Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

Reading the SCOTUS opinion


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Reading the SCOTUS opinion Page: [1]
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/23/2010 9:10:16 PM   
DomImus


Posts: 2004
Joined: 3/17/2009
Status: offline 		This evening I have been reading the opinion form the SCOTUS ruling on Thursday. Deep stuff but reasonably compelling for semi-legal jargon. Justice Stevens in the dissenting opinion makes several good points that the majority over reached the scope of the question before them and overruled cases that really should not have been on the table. Regarding individual versus corporate speech Stevens also notes that at times the government limits the speech of certain groups (troops, students, foreigners, government employees) seemingly without any constitutional entanglements.That latter point may well be flawed and actually give those groups reason to protest. I have to say that his argument that the majority over reached seems pretty sound the way he explains it.

I have to go back and forth a lot between the majority and dissenting opinions to clarify things in my head but it's very interesting. Has anyone else here actually taken the time to read it? What did you think?




_____________________________

"Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable." Sidney J. harris
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/23/2010 10:32:30 PM   
DomImus


Posts: 2004
Joined: 3/17/2009
Status: offline 		Well, just when I think Justice Stevens has me sold I go back to the majority opinion. The 1st amendment indeed does not distinguish between individual or corporate or any other speech as the majority holds. It doesn't mention any type of speech. It only says that Congress shall make no law - and these laws that the majority overturned were indeed laws that prohibited speech and had criminal consequences or fines. So over reaching perhaps they were not, to put it as Yoda might. If the 1st Amendment holds water then those laws could very well be seen as unconstitutional and should be overturned. Whether it was in their jurisdiction to do it in the course of this particular argument is open for debate.




_____________________________

"Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable." Sidney J. harris

(in reply to DomImus)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/23/2010 10:57:46 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		And my opinion is that these college proffessors are out of touch with the people who pay their very generous salaries.
It's just getting worse and worse in this country.
The republicans are spot on about one thing anyway, we need LESS "govt." in this country!
The courts are against us, the congress is against us and the president put the banks, insurance cos and big pharma against us.
Working people can't find decent good paying jobs because big business is against us.
Thomas Jefferson was right.
I'm just waiting for that one spark.

< Message edited by popeye1250 -- 1/23/2010 11:01:43 PM >

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to DomImus)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/23/2010 11:49:52 PM   
DomKen


Posts: 19457
Joined: 7/4/2004
From: Chicago, IL
Status: offline 		I read all of the opinions, majority, Roberts concurring and the dissent, and found that the majority opinion was far too concerned with Austen and not concerned enough with previous precedent. Roberts concurring was entirely self serving in an attempt to justify to later scholars why this nothing case that the plaintiffs expressly did not want this as an outcome should have been used to make this sweeping change. The dissent made the far superior case including making quite clear all the precedent ignored and overturned by this ruling.

I further find strange that no where in the majority or concurring opinions did I find any justification for allowing unlimited spending by a corporation while not striking down individual limits. Fundamentally this means that this ruling creates 2 classes, corporate entities who are entitled to unlimited use of money in political speech and people whose political speech is limited to set amounts.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/24/2010 7:11:41 AM   
Thadius


Posts: 5091
Joined: 10/11/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: DomKen

I further find strange that no where in the majority or concurring opinions did I find any justification for allowing unlimited spending by a corporation while not striking down individual limits. Fundamentally this means that this ruling creates 2 classes, corporate entities who are entitled to unlimited use of money in political speech and people whose political speech is limited to set amounts.


This is the biggest issue I had with the majority opinion. If it found that the contribution levels were unconstitutional for one (group, or individual), then they should be found to be unconstitutional for all (individuals). Why should an individual be limited to, what is it now, $2k ($2.5k?) per candidate.

Bah the entire government has lost its perspective, and have forgotten who the hell they work for. Hmmm, or have they? Maybe, they don't work for us the people anymore.

_____________________________

When the character of a man is not clear to you, look at his friends." ~ Japanese Proverb

(in reply to DomKen)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/24/2010 8:22:54 AM   
Musicmystery


Posts: 30259
Joined: 3/14/2005
Status: offline 		Hi guys,

Further than that is the idea that the First Amendment means no restrictions.

But we limit speech in several areas, and for widely accepted reason. National security, for instance. Speech that infringes on the rights of others, for example (and I think this ruling threatens both). Limiting what one can say on the airwaves--a very blatant restriction of speech, one that frankly bows to a religious standard, in defiance of the first amendment, again arguing it's for the good of other citizens (children are usually cited). Limiting news coverage by mandating equal time (but only for major candidates). We limit tobacco and alcohol advertising. Since 1907, we've accepted corporate influence in elections needs restriction. Since 1947, unions were similarly restricted. Since the founding of this country, corporations have sought to run the country for their own benefit--ironically, that included the Boston Tea Party (I wonder if the Tea Party folk realize that). And to say that their voices have been shut out is absurd--just restricted. Until this ruling.

So five Justices voted their Party. So much for stare decisis, despite the rhetoric they offered in their confirmation hearings. Four Justices told them they were full of shit. And rightly so.

It's Bush v. Gor again--to hell with states' rights when it didn't suit their political purpose. They shouldn't even have taken that case--and it was all for nothing, as Bush would have won barely anyway (according to several recounts later).

More than the decision--which is already an aberration--is the indication of the direction this court intends to take, a journey of legislation ideology, much, much less than the strict constructionist lie they preached when they were appointed.

These Five have anointed themselves the Party Leaders. They will proclaim their will for us for life.

We have a long record of how corporations act, both here and abroad, in the absence of regulations, of how abysmally they treat people in the name of profit interests and the egos of their leaders. We may expect to be treated this way in an unfettered world of corporate governance.

I most ardently dissent.

(in reply to Thadius)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/24/2010 9:43:23 AM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline 		Music, isn't there a saying of some sort that says that the govt should be afraid of The People and that The People shouldn't be afraid of the govt?

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to DomImus)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/24/2010 1:19:42 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		I respect those that read this.

But in its most basic form- a corporation or similar entity- the rights of free speech can never trump a human.  

The ruling smacks of "gotcha" theatrics.

The time has come to return corporations to having to serve the public in order to exist.  We had that at one time.

The court is wrong.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/24/2010 1:31:20 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		Actually I believe the Court may well be just as right as it is wrong. But the idea of freedom of expression for a corporation is irrelevant in any case to the valid reasons for dissent, and impossible in any case to counter without leaving the door open when the media must in all events be preserved such freedom, even with a clarifying constitutional amendment.

The real problem is with the capacity of corporations to invest, and the duty of officers to do so, in those political activities likely to yield returns for shareholders. It is here that the issue of the threat to the voice of the people can be resolved, and without contentious constitutional amendment, by a relatively simple revision of corporate law - which must be accompanied, on the same basis, by similar revision to union law.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/24/2010 1:56:50 PM   
pahunkboy


Posts: 33061
Joined: 2/26/2006
From: Central Pennsylvania
Status: offline 		then the corporation with the most money wins?

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/24/2010 2:08:57 PM   
LadyEllen


Posts: 10931
Joined: 6/30/2006
From: Stourport-England
Status: offline 		Not at all hunky - I see the only realistic prospect here is to amend corporate law (and union law) to prohibit (or more likely limit) the involvement of corporations in politics by way of their assets and funding. The playing field would thereby be levelled such that no corporation had greater capacity to participate in these ways than any other, and hence it would make no difference how large or small that corporation might be.

E

_____________________________

In a test against the leading brand, 9 out of 10 participants couldnt tell the difference. Dumbasses.

(in reply to pahunkboy)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/25/2010 2:53:25 AM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Says it all... lol




Attachment (1)

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 1/25/2010 2:54:02 AM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to LadyEllen)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/25/2010 8:10:37 AM   
servantforuse


Posts: 6363
Joined: 3/8/2006
Status: offline 		I actually think that limits should be lifted for individuals. If someone wants to donate 1 million, he should be allowed to do so.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/25/2010 12:06:47 PM   
Sanity


Posts: 22039
Joined: 6/14/2006
From: Nampa, Idaho USA
Status: offline
One of the patches on that suit was GE which owns MSNBC which in turn heavily backs the Dems through its 24/7 propaganda disguised as news. Google is rumored to heavily favor Dems through the way their search engine operates... so the only thing this ruling might do is encourage some truth in advertising.

Especially with some good sunshine laws in place.




quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Says it all... lol





_____________________________

Inside Every Liberal Is A Totalitarian Screaming To Get Out

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/25/2010 5:33:44 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		Sanity, at times, you completly amaze me. Do you really want our elections bought by corporate america? at least publically? This isnt a party issue.. its not a Dem vs GOP... no where does that cartoon state which side... but you always manage to try and make it us vs them.

So be it.

Walmart - Soon after, Wal-Mart became a major player in GOP politics, funneling money to groups such as the U.S. Chamber to lobby on its behalf and creating a political action committee. In the elections last year, the company's $2.4 million PAC was the third-largest corporate PAC in the country, with nearly 80 percent of its money going to Republicans. Wal-Mart officials contributed more than $30,000 to Bush last election, according to Federal Election Commission data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics, a nonpartisan organization that prepared the fundraising data for this article.

Bank Of America - Credit card and banking companies, who are leading the lobbying effort, were top financers of Bush's two campaigns. MBNA, Credit Suisse First Boston LLC, Bank of America Corp. and Wachovia Corp. were among the top 20 contributors to Bush, contributing more than $300,000 apiece.


Target - The legislation includes several provisions benefiting specific industries. Retailers such as Target and Nordstrom, which help fund the National Retail Federation, a trade association lobbying for the bill, will benefit because they lose substantial money each year when people erase their debt through bankruptcy. "Retailers who offer credit card programs are left holding the bag on bad debt," said Craig Sherman, spokesman for the retail federation. "This legislation will get us out of this situation." Target contributed 80 percent of its $300,000-plus PAC money to Republicans last election.

Exxon - Exxon Mobil, which was the largest contributor among energy companies in 2004, has given $5.2 million to Republicans in the past decade and less than $650,000 to Democrats. Bush received $2.5 million from oil and gas companies for his reelection bid alone.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A3796-2005Mar26.html

Need i continue?

< Message edited by tazzygirl -- 1/25/2010 5:58:31 PM >

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to Sanity)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/25/2010 5:51:16 PM   
xBullx


Posts: 4206
Joined: 10/8/2005
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: tazzygirl

Says it all... lol





I think I see the official greeter just below the WalMart sign...

_____________________________

Live well,

Bull



I'm not an asshole; I'm simply resolute...

"A Republic, If You Can Keep It."

Caution: My humor is a bit skewed.

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/25/2010 6:00:21 PM   
tazzygirl


Posts: 37833
Joined: 10/12/2007
Status: offline 		~giggles

well, if he were.. ahem... of the gor persuasion, there would be no doubt, Master Bull!

_____________________________

Telling me to take Midol wont help your butthurt.
RIP, my demon-child 5-16-11
Duchess of Dissent 1
Dont judge me because I sin differently than you.
If you want it sugar coated, dont ask me what i think! It would violate TOS.

(in reply to xBullx)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: Reading the SCOTUS opinion - 1/25/2010 7:52:52 PM   
DomImus


Posts: 2004
Joined: 3/17/2009
Status: offline 		Well, now that this is breaking down into the usual political thread I want to thank those that actually read the document and offered their opinions on it.

_____________________________

"Regret for the things we did can be tempered by time; it is regret for the things we did not do that is inconsolable." Sidney J. harris

(in reply to tazzygirl)
Profile   Post #: 18
Page:   [1]
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> Reading the SCOTUS opinion Page: [1]
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.094