The holiday hangout will go online tomorrow! If there's anything in the regular subforums that you're going to want to access over the holidays, copy it now while it's still accessible.
Don't like the snow? You can make a bookmark with the following text instead of a url: javascript:snowStorm.toggleSnow(). Clicking it will toggle the snow on and off.
Our new Indie Games subforum is now open for business in G&T. Go and check it out, you might land a code for a free game. If you're developing an indie game and want to post about it, follow these directions. If you don't, he'll break your legs! Hahaha! Seriously though.
Our rules have been updated and given their own forum. Go and look at them! They are nice, and there may be new ones that you didn't know about! Hooray for rules! Hooray for The System! Hooray for Conforming!

Supreme Court Allows Corporations to Buy Politicians

11718192022

Posts

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Oh, and hey, the press is usually a corporation. Go figure that out
    In the case of the press, it includes actual individuals speaking using that medium. For most corporate shit, the people involved are essentially craftsman and speak no more than a plumber or the person who hires a plumber does..

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Hachface wrote: »

    Generally, it is true that aspects of the common law can be legislated away. Tort reform, for instance, often entails statutory limits on the amounts juries can award in malpractice claims. This is an instance of the legislature legally stepping into an arena that is traditionally the province of the judicial branch alone.

    But in matters of constitutional law, case law as decided by the Supreme Court is extremely stubborn. You essentially need a constitutional amendment to undo it. In the context of corporate personhood, it is conceivable that if, say, the Arkansas state legislature attempted to revoke Wal-Mart's corporate charter, such a thing could be considered an unconstitutional bill of attainder.

    Please don't get me started on the bullshit power grab by insurance companies that goes by the name 'tort reform'.

    In matters of Constitutional law, you're not correct. It depends on the particular Supreme Court ruling; sometimes yes, you need to amend the Constitution, and sometimes a legislative change is all that's needed (for example, if a law is unconstitutional because it's overbroad, you simply rewrite the law; if capital punishment is unconstitutional because the method of execution violates the Eighth Amendment, you adopt a different method of execution that doesn't.)

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Its almost as if that is exactly what we are arguing. For this particular SCOTUS ruling, you would need to write a constitutional amendment because it was written in such a way as to require it. This is not a "the law was overly broad" it was a "You cannot do that at all and i am going to write this as broad as possible"

    wbBv3fj.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Goum - you don't seem to want to continue a discussion that progresses logically here. We were talking about why free speech isn't just about individuals, and I used numerous Supreme Court citations (not all from this single decision) to back it up. Instead of admitting you were wrong, you tried to again change the subject, attacking these citations based on the fact that "we make exceptions and therefore all exceptions are allowed" logic or the "the dissent disagrees" (olol) logic. We've already been through that, it wasn't what we were discussing right now and it does not apply to the issue of coporate personhood, and it is a line of reasoning that I can answer just as capably as I've answered your challenges regarding corporate personhood. Cut the silliness. Free speech is not limited to those who are only assoicated with individual persons.

  • The Crowing OneThe Crowing One Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar, I think you can solve this once and for all by just posting your CV and proving to the rest of us that your logic and legal/constitutional framework is an authoritative source for directing the conversation.

    A lot of the disconnect is that we're all having different conversations and you refuse to modify your framework for some reason. We could accuse most of us in the thread of that, but you're the one insisting that everyone else play by your rules.

    Subjects are being changed because we don't agree with your logic, not because of some plot to play shock and awe wag the dog.

    3rddocbottom.jpg
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Its almost as if that is exactly what we are arguing. For this particular SCOTUS ruling, you would need to write a constitutional amendment because it was written in such a way as to require it. This is not a "the law was overly broad" it was a "You cannot do that at all and i am going to write this as broad as possible"

    Actually, I would take the view that Congress could simply create a new class of corporate entities which do not shield their shareholders from liability, and which are subject to a higher tax rate, and then allow those corporate entities to engage in whatever political speech they like. The existing classes of corporations would then be forced to obey our existing campaign finance laws if they want to retain their liability shield and existing tax rate.

    This regulatory scheme would be analogous to our existing scheme for dealing with charities and religious groups - the 501(c)(3) scheme, which the Court left intact, and presumably will find to be Constitutional.

  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    This really should have been a minor decision that ruled on whether the pertinent sections of McCain-Feingold applied to video distributed via DVR. The unnecessarily broad sweep of this decision brands Roberts as a breathtaking hypocrite.

  • HachfaceHachface Not the Minister Farrakhan you're thinking of Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Its almost as if that is exactly what we are arguing. For this particular SCOTUS ruling, you would need to write a constitutional amendment because it was written in such a way as to require it. This is not a "the law was overly broad" it was a "You cannot do that at all and i am going to write this as broad as possible"

    Actually, I would take the view that Congress could simply create a new class of corporate entities which do not shield their shareholders from liability, and which are subject to a higher tax rate, and then allow those corporate entities to engage in whatever political speech they like. The existing classes of corporations would then be forced to obey our existing campaign finance laws if they want to retain their liability shield and existing tax rate.

    I'm pretty sure the Citizens United ruling forbids this exact thing.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    This really should have been a minor decision that ruled on whether the pertinent sections of McCain-Feingold applied to video distributed via DVR. The unnecessarily broad sweep of this decision brands Roberts as a breathtaking hypocrite.

    Yeah, the biggest problem with this decision is the broadness of it. Again, I don't think this really changes much, though it might make Americans even more cynical about Congress in particular. Somehow.

    But this was basically the umpire deciding that instead of merely calling balls and strikes he would "adjust" the outcome to the team he bet on would win.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Hachface wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Its almost as if that is exactly what we are arguing. For this particular SCOTUS ruling, you would need to write a constitutional amendment because it was written in such a way as to require it. This is not a "the law was overly broad" it was a "You cannot do that at all and i am going to write this as broad as possible"

    Actually, I would take the view that Congress could simply create a new class of corporate entities which do not shield their shareholders from liability, and which are subject to a higher tax rate, and then allow those corporate entities to engage in whatever political speech they like. The existing classes of corporations would then be forced to obey our existing campaign finance laws if they want to retain their liability shield and existing tax rate.

