Rug Burn Junky on 22/1/2010 at 02:51
Quote Posted by CCCToad
this is hard to disagree with;
Yeah, a bitterly divided 5-4 decision on a close question of law is "hard to disagree with." That simply defies common sense, which is unsurprising considering the source. It's only "hard to disagree with" if you have a pet ideology that trumps all others or you utterly fail at understanding all of the competing interests involved. Ideologically, there are good reasons to come down on either side (though, legally, there are few reasons to agree with the majority.) Only a fucking moron would try to claim that it's hard to disagree with, and the only conclusion that can be drawn is that you don't understand what's at stake.
Quote:
Obviously, special interest control of Washington is a bad thing.
So let's have more of it? Logic = fail
Quote:
However, a ruling in the opposite direction would have set a very bad precedent;
This is the most revealing part of your "opinion" which belies your ignorance of the legal process and, well precedent. There are plenty of distinctions and reasons why free speech on behalf of the legal fiction of a corporate person is different from real people, so its perceived negative effect on first amendment law is arguable. There were plenty of precedents and a hundred years of settled law. The alternative to this decision seems like a "bad precedent" to you in a vacuum, because, quite frankly:
You don't know what the fuck you're talking about.
There were already precedents: This court ignored them. If you have EVER in your life complained about "judicial activism," this is it. On a grand scale. They had no basis to overturn settled law - other than "Hey, we feel like it." This is not how the Supreme Court is supposed to run, and it has all the hallmarks of a bad decision. Of course this is all flying over your head, because your understanding of this is simplistic in the first place (hint, McCain Feingold was only one (defensible) factor of the decision. Gutting the Austin decision was a much more egregious error).
Quote:
especially because the bill didn't seem particularly effective at controlling special interests.
This is a nonstarter and piss poor thinking. The mere fact that it didn't lock down every single avenue for special interests to influence the government, doesn't mean that it wasn't effective at all. That's like saying "People are still occasionally drowning, so let's fire all of the lifeguards." I would suggest that you couldn't possibly be this stupid, but we all know the truth on that one.
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Supreme Court's holding, a source of authority you have previously held up as gospel.
And again, this betrays your inability to comprehend . I've used roughly "The supreme court has already said otherwise" to smack you down in instances where you didn't understand what the law
actually was. That does not mean that every Supreme Court case is correctly decided ipso facto.
-------------------------------
The sad thing is, there are aspects of the majority decision I wholeheartedly agree with, but the end result, and the reasoning behind it, is horribly wrong. Defending it as a private citizen is pretty much the equivalent of saying "thank you sir, may I have another" while you get fucked in the ass. Good job!
Tocky on 22/1/2010 at 03:05
Quote Posted by CCCToad
Anyway, I have no intention of arguing about the practical effects of the ruling because I have no idea what the ramifications will be. Except for that I'll have to watch more annoying political ads.
I'll tell you exactly what it means- the death of democracy in the US. From here on candidates will be bought and paid for along with news agencies and ranting rightwing nutjobs they will be required to tattoo a corporate logo on thier foreheads. The dumbass public will be further hypnotized into believing that it is in thier best interest to vote for those candidates most in the pockets of big oil and big banks and whatever wool pulling baby eating just close your stupid eyes and take wherever I can to jam my big corporate cock you drooling gun toting knuckle draggers. LOOK OVERTHERE! A LIBERAL IS TAKING YOUR GUN AND BUTTFUCKING! KILL KILL KILL! I'll just hold all your money till you come back wounded and figure out your large deductable won't cover your healthcare and you die. Dumbass.
Just kidding. There won't be tattoos. Corporations will find ways to hide it from you. Politicians will lie straightfaced saying they are only upholding family values and you will believe it. Gingrich did it this very day, without so much as a snicker said it was a victory for the middle class. Apparently it is a victory for them to be raped by the rich.
goddammit RBJ you stepped on my rant
CCCToad on 22/1/2010 at 03:13
I'm gonna go out and say it: Yes, my reasons are ideological. Yes, seeing stupid sponsored ads is annoying, and seeing more of them is going to be even more annoying. However, I don't want to force anyone else to be STFU-ed just because they annoy me. That part of the ruling I agree with simply because freedom of speech works both ways: You don't get to pick and choose who you feel just needs to shut up.
What seems shaky to me is the easing of finance regulations
Rug Burn Junky on 22/1/2010 at 03:13
Goddammit SD, that's fucking brilliant and made me giggle.
CCCToad on 22/1/2010 at 03:14
Quote Posted by Tocky
I'll tell you exactly what it means- the death of democracy in the US. From here on candidates will be bought and paid for along with news agencies and ranting rightwing nutjobs they will be required to tattoo a corporate logo on thier foreheads. The dumbass public will be further hypnotized into believing that it is in thier best interest to vote for those candidates most in the pockets of big oil and big banks and whatever wool pulling baby eating just close your stupid eyes and take wherever I can to jam my big corporate cock you drooling gun toting knuckle draggers. LOOK OVERTHERE! A LIBERAL IS TAKING YOUR GUN AND BUTTFUCKING! KILL KILL KILL! I'll just hold all your money till you come back wounded and figure out your large deductable won't cover your healthcare and you die. Dumbass.
So business as usual then? :p
oudeis on 22/1/2010 at 03:17
Briefly, what was the pretext reasoning behind the majority decision? Is it a valid argument or simply partisan casuistry?
Tocky on 22/1/2010 at 03:21
Oh it's much worse than business as usual. Over the course of my life I have seen the semblance of humanity fall away from big business and politics and what I see grinning beneath scares the hell out of me.
CCCToad on 22/1/2010 at 03:22
also, one other thing
Quote:
his is a nonstarter and piss poor thinking. The mere fact that it didn't lock down every single avenue for special interests to influence the government, doesn't mean that it wasn't effective at all.
Links, I must know more. The statistics I've read up to this point indicated only that corporate funding has increased at a steady pace, and It would help me out alot with something else I'm working on to find a good counter argument. Also, how does Union money figure into it? It seems that a lot of people are forgetting that this decision is a double-edged sword (party wise) because of Union money.
PeeperStorm on 22/1/2010 at 03:23
Quote Posted by CCCToad
So, something pretty big news-wise went down today. What has puzzled me is that there is a near-total blackout on the issue.
It was the first thing I heard when I turned on the local news today.
What seems interesting to me is that all the outlets that I've checked are reporting it as being
all about corporations and unions, without even mentioning whether the ruling also affects all of the other groups that would want to spend money on campaigns, but can't because of McCain-Feingold.
I'm always amused by the hand-wringing over "special interests". Whenever any group of people tries to influence the political process, they are a special interest by definition. Certain
kinds of special interests may be problematic, but no one ever bothers to make the distinction.
CCCToad on 22/1/2010 at 03:31
Quote:
What seems interesting to me is that all the outlets that I've checked are reporting it as being all about corporations and unions, without even mentioning whether the ruling also affects all of the other groups that would want to spend money on campaigns, but can't because of McCain-Feingold.
I've heard a bit about it, I was listening to a radio show tonight that addressed that topic. The guest was an independent reporter had made a documentary about a candidate, and who claimed they refused to allow him to sell it because his operation was technically a corporation. For whatever reason, they refused to give him press classification. It seems to me like more federal jackassery like the TSA fiascos, but then again that kind of stuff seems pretty common nowadays. Either that or you hear about it more because of new media.
