[ ]   [ ]   [ ]                        [ ]      [ ]   [ ]

Guns - Red_Dragon - Aug 16, 2022 - 6:28pm
 
The Obituary Page - Antigone - Aug 16, 2022 - 5:33pm
 
Wordle - daily game - Manbird - Aug 16, 2022 - 5:08pm
 
Republican Party - Red_Dragon - Aug 16, 2022 - 4:43pm
 
Amazon Products (May Contain Spam) - haresfur - Aug 16, 2022 - 4:02pm
 
Cheney, Dick - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 16, 2022 - 3:22pm
 
Democratic Party - Red_Dragon - Aug 16, 2022 - 2:29pm
 
The Hat Project - kcar - Aug 16, 2022 - 2:20pm
 
Climate Change - R_P - Aug 16, 2022 - 10:06am
 
Live FLAC support in Sonos API - alistair.bill - Aug 16, 2022 - 9:33am
 
Trump - kcar - Aug 16, 2022 - 8:59am
 
Radio Paradise Comments - GeneP59 - Aug 16, 2022 - 8:55am
 
Ukraine - Red_Dragon - Aug 16, 2022 - 4:37am
 
What Did You Do Today? - Steely_D - Aug 15, 2022 - 7:55pm
 
Fix My Car - Bill_J - Aug 15, 2022 - 7:50pm
 
Breaking News - Red_Dragon - Aug 15, 2022 - 6:42pm
 
Mixtape Culture Club - Lazy8 - Aug 15, 2022 - 3:12pm
 
Annoying stuff. not things that piss you off, just annoyi... - islander - Aug 15, 2022 - 11:09am
 
Nuclear power - saviour or scourge? - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 15, 2022 - 10:09am
 
Words that should be put on the substitutes bench for a year - oldviolin - Aug 15, 2022 - 9:31am
 
Interesting Words - Steely_D - Aug 15, 2022 - 8:19am
 
Today in History - Bill_J - Aug 15, 2022 - 6:27am
 
• • •  What's For Dinner ? • • •  - Manbird - Aug 14, 2022 - 8:40pm
 
RightWingNutZ - Red_Dragon - Aug 14, 2022 - 3:36pm
 
Photography Forum - Your Own Photos - Manbird - Aug 14, 2022 - 2:14pm
 
COVID-19 - R_P - Aug 14, 2022 - 1:31pm
 
RPeep News You Should Know - islander - Aug 14, 2022 - 1:17pm
 
Automotive Lust - R_P - Aug 14, 2022 - 11:34am
 
• • • BRING OUT YOUR DEAD • • •  - acaciascapes - Aug 14, 2022 - 9:20am
 
260,000 Posts in one thread? - oldviolin - Aug 14, 2022 - 8:44am
 
Counting with Pictures - Proclivities - Aug 14, 2022 - 7:55am
 
DARWIN AWARDS! - POST YOUR NOMINATION! - Coaxial - Aug 13, 2022 - 5:03pm
 
China - R_P - Aug 13, 2022 - 3:29pm
 
Brian Eno - R_P - Aug 13, 2022 - 1:23pm
 
Name My Band - oldviolin - Aug 13, 2022 - 11:15am
 
Radio Paradise NFL Pick'em Group - Coaxial - Aug 13, 2022 - 7:03am
 
Health Care - miamizsun - Aug 13, 2022 - 6:37am
 
Sweet horrible irony. - miamizsun - Aug 13, 2022 - 6:32am
 
What is the meaning of this? - oldviolin - Aug 12, 2022 - 3:33pm
 
Baseball, anyone? - GeneP59 - Aug 12, 2022 - 12:59pm
 
Abiogenesis! - R_P - Aug 12, 2022 - 12:02pm
 
PASS THE BEER - kcar - Aug 12, 2022 - 11:33am
 
It's the economy stupid. - rgio - Aug 12, 2022 - 9:06am
 
What's Precious and Sacred to Islam? - Red_Dragon - Aug 12, 2022 - 8:38am
 
Floyd forum - Proclivities - Aug 12, 2022 - 8:12am
 
So... what's been happening here lately? - sunybuny - Aug 12, 2022 - 5:44am
 
Time to lawyer up! - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:52pm
 
Upcoming concerts or shows you can't wait to see - Proclivities - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:35am
 