    I'm pretty sure the Citizens United ruling forbids this exact thing.

    Then how does the 501(c)(3) corporation distinction survive? 501(c)(3)'s are charities and religions. They're forbidden to engage in much the same kinds of political speech that Citizens United dealt with, and in exchange they receive tax exemption. Why can't the same kind of arrangement be applied to corporations more broadly? You give up your right to speak and in exchange you receive a lower tax rate and your shareholders receive a shield from liability.

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar, I think you can solve this once and for all by just posting your CV and proving to the rest of us that your logic and legal/constitutional framework is an authoritative source for directing the conversation.

    A lot of the disconnect is that we're all having different conversations and you refuse to modify your framework for some reason. We could accuse most of us in the thread of that, but you're the one insisting that everyone else play by your rules.

    Subjects are being changed because we don't agree with your logic, not because of some plot to play shock and awe wag the dog.

    dont ad hom yar, even if it's kind of an opposite ad homing. 1) iirc, yar's got a pretty damn nice c.v., 2) either be swayed by his logic or don't. in my history of discussions with him, his logic is almost always spot on, even when i don't agree with him.

    with respect to the topic at hand, i dont see why yar is so, so, so obsessed with just the words of the opinion and doesnt want to look at the bigger picture (i.e., the possible consequences).

    yes or no: the decision effectively allows corps and unions to sink unlimited funds into endorsing their favorite politician

    yes or no: politicians love money (and hookers) and will likely cater to those corps and unions which can push the most money their way

    yes or no: most of the money in the u.s. is concentrated in the hands of a minority of people

    yes or no: this minority will, through this decision, have the ability to sway politics in their favor even more than they do now

    how can anyone who doesnt have a billion dollars or isnt the ceo of some huge company see this as a good thing?

    that's what i want to know yar. maybe im missing something and i'll admit i haven't read the entire thread where you bicker with guo about specific words and shit, but i would love if you can explain to me why i shouldnt consider this a decision that takes power away from the majority of americans and why that isnt a bad thing.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Goum - you don't seem to want to continue a discussion that progresses logically here. We were talking about why free speech isn't just about individuals and I used numerous Supreme Court citations (not all from this single decision) to back it up

    Except that this is not what is happening. None of the decisions you have cited say its not an individual right. All of them. ALL OF THEM rest on the idea that corporations are unique identities rather than groups.
    attacking these citations based on the fact that "we make exceptions and therefore all exceptions are allowed" logic or the "the dissent disagrees" (olol) logic.

    No chucklehead, we are saying "Exceptions are allowed, therefore you cannot blanket claim 'no exceptions are allowed' and you must examine whether or not the exceptions are warranted!" and "the dissent has arguments which expose the flaws in your reasoning, maybe you should read them?"

    You come back and make contextless semantic arguments and its fucking infuriating the level of silliness it entails.

    Edit: And cites have been many in this thread, you should read the thing before replying.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The why it could be a danger is the government choosing what kinds of political speech can be heard argument. Which is a real one.

    It's outweighed by the drowning out of others speech that this allows and the weighting the game even more in favor of the wealthiest .5%.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The why it could be a danger is the government choosing what kinds of political speech can be heard argument. Which is a real one.

    It's outweighed by the drowning out of others speech that this allows and the weighting the game even more in favor of the wealthiest .5%.

    i understand that the first reason you post above is the theoretical basis for this decision.

    i just want to know if anyone, especially yar, really believes that this decision was the right one. as in, does he really believe the benefits we gain from this decision outweigh the dangers?

    i think he's just being contrarian, which he loves to do, but i would be interested to know if he really, really thinks this is a good idea. im open to the possibility that he sees something or understands something i dont.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    The why it could be a danger is the government choosing what kinds of political speech can be heard argument. Which is a real one.

    It's outweighed by the drowning out of others speech that this allows and the weighting the game even more in favor of the wealthiest .5%.

    i understand that the first reason you post above is the theoretical basis for this decision.

    i just want to know if anyone, especially yar, really believes that this decision was the right one. as in, does he really believe the benefits we gain from this decision outweigh the dangers?

    i think he's just being contrarian, which he loves to do, but i would be interested to know if he really, really thinks this is a good idea. im open to the possibility that he sees something or understands something i dont.

    I think the decision ultimately doesn't change much practically. The status quo was doing a piss poor job of lowering the influence money has on politics anyway. Best case, this decision will prompt a move to publicly financed elections and might end up being a good thing. Worst case, Goldman owns 70% of Congress instead of 60% (or whatever).

    The most interesting argument about Citizens United has been Glenn Greenwald (writing in the Court's support, oddly!) and Lawrence Lessig (not so surprisingly decrying the decision).

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    although i actually agree that not that much will change, i still see this as a step in the wrong direction. id be interested to know if yar thinks it's a step in the right one. just because we're fucked now doesnt mean we should allow ourselves to be fucked more.

  • shrykeshryke Member of the Beast Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    So does this decision effect donations to candidates?

    Like, are McCain-Feingold regulations for donations to a candidates campaign still in effect or not?

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    WALL O' TEXT!!
    Yar, I think you can solve this once and for all by just posting your CV and proving to the rest of us that your logic and legal/constitutional framework is an authoritative source for directing the conversation.

    A lot of the disconnect is that we're all having different conversations and you refuse to modify your framework for some reason. We could accuse most of us in the thread of that, but you're the one insisting that everyone else play by your rules.

    Subjects are being changed because we don't agree with your logic, not because of some plot to play shock and awe wag the dog.
    A discussion of this nature doesn't work if it doesn't hold to some semblance of reasoned rhetoric. You cannot present a broken chain of reasoning to me and then accuse me of being inflexible or tell me you just "don't accept" when I call you out. Enlightened discourse doesn't function that way.

    Neither does ad hominem or argument from authority, which seem to be your strategy at this time.

