Committee report, what comes through is the dude who f*#ked up a great deal on boosting security was Ambassador Chris Stevens, who died in the attack on the consulate. He was asked repeatedly if he needed more military in Benghazi, and he declined. Sorry if that f*#ks up the fun narrative, but truth will do that every time.

Desperately trying to damage Hillary Clinton pre-2016, especially now that Macy's balloon Chris Christie has been punctured, conservatives are out in force, trying to pin the blame for the attack on Clinton, even though the report does nothing of the sort. Besides the completely nonsensical comparison between Christie's bridge problem and Benghazi, we have every other Republican with presidential ambitions jumping in to try to show their conspiracy-theory cred to the nutzoids in the base. Rubio promised more hearings. The always-high Rand Paul slurred something incomprehensible. Ted Cruz said obvious Ted Cruz-like sh#t.

Look, unless you've got evidence of a deliberate cover-up, unless you've got video of Hillary Clinton personally slitting Stevens' throat while Barack Obama f*#ks his ass as al-Qaeda militants ululate and fire their rifles into the air in praise, the vast majority of us in the United States, the ones who aren't the delusional GOP primary voters, simply don't care.

But, hell, that never stopped the GOP before.
Messages 38841 - 38860 of total 45430 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
Post a Reply
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews