WaPo says:
Wednesday, Senate Democrats followed up with pointed criticism of Roberts, and at a hearing on the decision, a leading Democrat said the American public had "rightfully recoiled" from the ruling [in Citizens United]....Ha. I think very few people understand the case. The ones that think they do are probably wrong (in that they don't realize it's not about corporations contributing to candidates). So, yeah, "crystal clear." I think there are Democrats — including Obama at the SOTU — who are trying to get people to think something that is crystal clearly false.
A Democratic strategist who works with the White House said the fight is a good one for Obama, helping lay the groundwork for the next Supreme Court opening. "Most Americans have no idea what the Supreme Court does or how it impacts their lives," the strategist said. "This decision makes it crystal clear."
Posts
103 comments:
The SEIU is of course another matter.
Most people aren't paying any more attention to Citizens United than they did to Kelo or Heller. This is about firing up the base. The Administration's policies on Guantanamo, Iraq, Afghanistan, security, gay marriage, gays in the military, etc., have depressed the leftmost elements of the Democratic party. The President needs an issue that'll replenish the campaign coffers.
I love that we're getting closer and closer to having Official Denunciations by the President and his Legislature.
Maybe once a year, the Supremes could host an event in which the President and the House and Senate sit still while the Chief Justice lectures them.
Just callin' balls and strikes.
Ha.
Barry has declared war on Fox News and Rush Limbaugh and lost both times. Now he wants to pick a fight with the people who will decide if ZeroCare is constitutional (given he'll only be able to probably replace Ginsburg and/or Stevens, the people he's offended most will be the ones likely to say, "Un-"). Is this guy stupid or just incompetent?
Big Mike said...
@Palladian, it wouldn't surprise me to learn that Bill Ayers and his wife were scouting out locations for reeducation camps.
Somewhere, Uncle Joe is licking his chops.
WV "pancties" Whay most ladies wear under their pancts.
A Democratic strategist who works with the White House said the fight is a good one for Obama, helping lay the groundwork for the next Supreme Court opening.
Despite this, I'm not sure the facts or the "optics" are on their side on this one.
Meanwhile, picking a political fight with the Supreme Court or it's chief justice shows about as much political strength as challenging Helen Keller to a street fight.
I don't give a rat's ass whether Roberts is being picked on, is not being picked on, feels he's being picked on or doesn't feel he's being picked on.
I do care about the way in which "Citizens United" is being misrepresented. I do care about the cynicism and rank dishonesty behind concerted efforts to misrepresent it.
The case really isn't that hard to understand, even for non-lawyers, much less non-constitutional lawyer-scholars, such as I ... unless one is bound and determined to turn it into something else.
But what do I know? Silly, unintelligent, unable-to-read-analyze-much-less-understand naif that I am.
Not.
He's right.
This president does not believe in the separation or balance of powers. He has already issued an ultimatum to congress. Pass health care by mid-March.
Now he is on the receiving end of criticism. The libturds will not allow their messiah to be criticized, even if he is wrong. Protocol and decorum be damned.
Obama is always right. HiStory must be made. His legacy must be mandated. Do they already have a bill to put his statue up in DC? His image up on Mt. Rushmore? A holiday celebrating his rise to power?
Barak Obama is nothing but a corrupt Chicago thug. A boor. A typical liberal cry baby. Roberts is right. The President and the Democrats in congress acted like immature locker room teenagers.
Reader,
What exactly was BHO's so-called misrepresentation regarding this 5-4 decision that's got your panties in a bunch?
BTW, did you read the ninety page dissent? For that matter, I wonder if Althouse read it--probably not, she inherently knows everything about the case w/ metaphysical certitude.
Why do cons think it's awful/false to agree w/ the dissent in this case? They don't have a problem agreeing w/ the minority views in other cases.
))) OT alert (((
Yesterday I did a bunch of CS crosswords from few days ago, possibly a week or more old. I was surprised one of the answers was clued by a renowned constructor as, "Author of the novel, Dreams of My Father," basically a gimme in that it establishes a handhold in a gnarly corner. But I laughed because I understood that book to be an autobiography.
What exactly was BHO's
Where in my comment did I reference President Obama?
that's got your panties in a bunch?
Clearly, you know, or at least understand, nothing about my commenting history. I hate that sort of crap. And by the way, my panties are not bunched--not that the state of either my ass or my panties bunched or not therein are any of your damn business. Frankly, I think it's weird that you're mind goes [down] there (as I think generally about that sort of thing, by the way).
If you've got a problem with the way my brain is working, stick with that.
BTW, did you read the ninety page dissent?
Is that a serious question? Do you have an answer prepared for both answers?**
Why do cons think
In point of fact, I'm pretty good at sussing at why cons, libs, progs, liberts, reacts & so on think as they do.
My question to you is, why do you think I'm a con?
---
**It's rarely a good idea to ask me a question which, by its very phraseology, is meant to convey that of course reader_iam can't possibly have read something.
It makes me want to spit nails ... which of course I don't do ... and consider the person a patronizing son of a bitch ... which takes a great deal more effort for me NOT to do.
Not familiar enough with you online to make a decision either way as to whether it's worth that effort. All I can do is pay attention and see.
Reader,
Don't bother responding to me. I'll save you the trouble of figuring out if I'm worthy of a response from you: I'm way beneath you.
Anyway, your last comment answered my question re reading w/ crystal clarity. Not that I didn't already know the answer.
1jbp: Nope, you're above me.
Libtard: some of you commenters have your panties in a bunch because Roberts is being picked on.
Oh go fuck yourself.
Roberts didn't imply he was "being picked on" and your're the one who's panties are all bunched.
Don't modern day cons ever feel sick to their stomachs that they're such babies. The perceived victimization certainly is sickening to witness.
Its about class. The Wellstone Funeral pep rally. Again at the Corretta Scott King funeral. And now with the SOTU address. The pattern is clear:
You libtards are too chicken shit to debate in a venue that allows for direct feedback. Its why you fear talk radio and are too cowardly to appear on FOX. So you're reduced to taking cheap shots at venues where you know people are constrained by protocol and cannot respond.
You're a fucking coward. Now go clean your panties, bitch.
(1) Love the questioner's accent.
(2) I like Roberts's careful delivery. He sounds sincere and thoughtful.
"Most people aren't paying any more attention to Citizens United than they did to Kelo or Heller."
Oh, I think most Americans understand Kelo, and hate it.
Too bad Obama doesn't hate it too.
From what I can tell, I just flunked some sort of litmus test.
That's interesting.
Far more interesting is that the test-giver didn't challenge the blogger of the post to which these comments are attached: not the post, and not the poster.
Instead, the test-giver chose to recast a comment and then both challenge that comment and its poster.
Wow! One might be led to think it's easier to feint at proxies than to take on the real target (and even to gain some insight as to why).
Obama seems to have a penchant for picking political fights he can't win. This is certainly one of them.
Maybe he figures his numbers can't go any lower.
A Democratic strategist who works with the White House said the fight is a good one for Obama, helping lay the groundwork for the next Supreme Court opening.
Yes. It will make the voters forget all about an effective 17 percent unemployment rate.
I hope they paid a lot for that strategist's advice. His mind is almost a perfect void.
John Stodder: Yes. Another feint. Interesting.
Is it not?
There is an argument to be made that Roberts should not have said anything, that his answer only stoked controversy and that SCOTUS needs to be above the fray.
That may be right, but I'm glad he said what he said. Obama was inappropriate at the STU given that he had a captive and muted audience in the justices who only attended as as matter of institutional respect. Roberts in a quiet, incisive way defended his instituiton.
I can't see how Obama wins to this politically in the longer run, quite apart from his inappropriate initial comments. Adding insult to injury through the mouth of Gibbs is as wrong politically as it is principle.
Calling the SOTU a "political pep rally" is a nice touch. Accurate, too.
What exactly was BHO's so-called misrepresentation regarding this 5-4 decision that's got your panties in a bunch?
He mischaracterized the effect of the decision, leading people to believe corporations will now give a lot of money to candidates. That's still illegal. He also said it would open the gates to foreign corporations to contribute. It doesn't. Finally, he described the beneficiaries of the ruling as corporations, overlooking the fact that it was a political non-profit that brought the case, not a corporation as the term is popularly understood.
More broadly, he depicted the decision as political rather than legal. This is an unfortunate tendency of both wings. We must hold to the normative understanding that all the justices will act in accord with their understanding of the Constitution and our laws, and not in pursuit of politically desired outcomes. I realize that's deteriorated, but we should never stop insisting on it. The Court is not a committee of nine Harry Reids and John Boehners. If it ever is...we're fucked. For bringing a kind of mob mentality into that moment during the SOTU, Obama should simply be ashamed of himself.
"This president does not believe in the separation or balance of powers."
Look, the President of the United States is a criminal.
He has subjugated the Legislative Branch by bribing it. The outright bribing of Jim Matheson of Utah is a high crime. An impeachable offense.
It kind of sucks that the Legislative Branch is so easily subjugated, but that's kind of beside the point. Every man has a price and Barack Obama appears to be determined to figure out what each Congressman's price is.
Now, he's after the Judicial Branch. Out to pack the court with free speech suppresionists - every one of whom should be filibustered until the impeachment and trial of the President can get under way.
This President requires removal from office before he tears the country apart and plunges it into a civil war.
He's a criminal.
Read him his rights and then give him a fair trial.
The Citizens United furore is our Fuhrer's perfect Big Lie political campaign. They are repeating a Lie that people believe because it is heard so often unchallenged by the Media accomplices.
Look, the President of the United States is a criminal.
That's pretty normal, actually.
NewHam said,
"This President requires removal from office before he tears the country apart and plunges it into a civil war.
He's a criminal"
This POTUS has no attachment and allegiance to country. It all stems from the fact that he is not a Natural Born Citizen (his father was never a citizen, no matter if Obama was born in the White House). He was raised by, and is friends of Communists. Yet so many of the "intelligista" (Althouse?) still voted for him, suspending their disbelief, despite all damning FACTS about Obama squarely in front of them. He put his hand on the bible and lied about protecting a Constitution that he was breaking at the same moment. Roberts knows that he is not a Natural Born Citizen, why do you think he flubbed the oath, and did it again in "private".
Now he lies in front of the world again, in front of the SCOTUS judges no less, in characterizing Citizens as a Campaign Finance case. It is a free speech case about the ability of Corporations to advertise during elections.
Quo Warranto in the DC district will be brought against him by 82 Chrysler dealers which had their franchises taken away by his administration. They will ask, By what authority do you hold this office?
So Ann, since we don't understand the case, why don't you explain it to us. As we are all obviously dumber than a pet rock, isn't it the obligation of those who know so much - the proverbial corner on wisdom and learning - to explain it to us in terms that even we can understand?
Gosh then you wouldn't have to issue one of your "Ha. I think very few people understand the case. The ones that think they do are probably wrong..." or would that take away from some secretly delightful gotcha fun?
omg Mick is back.......
Since when is the sotu not a political pep rally?
See some new polls please.
Love the Bill Ayers reference-really so clever.
Do I hear an Alinsky?
3...2...1...
@Opus One Media:
Actually, it's only you that's 'dumber than a pet rock'.
Again.
Opus One Media: Well at least you didn't accuse Professor Althouse of being a "charleton" as you have accused others in the past. HAHAHAAAAHAHa
To attack someone who is unable to defend themselves is to be a bully.
Since I'm currently rereading the Aubrey/Maturin series, the word "scrub" leaps to mind.
Democrats attempting to sell their lies? Wow - this is a first.
*laughs*
Opus One Media, the Professor is a Law Professor. You want an education in understanding ConLaw, pay for her class. Until you do, she has no obligation.
Images from the pep rally:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0M__0Z1pjg
go Nancy.
Leland said...
"Opus One Media, the Professor is a Law Professor. You want an education in understanding ConLaw, pay for her class. Until you do, she has no obligation."
ConLaw? And she voted for a Non Natural Born Citizen (father was never a US Citizen) for POTUS?
MonkeyBoy said: "To attack someone who is unable to defend themselves is to be a bully."
That really does sum it up well.
Whose we white man?
I know one argument that has been used is that allowing 'rich corporations' to buy political advertising can skew electorate perceptions in a way that the average individual can't do because of limited funds.
Good point but what about really rich folks like Gates, Soros, Boone Pickens etc who have a shitpot of money that they can use to buy political ads to do the same thing? They are individuals after all but with way above average money that us salt of the earth types don't have.
I get it! Obama, as government, wants to be able to say anything he wants about corporations and wants corporations to have to sit on their hands in silence. Sort of like the SOTU address, the justices being the corporate entity.
MonkeyBoy said: "To attack someone who is unable to defend themselves is to be a bully."
And that is the point that the left consistently misses or is simply ignoring. If one party is constrained by protocol to respond while the second party can dump on them, I don't see the point in attending. Same thing with Bush at King's funeral. He attends out of respect and then gets shit on. What a bunch of complete asshole losers that group was. Totally classless.
Then again its hard to expect any sense of class from the left.
1jpb
> Why do cons think it's awful/false to agree w/ the dissent in this case?
The dissent didn’t say what Obama said. Which isn’t the whole issue in terms of his decorum, but it explains why Alito mouthed “not true.”
But the dissent did want to uphold a limitation of free speech, which is awful in and of itself.
> They don't have a problem agreeing w/ the minority views in other cases.
Why did you go and kill an innocent straw man like that?
Stodder
Let me concur with you—that is agree in ultimate conclusion but quibble on a few points.
> He mischaracterized the effect of the decision, leading people to believe corporations will now give a lot of money to candidates. That's still illegal.
Well, its illegal in federal elections and many state elections, but not in all states. For instance it is legal in Illinois. And guess who got corporate contributions, as in direct contributions from corporations into his pocket?
That’s right Barrack Obama.
> it was a political non-profit that brought the case, not a corporation as the term is popularly understood.
Well, that gives the impression that Citizens United were not a corporation, and they were. I think you knew that and just said it wrong.
And bluntly, who cares if they are seeking profit? In 2004, right during the election Michael Moore was promoting the movie Fahrenheit 9/11. That would be by Miramax, which is in turn owned by Disney, for-profit companies. Which is fine. I am even fine with him making Capitalism: A Love Story with a for-profit company, while noting that irony.
But I challenge anyone attacking the Supreme Court today to explain why Moore was allowed to air his movie in 2004, and Citizens United was not allowed to air theirs. Even if it was not a politically motivated decision, it was certainly arbitrary. Which is to be expected when something as clumsy as government tries to address something as subtle and slippery as speech.
Btw, i will add that this is not going to help the president with the supreme court, if that is what he hoped. in my experience, most attempts to obtain undue influence backfire.
Go back and read casey. not that there was undue influence, but it was all about the supreme court pushing back against an attempt to overrule it by stacking, rightly or wrongly. Kennedy and Souter didn't like how people thought that all it took was to change the lineup of the court to get a different outcome and they were fighting back.
I look at The Daily Beast often to see how the other side "thinks". Roberts is getting hammered over there on this, in both the editorial and especially the comments.
I'm not sure what gets me more, the fact that the bashers over there don't realize that Roberts was responding to a question -- they accuse him of bringing it up after the furor had died down -- or that they agree with Obama on how bad the decision was, without understanding what the decision actually does. Anyone who tries to set the record straight in the comments is immediately attacked.
The funniest comments are the ones accusing conservatives of living in a bubble and not listening to anyone but other conservatives.
John S and AW are dumb and can't read, just like reader.
BHO was simply agreeing w/ the dissent. From wik:
"The 90-page dissent held that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." The dissent also argued that The Court declaring §203 of BCRA facially unconstitutional was a ruling on a question not brought before them by the litigants, and so they "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law." Stevens concluded his dissent with:
At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
And, the dissent also made the point about the potential problem of foreign companies involvement.
It's so funny to think about Roberts calling balls and strikes.
You cons really are dumb, you have opinions completely disproved by the written record. Dumb is as dumb does. And, this is especially true of Althouse, who is a law prof (ha ha).
It's instructive to note how liberals like 1jpb wrap their comments in ad hominem attacks.
This shows what conservatives mean when they say that liberals have no class. It's good to see that Americans are finally getting sick of this kind of rhetoric.
Hoosier Daddy said,
"I know one argument that has been used is that allowing 'rich corporations' to buy political advertising can skew electorate perceptions in a way that the average individual can't do because of limited funds."
Right, he only likes Selective enforcement of the 1st Amendment. Newspapers are Corporations (usually beholden to the Left) that can say anything they want.
You cons really are dumb, you have opinions completely disproved by the written record. Dumb is as dumb does.
Wait, so the dissent is basically saying that ACME Inc, purchasing airtime to air a political ad is undermining self-government. Really?
Then again George Soros can use a few millions of his several billions to buy political ads that can in effect, undermine self-government. So rather than a deep pocket corporation, a few deep pocket individuals can pretty much do the same thing.
I may be dumb but I'm a helluva lot smarter than an idiot like you.
Seems to me the SOTU has been a political pep rally for the last 30 or 40 years--the president, R or D, panders to his base in the legislative branch.
If the Supremes want to attend they should understand that going in--If they don't understand that and participate, they dont look real smart to me.
Lets go back to pre Wilson times when the SOTU was mailed in rather than make it a prime time shitfest.
My personal preference would be stop treating Marbury v Madison as "precedent" and reduce the SCOTUS the minimal role the founders seemed to have in mind for it the first place.
Obama? incompetent demagogue
Roberts? Whiner
they deserve each other.
At not quite 14 months into his term Obama has already become the most lying president ever.
And he's just getting started.
Roger J. -- I agree. Not only is the SOTU an exercise in trite demagoguery, but the combination of the laundry-list structure, ponderous delivery, and constant interruption make it completely unwatchable. It's like the Olympic broadcast minus the sports.
I don't pity Roberts. I salute him! He's telling the truth.
1ipb: You do a nice cut and paste from the dissent, but you display little interest or understanding in the actual opinion of the court in the matter. You claim that everyone is so stupid that they dispute "the written record" when you ignore it entirely. Why is that? The opinion of the court was actually a couple of pages shorter than the dissent, so perhaps you draw conclusions from the length of commentary versus the weight.
Michael,
WTF is your point? I've clearly stated and proved that BHO was agreeing with the written dissent?
Are you denying that this is true? If so, stand in line w/ the other dummies in this thread.
Hoosier:
You are right about the likes of Soros standing behind the curtain and pulling the switches at all these "non-partisan" advocacy groups.
I'd add there are a bunch of liberal foundations that are also working fulltime to push the far left liberal agenda. These include the Kaiser Foundation, Robert Wood Johnson and the Pew to name just a few.
1ipb: My point is that you didn't bother to read the majority opinion and have given it no thought because it does not, and could not, persuade you. By the way, it is not persuasive to add ad hominem fallacies to your otherwise thin reasoning and verbal skills.
BTW, did you do the math on financial power of Soros v all of corporate America?
Sigh. Is you dumb or is you dumb?
I wasn't making a dollar to dollar comparison between Soros and all of corporate America, simply pointing out that one wealthy individual can use his/her immense wealth to 'undermine self-governing' in much the same way ACME Inc. can do through political advertising. The only difference is one is an individual and the other a corporation.
Do they have remedial math classes in your hood?
Yes they do. I suggest you sign up for a remedial class in comparing and contrasting. You won't look as stupid next time.
"My point is that you didn't bother to read the majority opinion"
I agree w/ that. Hence, my WTF response.
I'm not denying that. Never did. I haven't even read the dissent, beyond wik and news paper accounts. Unless I personally read the complete record from both sides I wouldn't claim to have a completely certain view regarding this case.
My point on this thread is very narrow, and it is not dependent on a complete reading of the record.
So, are you, like the other dopes, denying that I've "crystal clearly" stated and proved that BHO said nothing that went beyond agreeing w/ the written dissent?
If so, your only (so far) stated reasoning makes you even dumber than the others because you've convinced yourself that my claim--that BHO was restating parts of the opinion from the dissenters--is dependent on me having completely read both sides in this case. Truly dumb.
HD,
So your point was that the potential impact of Soros is insignificant when compared to that of corporate America.
Turns out that's my point too!!!
I think 1jpb is a Moby who's working the thread to make liberals look like belligerent airheads. He's very effective too. He probably works for WorldNetDaily.
HD,
So your point was that the potential impact of Soros is insignificant when compared to that of corporate America.
Looks like you might want to sign up for a remedial reading comprehension course too.
My point on this thread is very narrow, and it is that I'm right and you're a moron.
in that they don't realize it's not about corporations contributing to candidates
The distinction between corporations making pro-Obama commercials, and corporations giving money to Obama to make his own commercials, is too subtle for me to grasp. Is the difference that third party ads are less likely to be as effective as candidate-produced ads?
Oh Henry, HoosierDaddy has always be a moron. Nothing ever changes.
You're a moron.
Do you self-congratulating and unrelated-tangent-seeking cons think that you've effectively hidden the fact that you cannot rebut my point that BHO was simply restating parts of the dissent opinion?
Sad.
The argument is won when a leftie utters the word "sad." The last insult left.
mail the sotu in and this whole thread would be irrelevant--
"mail the sotu in and this whole thread would be irrelevant--"
Er...has anyone commenting here actually fooled themselves into thinking that this whole thread (as well as the vast majority (if not all) of the other threads/posts at Althouse) is anything other than irrelevant?
The distinction between corporations making pro-Obama commercials, and corporations giving money to Obama to make his own commercials, is too subtle for me to grasp.
Please don't send up such a slow, sweet pitch, belt high, down the center of the plate.
But if I can be serious for a moment (which is very hard, after an opening like that), when a 3rd party makes a political commercial, presuming they are remaining fully compliant with the relevant laws, they cannot coordinate with the campaign. Therefore (1) they can be way over the top and yet the candidate has "plausible deniability" that he or she would never have brought up such a distasteful topic; (2) they can be off message, which is a bit different from being over the top but still a problem from a candidate's perspective; and (3) they can be wasted effort. For instance suppose your hypothetical corporation did a big TV buy for Obama in New York. Well, New York City, New York State, and northern New Jersey are pretty blue. If I was Obama I'd rather spend the money for a TV buy in a swing state like Ohio.
Reason #1 is, of course, a double-edged sword. Too far over the top, and all the plausible deniability in the world won't save the candidate.
So those are the problems and the risks when 3rd parties do their own commercials.
Yesterday I was surveyed via telephone for a poll obviously done for Maryellen O'Shaughnessy running for Secretary of State in Ohio. They asked about this ruling and the question was phrased in such a way as to mislead.
I'm sure that my responses won't please them in that no matter what they asked or how the put it, I said I wouldn't voter for O'Shaughnessy. Democrats won't be getting any of my votes until post 2012 at least.
1jpb
First, you say:
> John S and AW are dumb and can't read
Then you say:
> From wik:
Only a true moron cites wikipedia on any charged topic. At one time Condi Rice was described by Wikipedia as a “concert penis [sic].”
> I haven't even read the dissent, beyond wik and news paper accounts.
Well then where do you get off talking about what the opinion says?
> Unless I personally read the complete record from both sides I wouldn't claim to have a completely certain view regarding this case.
Except you did, in calling me stupid.
> Do you self-congratulating and unrelated-tangent-seeking cons think that you've effectively hidden the fact that you cannot rebut my point that BHO was simply restating parts of the dissent opinion?
Except you don’t actually know it to be the case. you are simply saying someone else said so. Well, sorry, but not good enough.
FLS
> The distinction between corporations making pro-Obama commercials, and corporations giving money to Obama to make his own commercials, is too subtle for me to grasp.
The distinction between speaking and giving money hurts your brain? Sheesh.
I guess you did drop out before your con law professor got to the first amendment.
But I do agree that the distinction is slight enough that we should allow unfettered donations to the candidates directly, with full disclosure. I mean it was good enough for Obama himself when he was a state politician. You do know that, right? That obama got direct contributions from corporations as a state politician, right?
FLS
> The distinction between corporations making pro-Obama commercials, and corporations giving money to Obama to make his own commercials, is too subtle for me to grasp.
Btw, maybe this is also too subtle, but what was the difference between Disney, via Miramax, advertising for Fahrenheit 9-11, and Citizens United advertising for Hillary the movie?
(psst, there isn't one. which makes the government's behavior in the case susicious at best)
Let me reiterate. No one can defend what the FEC did to Citizens United. Citizens United wanted to speak about a candidate up for election and they were not allowed to do so, with the threat of prison if they dared.
That should terrify every person who believes in basic democracy. They had something to say about the election, and the government suppressed them. For all the twisting and turning the left has done, for all the outright lies being told, that is what happened here, and the only scandal in this case is that it was not a unanimous decision.
AW,
So, you don't believe that BHO was restating what the dissent said because you don't believe that the following was actually contained in the dissent:
"The 90-page dissent held that the Court's ruling "threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution." The dissent also argued that The Court declaring §203 of BCRA facially unconstitutional was a ruling on a question not brought before them by the litigants, and so they "changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law." Stevens concluded his dissent with:
At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics."
And, presumably you weren't impressed w/ my relating that newspapers had stated that the dissent noted this decision opened the door to foreign corporations.
Well here's some more specific language:
" If taken seriously, our colleagues’ assumption that the identity of a speaker has no relevance to the Government’s ability to regulate political speech would lead to some remarkable conclusions. Such an assumption would have accorded the propaganda broadcasts to our troops by “Tokyo Rose” during World War II the same protection as speech by Allied commanders. More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans: To do otherwise, after all, could “‘enhance the relative voice’” of some (i.e., humans) over others (i.e., nonhumans). Ante, at 33 (quoting Buckley, 424 U. S., at 49).51 Under the majority’s view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not per mitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a
form of speech.52 In short, the Court dramatically overstates its critique
of identity-based distinctions, without ever explaining why corporate identity demands the same treatment as indi vidual identity. Only the most wooden approach to the First Amendment could justify the unprecedented line it seeks to draw."
Well now you don't need to take my word for it. And, you don't need to depend on wik.
Go to this link to read the complete text. You can use 'find' to locate these excerpts.
Now that you have an official text do you still deny that BHO was simply restating the opinions found w/in the dissent?
BTW, did you think it was going to take more than (literally) three minutes for me to find the original document and excerpts?
You're getting dumber the further you trudge on.
Maybe you don't believe that my link is to the "real" dissent. You're such a skilled debater; a master debater.
Sotomayor shoulda stood up and said, "Why don't you come and say that to my face, bitch?!"
And then Obama could have walked up to where the justices were sitting a and they would jump him like in a Chitown back alley.
Now, I would watch that SOTU.
Otherwise STFU.
The irony of Supreme Court justices complaining about others cheering on misleading statements in their presence while they can do nothing but impotently sit there and take it is pretty strong, given the way they ruled on the case in question.
Not that I would expect any of you to understand why.
I always knew the Althousians were an extreme, perhaps even extremely disturbed bunch. But this graphic illustrates how out of touch they are within even the party that actually gives a damn about their opinions.
Not that it matters, but Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't released as part of a political campaign. Nor was it "broadcast", let alone released within the 60 days prior to a general election, or 30 days prior to a primary. But whatever, no one brought suit so its compliance or lack thereof with the CU decision can't be known.
If y'all think it's great that democracy be sold out to the highest bidder, that politicians be incentivized to give up even the slightest interest in the common good in favor of outright prostitution, just come right out and say so. Whatever principles you have left are so removed from any practical concerns that maybe it's best that you declare outright your inability to see government as anything other than a shrine to mammon.
The whole section of the law that was struck down had to do with a narrow clause regarding timing. This has to do with the proper time and place of political speech. For Roberts to complain about (and for his lackeys among you to voice agreement with) the time and place - the setting and deviation from proper decorum - of Obama's supposedly misleading and opportunistic remarks, is to illustrate precisely, if ironically, the problem that the overturned section of McCain-Feingold sought to address.
Keep agreeing with Roberts. Together, you're demonstrating how ignorant you are of the purpose of the legislation. (While simultaneously demonstrating your interest in applying similar protections to your own opinions).
AW,
1) Your claim that corporations (and unions) spending their money to influence politics are not special interests is a lie.
2)Regarding foreigners, as my earlier link demonstrates, the following is contained in the dissent:
"More pertinently, it would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans"
Which is identical to BHO saying the following:
"Last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections.
3) You seem willing to concede this point.
BTW, I do appreciate the way that your most recent comment does further advance my thesis that your dumbness is increasing w/ each new comment.
This time you really set yourself up by portraying yourself as a stickler for exactness. For example you are now claiming that corporations (and unions) that influence politics aren't special interests. And, you're claiming that you didn't notice that my excerpt included quote marks to identify and distinguish the text that was pulled for the dissent.
But, then you misquote BHO's comments from the SOTU. Hilarious.
My entire, very narrow, point surrounds the words of BHO, and you get them wrong, with quote marks. Ha ha.
BTW, the reason I'm not trying to make any point beyond noting that BHO's comments were a reiteration of points made by the dissent is because I don't have a fully developed opinion regarding the case. So what? Would it be better in your mind for me to blather on w/ metaphysical certitude even though I haven't studied the case and the opinions. Wait...don't answer that...of course you'd approve of such ignorance.
The ruling is a nightmare and puts off into the indefinite future the distinction between the content of political speech (which should be inviolable), and regulating the time, place and, most importantly, the volume of that speech.
Let's see any of you try to argue that I have an unregulated 1st amendment right to run through a city's streets at nights and shout out political slogans.
If any of you knew a damn thing about the legislation, you'd pay attention to the language. The word "broadcast" seems intentional. And that's because "broadcasting" applies to TV and radio - the medium for which constitute a regulated, public monopolies that have a disproportionate impact on the consumer.
I find it incredible that you have no problem with the government, under the auspices of the FCC, regulating the content of broadcast media when it comes to language and moral standards, but have a big problem with regulating electioneering through these public monopolies that take advantage of a largely passive consumer with few substitutable options in that medium.
For reasons that might be obvious to some, FOX seems to like a passive audience. But McCain-Feingold did not.
And if any of you were capable of thinking for yourselves, you'd understand that.
Non-broadcast media, media that did not take advantage of highly content-regulated state monopolies, were not addressed in the legislation. Nor should they have been. You are all so damn myopic that you are incapable of seeing why that distinction matters.
But it does.
I suspect a fair number of people would be quite shocked by what I think with regard to campaigning, campaign seasons, campaign funding and terms for elected officials: what and how many limits I'd prescribe/proscribe.
I know that, and therefore I laugh about a lot of what's been assumed over the past 24-ish hours.
The ruling is a nightmare and puts off into the indefinite future the distinction between the content of political speech (which should be inviolable), and regulating the time, place and, most importantly, the volume of that speech.
I should be able to say whatever the hell I want about my local school board. But not necessarily at a board meeting, and certainly not at a meeting right before an election, especially if members of the media are there.
Far-fetched?
1jpb
> Your claim that corporations (and unions) spending their money to influence politics are not special interests is a lie.
Lol. I didn’t say they were not special interests. I said the case was not about special interests. There are many special interests whose interests were not impacted, such as media companies, activist groups, PACs, foreign lobbies, etc.
Gee, let me guess, having demonstrated crappy reading comprehension, again, you will insult my intelligence by the end of this, again.
> Which is identical to BHO saying
If owning a key is the same as actually opening a door. *rolls eyes*
> You seem willing to concede this point.
Which point exactly? Write clearly.
But I do recognize another mistake. They didn’t overturn a century of law. More like reaffirming what buckley v. valeo explicitly stated in the 1970s. Sorry for forgetting that one, too.
> And, you're claiming that you didn't notice that my excerpt included quote marks to identify and distinguish the text that was pulled for the dissent.
Nice try. You screwed up, and then insulted my intelligence again. But on the positive side, it was funny, albeit unintentionally.
> But, then you misquote BHO's comments from the SOTU.
Exactly where and how? I cut and pasted it from an ABC news transcript.
> because I don't have a fully developed opinion regarding the case.
And yet you keep talking.
> Would it be better in your mind for me to blather on w/ metaphysical certitude even though I haven't studied the case and the opinions.
No it wouldn’t be better if you kept talking even though you are clueless. But the problem is that you have been doing exactly that. You have defended Obama’s rank dishonesty and demagoguery on the subject.
And you can’t even say whether you support suppressing “Hillary: The Movie.” That’s how willfully ignorant you are on the issue. And yet you keep talking.
And calling other people dumb.
Ritmo
> The ruling is a nightmare and puts off into the indefinite future the distinction between the content of political speech (which should be inviolable), and regulating the time, place and, most importantly, the volume of that speech.
Lol, you are free to speak, but only if we don’t think you will be persuasive.
> Let's see any of you try to argue that I have an unregulated 1st amendment right to run through a city's streets at nights and shout out political slogans.
In which you confuse disturbance of the peace with speech by those you don’t like.
By the way, given that Michael Moore and Walt Disney Corp. was free to make and promote Fahrenheit 9-11 to influence the 2004 election, its more like a law saying, “Democrats can shout their messages at all times. Republicans have to restrain themselves to daylight hours.”
> If any of you knew a damn thing about the legislation, you'd pay attention to the language.
The language is not limited to broadcast, but expressly includes cable and satellite, and even books. From the decision:
> “[T]he following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.”
And monopoly? Have you used a TV lately? I have something like 400 channels on my TV. Not to mention newspapers, internet, video games. We are long separated from the day where there were only 5 stations and “remote control” entailed your father telling you to get off your ass and change the channel. I don’t accept the monopoly rationale, but certainly you can’t apply it without, you know, a monopoly.
> I find it incredible that you have no problem with the government, under the auspices of the FCC, regulating the content of broadcast media when it comes to language and moral standards
Actually I do have a problem with that. But it is far more dangerous for the government to regulate speech aimed at influencing elections than for the government to regulate boobies and cuss words. If boobies and cuss words are regulated, the danger to the republic is minimized. But if the government can silence one side during an election, we cease to be a democracy.
So bluntly you have it exactly backwards. Freedom of speech is more important when that speech is political, not less.
> For reasons that might be obvious to some, FOX seems to like a passive audience
Lol. Fox news has the most educated audience. But don’t let facts trip you up. Meanwhile my friends who only watch the mainstream media learn nothing about things like “Hide the Decline.” One time I mentioned the name Juanita Broderick to a friend who got all her news from the New York Times. She had no idea who I was talking about.
See for all your talk of monopoly, what drives you crazy is that your media monopoly has disappeared. And now your largely liberal mainstream media’s monopoly on corporate electioneering has disappeared.
Ritmo (cont)
By the way, since you are evidently so brilliant, so thinking outside the box, and so on, can you explain this to me.
First, why should the New York Times Company be allowed to endorse specific candidates but not the Sierra Club?
Second, why should Disney Corporation be allowed to release and promote Fahrenheit 9-11 just before the 2004 election, but not Hillary: The Movie before the 2008 primaries?
Why should General Electric be allowed to use its media arm (NBC) to promote its corporate agenda and even endorse candidates, but LG cannot purchase advertisements doing the same?
If you can’t justify all of those, if you think any of those distinctions are unacceptably arbitrary, then congratulations! You would have to at least concur with the Supreme Court’s decision in Citizens United.
Is it that people want a cooling-off period? Could that perhaps make sense--especially if it were all the way around?
How about campaigning fast and furious in all sorts of ways, and then a complete ban for a 4 days, a week, 10 days before an election?
(That, by the way, is NOT one of the things to which I referred in my just previous comments.
But think about it for the moment, anyway. I have.)
Just heard Sen. Pelosi, on this topic, making a reference to the Supreme Court w/r/t undermining our democracy--i/ref/t Citizens United.
Is this really the stand? Is this really the path's fork at which we want to stand?
I'm asking a serious question, here: Did Speaker Pelosi just let a horse out of the barn, after which it will be very hard indeed to close the door, should--nay, when, however eventually (because that's the cyclical nature of all life, including politics)--circumstances change?
Why do people do this? Do they think they can just take back--just like that!--whatever foundational damage they've done to institutions that over time have served us not perfectly, but overall well enough, and with room enough for the future, over time?
AW,
Ha. Yes I will reaffirm your dumb status. Thanks for doing your part in the transaction, again.
You seem to have forgotten that you made three points. This is why I provided three responses. If you reread my last comment you'll see the digits '1', '2', and '3'.
Here is a guide to help you navigate my previous comment: The words next to the digit '1' respond to your first point. The words next to the digit '2' respond to your second point. The words next to the digit '3' respond to your third point.
And now you've added a forth point. Later in this comment you will see the digit '4'. When you see this digit you will see words next to that digit. The words next to that digit respond to your new forth point.
4) You have stated that you can't see anything in the dissent excerpts I've provided that would justify BHO referring to a century. I would encourage you to review the dissent and see if there are any references to a POTUS. You don't need to read the entire dissent, the answer to this (extremely challenging for you) riddle will be found in the excerpts I've provided in an earlier comment in this thread.
Next, you should go to the Google and learn about this president. In particular you should focus on when this fellow was in office. Then you should start w/ the time of this person's presidency and count the years between then and now. You should count on your fingers and toes, and then the fingers and toes of folks you know until you make it all the way to 2009. Surprise!!!!
PS
Can you provide the link to the news site where you claim you found your misquote from BHO? Maybe you should have gone to wik.
It's starting to seem like you're my sock puppet. I do look forward to finding out how you'll screw up your next comment, after you're done counting toes and fingers.
You are a total joke. And, dumb!
1jpb
> Here is a guide to help you navigate my previous comment:
So I am dumb for not reading your mind. OOOOOOkay.
Then you reaffirm your own stupidity by saying:
> You have stated that you can't see anything in the dissent excerpts I've provided that would justify BHO referring to a century. I would encourage you to review the dissent and see if there are any references to a POTUS.
You complete idiot. I didn’t say the word “century” never appeared. I said it was a lie to say that the supreme court had reversed a century of LAW. Here are my exact words (although I know I risk giving you lip strain from all this reading): “They didn’t overturn a century of law.” What Teddy Roosevelt said is not the law, you dunce. Indeed, what Roosevelt said actually has no relevance to the discussion except to the point that you find him independently persuasive. He didn’t write a single word of the constitution, let alone the first amendment or the 14th.
I suppose then I can cite one of Reagan’s state of the union addresses for the proposition that Roe v. Wade has been overturned? You say things this ignorant and then call others stupid. The mind boggles.
I can trace specific language affirming what the court said in Citizens United going back to Buckley v. Valeo, a 1970’s decision. Then the Austin case in the 1990’s diverged from that decision, followed by McConnell. Those two decisions, Austin and McConnel, were the ones overturned. So they didn’t overturn a century of law, they overturned about 20 years, at most, overturning a decision that had partially overturned a previous decision. And I will add, Stevens didn’t say otherwise. Stevens just thinks Roosevelt should carry persuasive weight with the court and I don’t.
It is constantly amazing to see your aggressive ignorance on display. You call me a moron but don’t understand the difference between a speech and a law.
Moving on, you claim I conceded the point in regard to whether the case was about expenditures. Well, to the extent that Stevens said it, too, yes. To the extent that it was still f---ing dishonest, no.
You know, if it was you who said it, I would accept a defense of saying, “Justice Stevens said it, too.” But one of the few things Obama has a demonstrated competency in, is law. He f---ing taught constitutional law. He should be able to read the case for himself and know better. He should see through Stevens’ disingenuousness. He has no excuse for misstating what the court held, even if the dissent did it, too.
> Can you provide the link to the news site where you claim you found your misquote from BHO?
You know, since you are claiming I misquoted him, you google it. your burden. Besides you previously showed your googling prowess by discovering the Supreme Court website in three minutes! To be fair, it did require you to actually spell long words like Supreme.
By the way, did you think I wouldn’t notice what arguments you have apparently conceded? That, after calling me stupid in almost every response.
Shorter 1jpb: “Stupid, stupid, stupid... oh, um, you have a point, nevermind.”
Btw, for all the people freaking out about this ruling, i will point out that corporations are free to give unfettered money directly to the candidates in state constests in numerous states. Maryland is one example and no one would say that the corporations run that state. its one of the most anti-business states around.
AW,
Ha ha. So, now your argument is based on the belief that the following quote wasn't refering to the American people using law to fight against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Teddy:
"At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt.
Hillarious. Well, I wonder if we could 'find' the word 'century' in the dissent? Look here:
"The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corpo rations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure re quire particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210. The
Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michi- gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).
In his landmark concurrence in Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346 (1936), Justice Brandeis stressed the impor tance of adhering to rules the Court has “developed . . . for its own governance” when deciding constitutional ques tions. Because departures from those rules always en hance the risk of error, I shall review the background of this case in some detail before explaining why the Court’s analysis rests on a faulty understanding of Austin and McConnell and of our campaign finance jurisprudence more generally.1 I regret the length of what follows, but the importance and novelty of the Court’s opinion require a full response. Although I concur in the Court’s decision to sustain BCRA’s disclosure provisions and join Part IV of its opinion, I emphatically dissent from its principal holding. "
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Did you get that?
And, now you're refusing to prove that you got your mistaken BHO quote directly from a news source. You've concluded that I must provide the news source for your quote. I can't imagine that you could say anything dumber than that, but I do look forward to seeing you try in your next comment. You haven't disappointed yet.
Dumb is as dumb types.
PS
You're now claiming that I've backed away from my point that BHO's SOTU comments were a restatement of the dissent. Could you provide the quote(s) from my comments that support your claim? Or, is it your argument that I must provide the proof to support your undocumented (and incorrect) claims, as was the situation w/ your incorrect BHO quote?
You are an odd duck. And, dumb.
1jpb
> So, now your argument is based on the belief that the following quote wasn't refering to the American people using law to fight
When the president says that the court “Supreme Court reversed a century of law,” that means something. Now you are trying the Clintonian defense of “Well it depends on what the meaning of law is.” Not to lawyers. When you say the supreme court reversed a century of law, and the precedent overturned dates from the 1990’s, that is a lie. Which is why Stevens never said that.
> Well, I wonder if we could 'find' the word 'century' in the dissent?
Wow, you proved what I didn’t dispute.
By the way, when Stevens said this:
> Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corpo¬ rations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907
He was talking about the ban on corporations donating to candidates themselves. The ban on that still stands. So the Tillman act, that century old law, has not been reversed.
But its funny that Obama is here defending it. do you know why it was really passed? Because Tillman, a white surpremacist, was afraid that corporations would promote a color blind agenda.
And when Stevens says this:
> TheCourt today rejects a century of history
Notice that he says “history” and not “law.” There is a difference, you know.
> And, now you're refusing to prove that you got your mistaken BHO quote directly from a news source.
Yeah, you have made the accusation, so it is your burden, you lazy fascist moron. I mean you have yet to even say what you claim was misquoted, or what you think he actually said. You have yet to make more than a conclusory accusation.
> You're now claiming that I've backed away from my point that BHO's SOTU comments were a restatement of the dissent.
No actually I didn’t. But once again imprecision is the rule with your responses. I didn’t say you backed away from the whole thing, just that you backed away from specific points where I stated that Obama was 1) misrepresenting what the Court actually said in Citizens United and 2) that misrepresentation was not arguably based on Stevens’ dissent. But as usual your brilliance shows through in your awesome reading comprehension.
> Could you provide the quote(s) from my comments that support your claim?
You know what topics you dropped.
AW,
The following quotes state that (according to the dissent) this decision breaks from legal precedents that, at the federal level, stretch back to the early 1900s. The dissent explicitly states that the new decision contradicts this earlier law because the earlier law constitutionally allows a different treatment for corporations v humans, hence such distinctions must still be constitutional. Duh.
"A century of more recent history puts to rest any notion that today’s ruling is faithful to our First Amendment tradition. At the federal level, the express distinction between corporate and individual political spending on elections stretches back to 1907, when Congress passed the Tillman Act, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864, banning all corpo rate contributions to candidates. ..... The Court has surveyed the history leading up to the Tillman Act several times, see WRTL, 551 U. S., at 508– 510 (Souter, J., dissenting); McConnell, 540 U. S., at 115; Automobile Workers, 352 U. S., at 570–575, and I will refrain from doing so again. It is enough to say that the Act was primarily driven by two pressing concerns: first, the enormous power corporations had come to wield in federal elections, with the accompanying threat of both actual corruption and a public perception of corruption; and second, a respect for the interest of shareholders and members in preventing the use of their money to support candidates they opposed. See ibid.; United States v. CIO, 335 U.S. 106, 113 (1948); Winkler, “Other People’s Money”: Corporations, Agency Costs, and Campaign Fi nance Law, 92 Geo. L. J. 871 (2004)."
And:
"In sum, over the course of the past century Congress has demonstrated a recurrent need to regulate corporate participation in candidate elections to “‘[p]reserv[e] the integrity of the electoral process, preven[t] corruption, . . . sustai[n] the active, alert responsibility of the individual citizen,’” protect the expressive interests of shareholders, and “ ‘[p]reserv[e] . . . the individual citizen’s confidence in government.’ ” McConnell, 540 U. S., at 206–207, n. 88 (quoting Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 788–789; first alteration in original). These understandings provided the combined impetus behind the Tillman Act in 1907, see Automobile Workers, 352 U. S., at 570–575, the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947, see WRTL, 551 U. S., at 511 (Souter, J., dissenting), FECA in 1971, see NRWC, 459 U. S., at 209–210, and BCRA in 2002, see McConnell, 540 U. S., at 126–132. Continuously for over 100 years, this line of “[c]ampaign finance reform has been a series of reactions to docu mented threats to electoral integrity obvious to any voter, posed by large sums of money from corporate or union treasuries.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 522 (Souter, J., dissent ing). Time and again, we have recognized these realities in approving measures that Congress and the States have taken. None of the cases the majority cites is to the con trary. The only thing new about Austin was the dissent, with its stunning failure to appreciate the legitimacy of interests recognized in the name of democratic integrity since the days of the Progressives."
And here is a link of BHO's speech . It confirms that the quote I included in an earlier comment is correct. Now, can you provide proof that your mistaken quote was actually cut from a news source, as you claim?
BTW,
Why can't you provide any proof to support your claim that I've backed away from my point that BHO was restating views contained w/in the dissent? /rhetorical question
You = dumb.
AW,
BTW,
Are you a lawyer? I ask because your last comment indicated that you're familiar w/ the way lawyers think.
And, the irony associated w/ you calling me Clintonian rather than lawyerly is awesome. Er...like Clinton's not a lawyer...like lawyers don't parse language...like you don't parse language yourself. Ha ha ha ha. You are a barrel of laughs.
It would be hilarious to find out that I'm schooling a lawyer. I mean, did law school teach you that you could win an argument by telling the opposition to go out and find proof that will support your incorrect claims against them (e.g. BHO's comments and my so-called retreat from my point that BHO was restating the views of the dissent).
Yikes.
What law school did you attend?
And, you're dumb.
Ah, let me correct myself:
"Stevens doesn’t name a single precedent overturned that stood for a century."
And hey, just as a point of order, if the precedent was 90 years old, i would give the president a mulligan on that.
But the fact is he lied about what the court said, and most of his lies were not even arguably repetitions of what Stevens said, and in any case that isn't a defense. And, returning to the original point, it was inappropriate.
AW,
It is interesting (where 'interesting' is a euphemism, chosen to avoid hurting your feelings with a more accurate description of your actions) that you interpret the dissent's repeated, precise, and specific (see quotes up thread) references to this new decision's divergence from the the settled law from a century ago (which allowed corporations to be more restrained than humans) to mean something other than what they wrote.
Are the Living Constitution folks too conservative for you? You want to go further w/ a philosophy of Living Reality, where text means the opposite of what it says. Sheesh.
I'm running out of new ways to declare your status as dumb. [Your point about my repetition (if you were commenting on my extensive documentation of your dumb status) is absolutely correct!! Even a broken clock is right twice a day. But, this is not some sort of chicken/egg question where cause and effect is difficult to discern. I'm just calling balls and strikes. That is, if you didn't keep spewing the dumb, I wouldn't need to call out the dumb.]