    And what Keth said. He's one I can count on to engage me in an actual reasoned discourse of law and teach me something I didn't know, particularly when we disagree.
    Hachface wrote: »
    This really should have been a minor decision that ruled on whether the pertinent sections of McCain-Feingold applied to video distributed via DVR. The unnecessarily broad sweep of this decision brands Roberts as a breathtaking hypocrite.

    Yeah, the biggest problem with this decision is the broadness of it. Again, I don't think this really changes much, though it might make Americans even more cynical about Congress in particular. Somehow.

    But this was basically the umpire deciding that instead of merely calling balls and strikes he would "adjust" the outcome to the team he bet on would win.
    Yes this was an important part of what was decided and disagreed on in this decision. You are referring to the concept of "narrower grounds," which is what others were trying to get at earlier in the misguided discussion of "standing."

    Narrower grounds is an ideal within judicial restraint, which basically says that you don't make a broad ruling if a narrow one would suffice. And it is under that sort of concept that I recognize the perception that this was a rather broad and activist decision. But there are also many reasons, all of which the Court addressed, as to why narrower grounds wouldn't suffice. 1) Narrower ground doesn't count if the Court truly feels the existing law or previous decision was misapplied, 2) a whole bunch of technical proceedings about why the court did not have to accept a narrower claim of CU, 3) CU repeatedly claimed that their free speech under the 1st was violated, so the Court had a resonsibility to rule on that and not on some issue of DVRs vs. On-demand or whaatever, 4) can you really call someone activist for going straight to the letter of the First Amendment?, and finally, most significantly, 5) they referenced the "chilling effect" that Courts love to use these days to avoid issues of standing, stare decisis, and narrower grounds. The idea is that it is not just the speech in this one case that has been silenced. The effect of existing laws and decisions are silencing many potential speeches across the country, and so the challenge before them really isn't just about the narrow issue before them, even in a practical sense.
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Then how does the 501(c)(3) corporation distinction survive? 501(c)(3)'s are charities and religions. They're forbidden to engage in much the same kinds of political speech that Citizens United dealt with, and in exchange they receive tax exemption. Why can't the same kind of arrangement be applied to corporations more broadly? You give up your right to speak and in exchange you receive a lower tax rate and your shareholders receive a shield from liability.
    That's a question that might come up, and I don't doubt there are some justices foaming at the mouth for the chance to rule 501c3 unconstitutional. However, there is also the distinction that this case was about criminalization, not just revoking a privilege, as is being suggested here.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    [with respect to the topic at hand, i dont see why yar is so, so, so obsessed with just the words of the opinion and doesnt want to look at the bigger picture (i.e., the possible consequences).
    Because I mainly am into this discussion on the grounds that the decision was logically sound and I'm angry that the words and meaning are being misrepresented and distorted by the media and other members of the government. Also, it's a pretty basic concept that judges are supposed to rule on a reasoned interpretation of the law, not on what they think the bigger picture might lead to and how they ought to rule to control that picture. The answer to your questions is generally "yes," but also that your insistence that this is a bad thing and should be legislated against is exactly what the concept of "freedom of speech" is meant to protect me from. I don't want the speech I hear to come to me filtered through what Keth, or even the majority, deems to be good for me. If you think this takes power away from a majority of Americans, it's because you don't trust them to make decisions for themselves.

    But hey, if you want to talk practical, let's. I think McCain-Feingold was about a Republican getting mad because the insane personal wealth he has as a result of his wife's inheritance from corporate successes of the past wasn't enough to beat a Republican who had independent support from corporate successes of today. So he criminalized certain manners of speech to bend politics in his favor, and as a result got the nomination he wished he'd gotten the last time. But it still wasn't enough to win him the Presidency. The Court, a majority of whom would probably like to see a corporate Republican back in office in 2013 over a populist Democrat, went straight to the First Amendment and made a good case to throw out McCain's failed experiment in political speech control. Is that cynical enough for you? Because that's what I really think happened here. That doesn't change the fact that it pisses me off when people don't understand the arguments made or precedents set in this decision, or where they fit in our legal history.
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Except that this is not what is happening. None of the decisions you have cited say its not an individual right. All of them. ALL OF THEM rest on the idea that corporations are unique identities rather than groups.
    That's absurd. Please requote the citations you are talking about here, because I don't see any room to challenge that they were very plainly referring to corporations as groups and associations and specifically not as individual persons. You haven't given much of anything here that validates a claim that this issue is about coporate personhood.
    Goumindong wrote: »
    No chucklehead, we are saying "Exceptions are allowed, therefore you cannot blanket claim 'no exceptions are allowed' and you must examine whether or not the exceptions are warranted!" and "the dissent has arguments which expose the flaws in your reasoning, maybe you should read them?"
    I've never claimed that exceptions aren't allowed, and I've laid out precisely why this doesn't fall into any existing or justifiable exceptions.
    The why it could be a danger is the government choosing what kinds of political speech can be heard argument. Which is a real one.

    It's outweighed by the drowning out of others speech that this allows and the weighting the game even more in favor of the wealthiest .5%.
    Except the the first is exactly what the First Amendment is about, and the second is an imaginary fear that doesn't seem to materialize much in reality.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i think he's just being contrarian, which he loves to do, but i would be interested to know if he really, really thinks this is a good idea. im open to the possibility that he sees something or understands something i dont.
    Meh, I'm pretty ambivalent there. I don't particularly crave more political speech from corporations. But I do like a relatively unadulterated concept of free speech, and I do think that popular opinion unfairly discounts the massive importance of corporate success in our everyday quality of life. I really don't want to derail on that , though. Like I said, call it "contrarian" if you want, it really pisses me off when people say "SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people just like you and me!!" or that they rolled back a century of legal progress. That is all just not true, and I don't like an ignorant populace about me.
    shryke wrote: »
    So does this decision affect donations to candidates?
    No, that's all still in place.

  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    I've never claimed that exceptions aren't allowed, and I've laid out precisely why this doesn't fall into any existing or justifiable exceptions.

    No, you haven't. You've consistently laid blanket statements to the effect of "identity can never be examined in political speech" and that is all you've done. You've laid out no reason why this does not fall into existing or justifiable exceptions.
    Yes this was an important part of what was decided and disagreed on in this decision. You are referring to the concept of "narrower grounds," which is what others were trying to get at earlier in the misguided discussion of "standing."

    No, that was a separate argument as to the quality of the decision [and one to the availability of legislative counters]. The narrower grounds arguments had nothing to do with the standing issue.

    The standing issue was entirely about your idea that this was somehow had nothing to do with corporate identity/personhood/rights, which it does. These rights must exist in order for SCOTUS to rule that congress cannot treat them differently from other identities.
    1) Narrower ground doesn't count if the Court truly feels the existing law or previous decision was misapplied, 2) a whole bunch of technical proceedings about why the court did not have to accept a narrower claim of CU, 3) CU repeatedly claimed that their free speech under the 1st was violated, so the Court had a resonsibility to rule on that and not on some issue of DVRs vs. On-demand or whaatever, 4) can you really call someone activist for going straight to the letter of the First Amendment?, and finally, most significantly, 5) they referenced the "chilling effect" that Courts love to use these days to avoid issues of standing, stare decisis, and narrower grounds.

    1. No. Its the opposite. Narrower grounds should not apply when the existing law is wholly in violation not simply "misapplied". If the previous decision was misapplied then you go with the narrow grounds, not the other way around
    3. Actually they dropped that claim.
    4. Besides you?
    5. but ignored the counteracting effects...

    Clearly this makes it a good decision...
    Except the the first is exactly what the First Amendment is about, and the second is an imaginary fear that doesn't seem to materialize much in reality.

    Drowning out of speech is an every day fact. That you live in a place of reasoned discourse simply changes your situation, not the general

    no time to type anymore see you later

    wbBv3fj.png
  • MatrijsMatrijs Registered User
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Matrijs wrote: »
    Then how does the 501(c)(3) corporation distinction survive? 501(c)(3)'s are charities and religions. They're forbidden to engage in much the same kinds of political speech that Citizens United dealt with, and in exchange they receive tax exemption. Why can't the same kind of arrangement be applied to corporations more broadly? You give up your right to speak and in exchange you receive a lower tax rate and your shareholders receive a shield from liability.
    That's a question that might come up, and I don't doubt there are some justices foaming at the mouth for the chance to rule 501c3 unconstitutional. However, there is also the distinction that this case was about criminalization, not just revoking a privilege, as is being suggested here.

    Exactly! So my feeling is that, at least by the plain text of the opinion, Congress can simply convert the existing criminal penalties for violating these campaign finance regulations into tax penalties or revocation of a corporation's liability shield, and thus achieve the same end constitutionally, rendering the decision moot.

    My expectation, however, is that if/when Congress does this, this Court will invalidate it (assuming none of the five Justices in the majority here die or retire), which, I would guess, would essentially force Congress to choose between eliminating tax exempt charities and allowing campaign contributions to be tax exempt.

    EDIT: And since we're talking about the origins of the bill:
    But hey, if you want to talk practical, let's. I think McCain-Feingold was about a Republican getting mad because the insane personal wealth he has as a result of his wife's inheritance from corporate successes of the past wasn't enough to beat a Republican who had independent support from corporate successes of today. So he criminalized certain manners of speech to bend politics in his favor, and as a result got the nomination he wished he'd gotten the last time. But it still wasn't enough to win him the Presidency. The Court, a majority of whom would probably like to see a corporate Republican back in office in 2013 over a populist Democrat, went straight to the First Amendment and made a good case to throw out McCain's failed experiment in political speech control. Is that cynical enough for you? Because that's what I really think happened here. That doesn't change the fact that it pisses me off when people don't understand the arguments made or precedents set in this decision, or where they fit in our legal history.

    This account doesn't make sense - if McCain-Feingold were designed to nail Bush's corporate constituency, then why did Bush sign it? The vote in the Senate was 59-41, which probably means that the votes for a veto override weren't there.

    Moreover, McCain's support for campaign finance reform of this kind dates back at least to 1995, when he and Senator Feingold first introduced a version of the bill that eventually passed in 2002.

    A more likely account: a coalition of liberals and moderates, including moderate Republicans, reacting to public dismay at increasing corporate influence on federal politics, put together a campaign finance reform package and eventually passed it through both houses of Congress. President Bush, facing broad-based public support for such a measure, signed it into law.

  • CouscousCouscous Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    However, there is also the distinction that this case was about criminalization, not just revoking a privilege, as is being suggested here.
    There is no real difference. Any right to free speech they may have will still be abrogated. The opinion didn't suggest that the severity of the punishment was the main reason for ruling it unconstitutional.

  • mythagomythago Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Its almost as if that is exactly what we are arguing. For this particular SCOTUS ruling, you would need to write a constitutional amendment because it was written in such a way as to require it. This is not a "the law was overly broad" it was a "You cannot do that at all and i am going to write this as broad as possible"

    Er, no. You were stating that if SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, you can't fix it without amending the Constitution, which is incorrect. Whether this ruling cannot be changed short of a Constitutional amendment is a separate question. I haven't seen an argument saying that a legislative solution is impossible.

    Three lines of plaintext:
    obsolete signature form
    replaced by JPEGs.
  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Ketherial wrote: »
    [with respect to the topic at hand, i dont see why yar is so, so, so obsessed with just the words of the opinion and doesnt want to look at the bigger picture (i.e., the possible consequences).
    Because I mainly am into this discussion on the grounds that the decision was logically sound and I'm angry that the words and meaning are being misrepresented and distorted by the media and other members of the government. Also, it's a pretty basic concept that judges are supposed to rule on a reasoned interpretation of the law, not on what they think the bigger picture might lead to and how they ought to rule to control that picture. The answer to your questions is generally "yes," but also that your insistence that this is a bad thing and should be legislated against is exactly what the concept of "freedom of speech" is meant to protect me from. I don't want the speech I hear to come to me filtered through what Keth, or even the majority, deems to be good for me. If you think this takes power away from a majority of Americans, it's because you don't trust them to make decisions for themselves.

    you've pinpointed the root of my disagreement with this decision and with you.

    let's pretend (for my sake of argument) that this decision does in fact marginalize small and medium businesses and non-unionized workers. i see that as a bad thing, regardless of what the law says, or even of what the ideal of "free speech" requires. i dont give a shit about theoretical free speech if it means that more people will be disenfranchised. now, that may sound controversial, but i think probably not. i assume we are both pragmatists to some extent.

    laws are created and maintained to serve the people. we do not serve laws, no matter how much our lives are ruled or restricted by them. i dont see why anyone can or should worship the rule of law. when you (and glenn what's his face at salon) say something like, the judges are not supposed to rule to control the bigger picture, then i can't help but strongly disagree.

    history shows what you are saying is not always true. big decisions such as roe v. wade, brown v. board of edu, etc., did exactly what you are saying they shouldn't: scotus pretty much made up new laws because the old laws sucked. in many of the big decisions, you can bet that they were looking at the big picture, not at the words.

    i do understand that there is a danger of impinging on free speech. i do sincerely believe that such danger does exist theoretically. but it's so minuscule and so unlikely in our society, in this specific context, that i simply can't understand how anyone can justify this decision to move in what i think is the wrong direction (i.e., further disenfranchisement of the non-wealthy).
    But hey, if you want to talk practical, let's. I think McCain-Feingold was about a Republican getting mad because the insane personal wealth he has as a result of his wife's inheritance from corporate successes of the past wasn't enough to beat a Republican who had independent support from corporate successes of today. So he criminalized certain manners of speech to bend politics in his favor, and as a result got the nomination he wished he'd gotten the last time. But it still wasn't enough to win him the Presidency. The Court, a majority of whom would probably like to see a corporate Republican back in office in 2013 over a populist Democrat, went straight to the First Amendment and made a good case to throw out McCain's failed experiment in political speech control. Is that cynical enough for you? Because that's what I really think happened here. That doesn't change the fact that it pisses me off when people don't understand the arguments made or precedents set in this decision, or where they fit in our legal history.

    hahaha, this really is cynical. and probably true. i can always count on you for providing insight into things.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i think he's just being contrarian, which he loves to do, but i would be interested to know if he really, really thinks this is a good idea. im open to the possibility that he sees something or understands something i dont.
    Meh, I'm pretty ambivalent there. I don't particularly crave more political speech from corporations. But I do like a relatively unadulterated concept of free speech, and I do think that popular opinion unfairly discounts the massive importance of corporate success in our everyday quality of life. I really don't want to derail on that , though. Like I said, call it "contrarian" if you want, it really pisses me off when people say "SCOTUS ruled that corporations are people just like you and me!!" or that they rolled back a century of legal progress. That is all just not true, and I don't like an ignorant populace about me.

    i definitely do not discount the importance of corporations. but at the same time, i do fear further consolidation of wealth and power and i think this decision facilitates such consolidation.

    i wouldnt despise it so much if the decision actually attempted to address a real or significant problem in our society. but this decision doesn't even really do that. it's not as if the speech of big corporations and big labor are stifled in our society.

    i would urge you to consider what it is we have gained by this decision and then weigh it against what we may have lost. only the coming years will tell and like i said in an earlier post, i don't think it will be as big a deal as everyone is making it out to be. i certainly hope it won't at least. but if it does become a problem, then can you still say it was worth it? did the decision really address such a fundamentally important aspect of free speech that you would be willing to give more power to the super rich if that's what "true freedom of speech" required?

    im not sure i would.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    McCain-Feingold was about rehabilitating his image because of the Keating 5.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • GoumindongGoumindong Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    mythago wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Its almost as if that is exactly what we are arguing. For this particular SCOTUS ruling, you would need to write a constitutional amendment because it was written in such a way as to require it. This is not a "the law was overly broad" it was a "You cannot do that at all and i am going to write this as broad as possible"

    Er, no. You were stating that if SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, you can't fix it without amending the Constitution, which is incorrect. Whether this ruling cannot be changed short of a Constitutional amendment is a separate question. I haven't seen an argument saying that a legislative solution is impossible.

    Again, for the 3rd time. We are stating that

    1. Sometimes congress can overrule SCOTUS via legislation

    2. Sometimes they cannot and need an amendment

    3. This is one of those times they will need an amendment.

    The argument for this is strewn throughout the last part of the thread.

    wbBv3fj.png
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Keth, two things:

    First, I know that some truly landmark decisions have been wholly activist and showed no sign of judicial restraint or respect for the letter or the law. Brown and RvW are great examples, but I really have no interest in debating those topics here. It still remains that conservative ideology always has the upper hand in judicial restraint. A Court that makes up new laws and rights in its rulings is generally subverting the legislative branch in a manner that can't work as a matter of course. What would you have? A council of nine that meets to discuss what they think all the laws should be at any time? Why even have a legislature? I'm not a strict constructionist here, I just don't think you've really thought through the idea that Courts should rule based on what they want and think is best for everyone instead of ruling on what they interpret the law actually says and is intended to do. It is a requirement that they have some humility about what they personally might feel is best in light of what is signed into law.

    Second, this notion of corporations taking over and drowning out speech has got to stop. Seriously, I believe that about as much as I believe that terrorists are trying to blow up my house at night.

    It wasn't that long ago, hell, in my lifetime even, that mass discourse amounted to 3 major networks and one or two newspapers in each town. Maybe NPR, too. But that was it.

    Today we still have that, but we also have cable, satellite, and IP television with channels that go up to 9999. We have a whole suite of 24-hr news channels, representing various political angles or a relatively neutral one, and channels in every language.

    We have DVRs to grabs shows from multiple channels at once or while we're away, sling boxes to access our TV remotely, and on-demand to pick and choose from a huge library of content on request.

    And, holy shit, we have the Internet. Forums. Blogs. YouTube. Twitter. Podcasts. Special-interest websites catered to every idea imaginable. And so on.

    The notion you guys put forth that we are somehow in danger of one voice drowning out the others is so absurd and ignorant, it's offensive. It gives me maniacal fits of frightening laughter. We live in a time where political discourse is such a cacophany of the masses that 20 years few could have imagined it; where the Warhol 15-minutes has become a reality; where every story put out by the media comes with a string of comments by the public a mile long. There is no way in hell we are going anywhere except hurtling violently away from any previous possibility that one voice could drown out all others.

    And you vastly overestimate the desire of corporations to focus their efforts on controlling political views of the public. For the most part, and I know from personal experience, executives of large corporations are cynical and practical towards the government. They want to be left alone, and they don't want any enemies, particularly not enemies who could destroy their profits with the swish of a pen. When they lobby, they generally lobby to be left alone. You'd not find many among them who would think it a valuable use of time and money to focus their efforts on controlling public opinion. That would be a risky, expensive, and likely fruitless endeavor, and that doesn't make much business sense. Sure, they end up donating a lot, and they'll certainly send money toward various advertisements after this ruling, but that activity is generally a result of being petitioned by political activists, not the other way around. Lobbyists in Washington might be a valuable investment, and certainly if a corporation is heavily vested in what the government is doing they will want to try and influence it - but lobbyists represent all manner of groups, and their excesses are a result of too much government power and not a call for more government power.

    Sorry, there just isn't any evidence whatsoever of a desire or conspiracy of for-profit, non-media, business corporations to monopolize the market on political discourse, and if there were, these days it would have little chance of succeeding in a country so protective of free speech. That's the point.

    Goum: it is a fundamental concept of narrow grounds that a court can rule that a previous ruling misapplied the law.

  • mcdermottmcdermott Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Keth, two things:

    First, I know that some truly landmark decisions have been wholly activist and showed no sign of judicial restraint or respect for the letter or the law. Brown and RvW are great examples, but I really have no interest in debating those topics here. It still remains that conservative ideology always has the upper hand in judicial restraint. A Court that makes up new laws and rights in its rulings is generally subverting the legislative branch in a manner that can't work as a matter of course. What would you have? A council of nine that meets to discuss what they think all the laws should be at any time? Why even have a legislature? I'm not a strict constructionist here, I just don't think you've really thought through the idea that Courts should rule based on what they want and think is best for everyone instead of ruling on what they interpret the law actually says and is intended to do. It is a requirement that they have some humility about what they personally might feel is best in light of what is signed into law.

    Second, this notion of corporations taking over and drowning out speech has got to stop. Seriously, I believe that about as much as I believe that terrorists are trying to blow up my house at night.

    It wasn't that long ago, hell, in my lifetime even, that mass discourse amounted to 3 major networks and one or two newspapers in each town. Maybe NPR, too. But that was it.

    Today we still have that, but we also have cable, satellite, and IP television with channels that go up to 9999. We have a whole suite of 24-hr news channels, representing various political angles or a relatively neutral one, and channels in every language.

    We have DVRs to grabs shows from multiple channels at once or while we're away, sling boxes to access our TV remotely, and on-demand to pick and choose from a huge library of content on request.

    And, holy shit, we have the Internet. Forums. Blogs. YouTube. Twitter. Podcasts. Special-interest websites catered to every idea imaginable. And so on.

    The notion you guys put forth that we are somehow in danger of one voice drowning out the others is so absurd and ignorant, it's offensive. It gives me maniacal fits of frightening laughter. We live in a time where political discourse is such a cacophany of the masses that 20 years few could have imagined it; where the Warhol 15-minutes has become a reality; where every story put out by the media comes with a string of comments by the public a mile long. There is no way in hell we are going anywhere except hurtling violently away from any previous possibility that one voice could drown out all others.

    I wish I had the time to do the research now, and maybe somebody can take up the task for me today, but I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that despite the presence of 9999 channels that a ridiculous percentage (probably at least one nine, if not two) of viewership is concentrated into about a dozen of them.
    And you vastly overestimate the desire of corporations to focus their efforts on controlling political views of the public. For the most part, and I know from personal experience, executives of large corporations are cynical and practical towards the government. They want to be left alone, and they don't want any enemies, particularly not enemies who could destroy their profits with the swish of a pen. When they lobby, they generally lobby to be left alone. You'd not find many among them who would think it a valuable use of time and money to focus their efforts on controlling public opinion. That would be a risky, expensive, and likely fruitless endeavor, and that doesn't make much business sense. Sure, they end up donating a lot, and they'll certainly send money toward various advertisements after this ruling, but that activity is generally a result of being petitioned by political activists, not the other way around. Lobbyists in Washington might be a valuable investment, and certainly if a corporation is heavily vested in what the government is doing they will want to try and influence it - but lobbyists represent all manner of groups, and their excesses are a result of too much government power and not a call for more government power.

    Sorry, there just isn't any evidence whatsoever of a desire or conspiracy of for-profit, non-media, business corporations to monopolize the market on political discourse, and if there were, these days it would have little chance of succeeding in a country so protective of free speech. That's the point.

    Goum: it is a fundamental concept of narrow grounds that a court can rule that a previous ruling misapplied the law.

    Sometimes leaving corporations alone is the last thing we want to do, though.

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Also, 5 corporations own almost every one of those networks. But the press is a red herring.

    The real key is influence.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Zombie NirvanaZombie Nirvana Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    But if the corporations aren't controlling the media then what does that say about my worldview?

  • KetherialKetherial Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Yar wrote: »
    Keth, two things:

    First, I know that some truly landmark decisions have been wholly activist and showed no sign of judicial restraint or respect for the letter or the law. Brown and RvW are great examples, but I really have no interest in debating those topics here. It still remains that conservative ideology always has the upper hand in judicial restraint. A Court that makes up new laws and rights in its rulings is generally subverting the legislative branch in a manner that can't work as a matter of course. What would you have? A council of nine that meets to discuss what they think all the laws should be at any time? Why even have a legislature? I'm not a strict constructionist here, I just don't think you've really thought through the idea that Courts should rule based on what they want and think is best for everyone instead of ruling on what they interpret the law actually says and is intended to do. It is a requirement that they have some humility about what they personally might feel is best in light of what is signed into law.

    i think we have to agree to disagree about this specific case, although i generally agree that the role of the courts is not specifically to subvert the legislature. that being said, i think our disagreement is simply one of degrees. on a scale of 1 being least interventionist and 10 being most, i would probably be a 6 or a 7 whereas you might be a 3 or 4 (or whatever).

    i will say that normally, my bias does favor judges more than the legislature though. imho, congress is a bunch of morons. that being said, recently, i feel like scotus has also become a bunch a morons due to how politicized it's become.
    Second, this notion of corporations taking over and drowning out speech has got to stop. Seriously, I believe that about as much as I believe that terrorists are trying to blow up my house at night.

    It wasn't that long ago, hell, in my lifetime even, that mass discourse amounted to 3 major networks and one or two newspapers in each town. Maybe NPR, too. But that was it.

    Today we still have that, but we also have cable, satellite, and IP television with channels that go up to 9999. We have a whole suite of 24-hr news channels, representing various political angles or a relatively neutral one, and channels in every language.

    We have DVRs to grabs shows from multiple channels at once or while we're away, sling boxes to access our TV remotely, and on-demand to pick and choose from a huge library of content on request.

    And, holy shit, we have the Internet. Forums. Blogs. YouTube. Twitter. Podcasts. Special-interest websites catered to every idea imaginable. And so on.

    The notion you guys put forth that we are somehow in danger of one voice drowning out the others is so absurd and ignorant, it's offensive. It gives me maniacal fits of frightening laughter. We live in a time where political discourse is such a cacophany of the masses that 20 years few could have imagined it; where the Warhol 15-minutes has become a reality; where every story put out by the media comes with a string of comments by the public a mile long. There is no way in hell we are going anywhere except hurtling violently away from any previous possibility that one voice could drown out all others.

    well, other than the obvious answers already posted above mine (i.e., regarding defacto influence and legitimacy being concentrated in the hands of a few), your response still doesn't actually address my distaste, which is that this is a step in the wrong direction - facilitating concentration.

    i fully agree with you that technology has created a much better environment for airing our opinions, but that's a result of technology, not law. why should we support a law that goes against the progress that technology has provided to us?

    and again, i still feel like you are ignoring the risk reward analysis. what has this decision given us that is so important?
    And you vastly overestimate the desire of corporations to focus their efforts on controlling political views of the public. For the most part, and I know from personal experience, executives of large corporations are cynical and practical towards the government. They want to be left alone, and they don't want any enemies, particularly not enemies who could destroy their profits with the swish of a pen. When they lobby, they generally lobby to be left alone. You'd not find many among them who would think it a valuable use of time and money to focus their efforts on controlling public opinion. That would be a risky, expensive, and likely fruitless endeavor, and that doesn't make much business sense. Sure, they end up donating a lot, and they'll certainly send money toward various advertisements after this ruling, but that activity is generally a result of being petitioned by political activists, not the other way around. Lobbyists in Washington might be a valuable investment, and certainly if a corporation is heavily vested in what the government is doing they will want to try and influence it - but lobbyists represent all manner of groups, and their excesses are a result of too much government power and not a call for more government power.

    Sorry, there just isn't any evidence whatsoever of a desire or conspiracy of for-profit, non-media, business corporations to monopolize the market on political discourse, and if there were, these days it would have little chance of succeeding in a country so protective of free speech. That's the point.

    i have no problem admitting that this is a great point and one that i have not considered. in my experience, executives feel exactly as you have stated: they want to be left alone. but that's just my anecdotal experience so im not comfortable just accepting that conclusion.

    more importantly, im not sure the same can be said of big labor. i fear the concentration of power in their hands as much as i fear such in the hands of big business (maybe even more in some sense, in light of the experiences my cousin has had).

    and finally, like again, someone said before me, sometimes businesses should not be left alone.

    overall, my feeling is that we should be trying to separate money and politics as much as possible. this is obviously an impossible goal, but each step we make toward that goal is one that i feel would contribute to better governance.

  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    and again, i still feel like you are ignoring the risk reward analysis. what has this decision given us that is so important?
    For all your philosophical discussion about principled morality, you seem to have no practical respect for it. Nothing is absolute, but some concepts, like free speech, we hold to be pretty important even if we can't resolve the entire calculus of why in each and every case. It's important because it's free speech, and the stance of SCOTUS has been solidly "err on the side of free speech" since forever. Which means I don't have to prove to you why allowing free speech creates an immediate tangible good, I only have to show why restricting it isn't a compelling government interest or seems to logically contrast with core tenets of the First Amendment. That is sufficient. The benefit is free speech. Allowing the public to set its own discourse and not have government try and force it down certain paths.

    Just look around you on this planet. See any clear examples of corporations who dominate a populace through controlling speech and drowning out others? See any clear examples of governments who do it? Which one do you think practicality says we ought to be more concerned about?

    And if you are still concerned about a corporation drowning out all others, you ought to recognize that one way that's most likely to happen is if we give the government the power to allow or deny corporate speech. Because then, if I'm a corporate big-wig, all I need is a friend at the FEC and I can make sure that I always get to say what I want, my speech can always be ruled as "not really of a political nature" under some technicality, while virtually any other speech imaginable (because any speech worth mentioning would need the resources of some group or association somehow) could similarly be ruled as disallowed under some other technicality of campaign finance reform. The more I think about it, the more I realize how that is way more likely to happen than a corporation doing it on its own just through spending money.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    i have no problem admitting that this is a great point and one that i have not considered. in my experience, executives feel exactly as you have stated: they want to be left alone. but that's just my anecdotal experience so im not comfortable just accepting that conclusion.

    more importantly, im not sure the same can be said of big labor. i fear the concentration of power in their hands as much as i fear such in the hands of big business (maybe even more in some sense, in light of the experiences my cousin has had).
    Definitely more. Labor unions for the most part have no incentive to be anything but a political extortion and racketeering collective. But whatever, I'm not afraid to hear what they have to say.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    and finally, like again, someone said before me, sometimes businesses should not be left alone.
    Plenty of times. One exception does not justify all exception.
    Ketherial wrote: »
    overall, my feeling is that we should be trying to separate money and politics as much as possible. this is obviously an impossible goal, but each step we make toward that goal is one that i feel would contribute to better governance.
    Yes, and I'm sure by the same token we could argue that money and food ought be separate, and that money and labor ought be separate, that money and art ought be separate, money and value ought be separate, and so on. Money is just numbers on paper that allow a representation of all our efforts and all our desires to flow around freely to better find their targets. So long as money exists, you can't separate money from anything that requires effort or involves any preferences and desires.

  • PantsBPantsB Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Goumindong wrote: »
    mythago wrote: »
    Goumindong wrote: »
    Its almost as if that is exactly what we are arguing. For this particular SCOTUS ruling, you would need to write a constitutional amendment because it was written in such a way as to require it. This is not a "the law was overly broad" it was a "You cannot do that at all and i am going to write this as broad as possible"

    Er, no. You were stating that if SCOTUS rules that a law is unconstitutional, you can't fix it without amending the Constitution, which is incorrect. Whether this ruling cannot be changed short of a Constitutional amendment is a separate question. I haven't seen an argument saying that a legislative solution is impossible.

    Again, for the 3rd time. We are stating that

    1. Sometimes congress can overrule SCOTUS via legislation

    2. Sometimes they cannot and need an amendment

    3. This is one of those times they will need an amendment.

    The argument for this is strewn throughout the last part of the thread.

    De facto or absolutely? Congress has the power to effectively overrule this decision or its implications. For one, it could stop recognizing corporations. Obviously that is extreme and wouldn't be done. More realistically, they could change the current 2 class corporate system to a 3 class.

    Step 1 - Increase corporate tax rate to 75% or even 100%- the point is you make it prohibitively high
    - Non-profit unchanged
    - Non political - those corporations that perform business only and do not involve themselves in politics, tax break so the tax rate is what it is now
    - Political corporations - Corporations that involve themselves in politics

    11793-1.png
    Spoiler:
  • override367override367 misogynist/MRA/socially irresponsible Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    The why it could be a danger is the government choosing what kinds of political speech can be heard argument. Which is a real one.

    It's outweighed by the drowning out of others speech that this allows and the weighting the game even more in favor of the wealthiest .5%.

    i understand that the first reason you post above is the theoretical basis for this decision.

    i just want to know if anyone, especially yar, really believes that this decision was the right one. as in, does he really believe the benefits we gain from this decision outweigh the dangers?

    i think he's just being contrarian, which he loves to do, but i would be interested to know if he really, really thinks this is a good idea. im open to the possibility that he sees something or understands something i dont.

    I think the decision ultimately doesn't change much practically. The status quo was doing a piss poor job of lowering the influence money has on politics anyway. Best case, this decision will prompt a move to publicly financed elections and might end up being a good thing. Worst case, Goldman owns 70% of Congress instead of 60% (or whatever).

    The most interesting argument about Citizens United has been Glenn Greenwald (writing in the Court's support, oddly!) and Lawrence Lessig (not so surprisingly decrying the decision).


    This would be fantastic, but how do you get the branch of government that receives shittons of money from third parties to outlaw receiving money from third parties

    XBLIVE: Biggestoverride
    League of Legends: override367
  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Ketherial wrote: »
    The why it could be a danger is the government choosing what kinds of political speech can be heard argument. Which is a real one.

    It's outweighed by the drowning out of others speech that this allows and the weighting the game even more in favor of the wealthiest .5%.

    i understand that the first reason you post above is the theoretical basis for this decision.

    i just want to know if anyone, especially yar, really believes that this decision was the right one. as in, does he really believe the benefits we gain from this decision outweigh the dangers?

    i think he's just being contrarian, which he loves to do, but i would be interested to know if he really, really thinks this is a good idea. im open to the possibility that he sees something or understands something i dont.

    I think the decision ultimately doesn't change much practically. The status quo was doing a piss poor job of lowering the influence money has on politics anyway. Best case, this decision will prompt a move to publicly financed elections and might end up being a good thing. Worst case, Goldman owns 70% of Congress instead of 60% (or whatever).

    The most interesting argument about Citizens United has been Glenn Greenwald (writing in the Court's support, oddly!) and Lawrence Lessig (not so surprisingly decrying the decision).


    This would be fantastic, but how do you get the branch of government that receives shittons of money from third parties to outlaw receiving money from third parties

    I didn't say it was a likely case! I said it was best case!

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
  • Loren MichaelLoren Michael Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I agree with Yar.

    2ezikn6.jpg
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
  • poshnialloposhniallo Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    I agree with Yar.

    There's no need to ad hom.

    I figure I could take a bear.
  • YarYar Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    The Court sought to court free speech and had to rule against a rule that banned a political speaker from being in the company of a company.

    That's what I call an add homonym argument.

  • ProsperoProspero Registered User
    edited February 2010
    I find it interesting that many people are of the opinion that leaving corporations alone and letting them do what they want is the best alternative to cleaning up the political process (at least on the surface, as I realize it never does much to begin with). Didn't this sort of thought end up with that big disaster in the early 20th century, or am I completely oblivious?

  • enlightenedbumenlightenedbum Registered User regular
    edited February 2010
    Prospero wrote: »
    I find it interesting that many people are of the opinion that leaving corporations alone and letting them do what they want is the best alternative to cleaning up the political process (at least on the surface, as I realize it never does much to begin with). Didn't this sort of thought end up with that big disaster in the early 20th century, or am I completely oblivious?

    Well, more late 19th century. Then TR was awesome.

    Lose: to suffer defeat, to misplace (Ex: "I hope I don't lose the match." "Did you lose your phone again?")
    Loose: about to slip, to release (Ex: "That knot is loose." "Loose arrows.")
Sign In or Register to comment.