Aerothorn on 23/1/2010 at 04:31

---

Well, yes, but the logical extension of that argument is that the First Amendment doesn't say anything about congress restricting SOME speech, it it says it can't restrict ANY. My understanding is that it's not really meant to be taken literally, and I'm imagining the whole "personhood" question was made a big deal in this case because it WAS relevant.

Tocky on 23/1/2010 at 05:39

---

Professor Volokh is a fucking idiot if he thinks small business can compete with the corporate big boys at buying airtime. But he isn't. He is just a bought and paid for corporate shill. Make no mistake, government is up for bid and so are those like Volokh. The Republican party is already paid for and they stacked the deck of the supreme court for this power play. Well done you evil motherfuckers.

Rug Burn Junky on 24/1/2010 at 19:47

---

Yes. You are. I can't make it much plainer than my lifeguard analogy, and it's only persuasive if you don't understand context, including especially the standing precedent.

Yeah, sure, corps could skirt the rules, but not at will. There were enough roadblocks to it that it changed the cost benefit analysis. By removing those roadblocks you drastically change the cost benefit analysis - which matters when you're dealing with corporate budgets concerned with profitability.

That's the practical effect, and why "it was inefficient" is, by itself, a bad reason to overturn a particular rule (though in conjunction with other arguments it may be evidence in favor of doing so).

But that's not why you're a fucktard. The reason this is a nonstarter is that it doesn't just effectively say "This rule is inefficient, so let's try something different." It says "This rule is inefficient, so let's inhibit congress's ability to craft any rule that may actually work."

Now stop trying to push this canard. It doesn't work.

There's a little bit of a worry here, but in the long haul, the reason that an "irresponsible" court is so irresponsible is that they have a shaky foundation for their decisions, so the responsible court would have an easy time saying "who, wait a second, those fuckers were out of line."

That's really the biggest problem with this decision. From a policy standpoint, it's a close call, and if this were a brand new fresh argument with no backstory, it's still a close call. I honestly could be convinced either way, and I think that half of this decision is correct. But from a stare decisis standpoint, past decisions dictate a certain outcome, and it's not even close. They were out of line, but because they were out of line, it would be easy for a future court to disregard this decision as a mistake.I read Greenwald every day. He generally knows what he's talking about, but in this case, he's wrong because he's hewing to his own pet ideologies a bit to closely. He's playing both types of arguments just within those two updates (Common sense: "Well, of COURSE money = speech" and hyperliteralist: "It doesn't actually say 'person'"). You can't really have it both ways. It's a consideration, but the question of personhood is subsumed in the question of rights, plus conglomerating into a corporation to effect 'speech' is a mechanical means of speech, not speech itself. It's a sticky set of questions, but Greenwald's aside there really doesn't amount to much.Volokh's the converse of Greenwald, his ideological opposite, but I don't think he's a shill, even if he occasionally showers in evil.

He really believes what he's saying, which is something I won't say about 90% of conservative commentators. I'll grant the hyperbole with respect to congressional republicans - it's hard to justify their actions except with respect to kowtowing to conservative republican institutions: you play the game, you're provided for. And that is only likely to get worse.

That's not the case with the court. The court is another beast altogether, but just as problematic. This is the real legacy of Bush, and it fucking sucks. You have 4 justices who all subscribe to a set of views that are considered fringe at best among most constitutional scholars. It's the legal equivalent of the Bush Presidency itself. Think back to 2003/4 the hyperpartisan neocons were in power, and so the visibility of their ideology made it seem acceptable, but it was never, ever, ever mainstream, no matter what the Roves and Hannitys of the world believe. But because Alito and Roberts were rightly recognized as fringy mcfringersons, that questioning this record was legit at their confirmation (though ultimately, I don't think either of them should have been opposed, but it was, more than anything else why Kerry's loss i n'04 was so fucking depressing). But then you get into the tit for tat that the republicans engaged in with Sotomayor, who is really fairly moderate, and there's this false equivalency created that sorta justifies Alito/Roberts's extremism - "Hey, the other side is just putting up extreme leftists, they're just as bad."

So you have these 4, voting as a unified bloc, and even if they're wrong, they don't give a shit, because they have ideological goals. But that's all it is for them - they're not bought and paid for, they're just intellectual Desmonds.

Rug Burn Junky on 24/1/2010 at 20:26

---

DING DING DING DING DING DING FUCKING DING WE HAVE A WINNER.

Which is one major problem with this decision, as it throws up roadblocks to enacting stronger measures.

Do you recognize the SEVERE problems with your line of argument yet?

Rug Burn Junky on 24/1/2010 at 22:13

---

You're not seriously going to suggest this, are you?

Because you can't make that argument without invokeing the full fledged hypocrisy of originalism. (Hint: under originalism, you can't effectively make the argument that the actions being regulated are strictly speech.)


That's a false dichotomy. Regulating corporate activity isn't the same as political speech.

You're still analyzing this way too simplistically.