Ha ha. Now you think that WJC getting a five year suspension is proof that lawyers don't abuse the parsing of language, even though this is a situation where WJC used parsing to get off relatively easy for deception in circumstances where a non-lawyer wouldn't have been as well prepared to get away w/ deceit.
Recall that the WJC deal that avoided all criminal charges only required him to admit misleading in the original Jones testimony. All the testimony involving the 'is' stuff came later and it was never found to be wrong, because parsing and arguing about definitions isn't illegal. In fact, that stuff (lawyer parsing) was the shield that allowed WJC to get away w/ his earlier deception w/ a slap on the wrist (he didn't need the license and the fines were pocket change for him).
You are a total clown. And, (say it w/ me) dumb.
Let’s start by reviewing the topics you have dropped.
First, you stopped claiming that I misquoted the SOTU. Dropped.
Second, you dropped the silly claim that conservatives are opposed to agreeing with any dissent.
Third, you have conceded (by dropping the subject) that Obama was lying when he said that this allowed for foreign companies to spend in our elections.
Fourth, you have conceded (by dropping the subject) that Obama was lying to say that this case was about special interests.
Fifth, you have conceded (by dropping the subject) that Obama was lying to say that this case was about expenditures.
Sixth, since you have conceded (by dropping the subject) that Obama was lying in the SOTU, that means you are also admitting to the statement that kicked off this debate, that Obama was lying, which was part of the problem with decorum.
Us lawyers say that when the law is against you, argue the facts; when the facts are against you, argue the law; and if both are against you, pound the table. So you are reduced to pounding the table and insisting that Stevens precisely stated something that you cannot precisely quote, and claiming that Bill Clinton’s parsing of even the word “is” was not discredited. It’s a national punchline, it was offered as a defense to disbarment and failed. And its really a side point, but yes, his disbarment means that his conduct in that trial was unbecoming of a lawyer. Which when you think about it, is not exactly a high bar, now is it? But in your mind its okay for a lawyer to act like that, even though it led to him losing his right to be a lawyer. The mind boggles.
Kind of hard to call me stupid when i have won pretty much the whole argument, isn't it?
Once again, shorter 1jpb: "stupid, stupid, stupid... oh, you made a good point... nevermind."
1jpb
> I didn't drop a single point that I have made in this entire thread.
Nah, you just stopped talking about them after I shattered your silly arguments.
Indeed, now you are not even arguing about the case at all, about the dissent, about what Obama said about it, at all.
Now you are just trying to say you won the debate and insulting me. You can call me dumb all you want. You can call yourself the President of the United States. Saying it, doesn’t make it true. You and I both know the reality of the situation. You were pwned.
Once again, shorter 1jpb: "stupid, stupid, stupid... oh, you made a good point... nevermind."
I should be able to say whatever the hell I want about my local school board. But not necessarily at a board meeting, and certainly not at a meeting right before an election, especially if members of the media are there.
Far-fetched?
Not if you're disrupting others' rights to speak and to effectively address your statements, based on your ham-handed claim that your say counts more than theirs on account of your ability to buy off the board.
Get a clue and a sense of context for crying out loud you ethically-challenged dwarf!!!
Lol, you are free to speak, but only if we don’t think you will be persuasive.
People who have to drown out others' speech in order to be persuasive might lack a certain faith in the persuasiveness of their own speech. I don't blame them.
> Let's see any of you try to argue that I have an unregulated 1st amendment right to run through a city's streets at nights and shout out political slogans.
In which you confuse disturbance of the peace with speech by those you don’t like.
Wow. I suppose in your mind a regulated election might count as disturbance of the peace.
By the way, given that Michael Moore and Walt Disney Corp. was free to make and promote Fahrenheit 9-11 to influence the 2004 election,...
Blah blah blah. Who has time to waste on so many words? No suit was brought because the timing and broadcast elements weren't violated. Already addressed. Read the legislation, retard.
> If any of you knew a damn thing about the legislation, you'd pay attention to the language.
The language is not limited to broadcast, but expressly includes cable and satellite, and even books. From the decision:
No need to go further. If that's the case then it needs to be re-written. Read my post.
And monopoly? Have you used a TV lately?
Not since I decided it wasn't worth it for anything other than movie rentals.
I have something like 400 channels on my TV. Not to mention newspapers, internet, video games. We are long separated from the day where there were only 5 stations and “remote control” entailed your father telling you to get off your ass and change the channel. I don’t accept the monopoly rationale,
Read my post again. I think it should apply only to terrestrial radio and network tv.
If boobies and cuss words are regulated, the danger to the republic is minimized.
Sez who? How idiotic.
But if the government can silence one side during an election,
Read "either side" in violation of that law. I know, reading. A danger to the republic and whatnot.
Freedom of speech is more important when that speech is political, not less.
Again refusing to distinguish between content and manner.
Meanwhile my friends who only watch the mainstream media learn nothing about things like “Hide the Decline.”
Nothing that propaganda and ignorance of science would teach them.
See for all your talk of monopoly, what drives you crazy is that your media monopoly has disappeared.
Ok. Moving on from misreading my statements to misreading my motives and politics.
And now your largely liberal mainstream media’s monopoly on corporate electioneering has disappeared.
What a laugh.
First, why should the New York Times Company be allowed to endorse specific candidates but not the Sierra Club?
The distinction between news organizations and other companies is rightly challenged as tenuous, but there you have it. If you are incapable of distinguishing between a reporting function and profit motive, maybe you should read up on the history of the media in North America from the 1700s.
Second, why should Disney Corporation be allowed to release and promote Fahrenheit 9-11 just before the 2004 election, but not Hillary: The Movie before the 2008 primaries?
How many more times must I be asked questions already answered? How many more times will you feign incomprehension over the meaning of such apparently difficult ideas as "30 days" and "60 days".
Why should General Electric be allowed to use its media arm (NBC) to promote its corporate agenda and even endorse candidates, but LG cannot purchase advertisements doing the same?
They can and should, just not a state-regulated monopoly or oligopoly. I know that's hard for you to understand, but there's my position. Deal with it. Or at least try to grasp it.
Ritmo
You know, all of this discussion would be simplified by one single piece of advice:
READ THE FUCKING CASE.
You will find out that just about everything you are saying about it is wrong.
The law was NOT limited to broadcast. It included satellites, website, even books.
It was NOT neutral between speakers. Only one class of speakers were singled out for this extraordinary censorship.
Oh, and here’s something else you should do: Turn on a modern TV set. You have no idea what TV is even like these days.
If you do those two things, I would estimate an 80% chance that you will come back with a significantly changed mind on the subject.
Now, to be fair, the disinformation about the case being put out is staggering, but really, read the case. It will open your eyes.
Ritmo,
And btw, as far Fahrenheit 9-11 is concerned, the DVD was released on October 5, 2004, well within the 60 day window. And i specifically remember ads promoting it.
mmm, i am calling it. 1jpb has officially run from the fight.
*does a victory dance*
Sorry to gloat, but its funny to watch him run with his tail between his legs after calling me stupid in just about every response.
Post a Comment