• • • The Once-a-Day • • •  - oldviolin - Aug 11, 2022 - 10:04am
 
How to Use RP? - kcar - Aug 11, 2022 - 9:53am
 
Got Road Rage? - Red_Dragon - Aug 11, 2022 - 8:12am
 
Russia - NoEnzLefttoSplit - Aug 11, 2022 - 7:52am
 
>>>>>>Knitted - Antigone - Aug 11, 2022 - 2:37am
 
India - Red_Dragon - Aug 10, 2022 - 4:36pm
 
godnarb: the Lunchurch - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 10, 2022 - 11:24am
 
Peace - thisbody - Aug 10, 2022 - 8:59am
 
YouTube: Music-Videos - black321 - Aug 10, 2022 - 7:01am
 
Derplahoma! - sunybuny - Aug 10, 2022 - 6:02am
 
Bug Reports & Feature Requests - GeneP59 - Aug 9, 2022 - 4:37pm
 
Museum Of Bad Album Covers - KurtfromLaQuinta - Aug 9, 2022 - 4:19pm
 
MQA Stream Coming to BLUOS - robin2 - Aug 9, 2022 - 11:47am
 
RPeeps who would have a sense of humor if they were not s... - miamizsun - Aug 9, 2022 - 10:14am
 
Things that make you happy - GeneP59 - Aug 9, 2022 - 8:47am
 
unusual time signatures - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 9, 2022 - 8:26am
 
Best/worst white reggae/ska/rcksteady - thisbody - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:54am
 
More reggae, less Marley please - thisbody - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:48am
 
Media Bias - Red_Dragon - Aug 9, 2022 - 6:34am
 
Things Forgotten. - Steely_D - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:24pm
 
Things You Thought Today - oldviolin - Aug 8, 2022 - 7:28pm
 
Joe Biden - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 10:18am
 
Talk Behind Their Backs Forum - GeneP59 - Aug 8, 2022 - 9:56am
 
Food - ScottFromWyoming - Aug 8, 2022 - 9:56am
 
John Lennon's Jukebox - thisbody - Aug 8, 2022 - 4:55am
 
Portishead S. O. S. - geoff_morphini - Aug 7, 2022 - 10:43pm
 
Environment - Red_Dragon - Aug 7, 2022 - 6:51pm
 
Index » Regional/Local » USA/Canada » Supreme Court Rulings Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next
Post to this Topic
Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 5:30pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

I don't give a rat's ass, and neither should the court.

The Supremes are supposed to rule on the law and hang the consequences. In fact, they have to—if they decide a case on the basis of who it works out best for in the here-and-now we lose the rule of law; whichever side can present the most sympathetic client or constituency gets to twist the whole of the law, not just their case.

Imagine a point of contract law comes up for review. On one side is a paraplegic war veteran tenant, on the other side a white supremacist fat cat absentee landlord. Boo hiss, we hate white supremacist absentee landlords and we like the underdog! And nobody wants to get evicted and this ruling might make that harder.

So they rule for the sympathetic side and the popular sentiment. But now contract law has a hink in it—for every case. Even when the paraplegic war veteran is the landlord and the fatcat white supremacist is the tenant. Or the business that owes the veteran money. See how this works?

What faction is advantaged or disadvantaged in the current politics should have absolutely nothing to do with how the supremes rule. That's the whole point of having a constitutional system of laws—the law is the same for everybody, no matter who they are.
 
I understand and agree with your point of ruling on the law, my question was do you believe that in reality the ruling makes things easier for those with the gold to rule. I guess you answered that with your first sentence.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 5:26pm

 oldslabsides wrote:
In today's reality, would you agree that this decision tilts the board too far in the direction of the few who have most of the money?

I don't give a rat's ass, and neither should the court.

The Supremes are supposed to rule on the law and hang the consequences. In fact, they have to—if they decide a case on the basis of who it works out best for in the here-and-now we lose the rule of law; whichever side can present the most sympathetic client or constituency gets to twist the whole of the law, not just their case.

Imagine a point of contract law comes up for review. On one side is a paraplegic war veteran tenant, on the other side a white supremacist fat cat absentee landlord. Boo hiss, we hate white supremacist absentee landlords and we like the underdog! And nobody wants to get evicted and this ruling might make that harder.

So they rule for the sympathetic side and the popular sentiment. But now contract law has a hink in it—for every case. Even when the paraplegic war veteran is the landlord and the fatcat white supremacist is the tenant. Or the business that owes the veteran money. See how this works?

What faction is advantaged or disadvantaged in the current politics should have absolutely nothing to do with how the supremes rule. That's the whole point of having a constitutional system of laws—the law is the same for everybody, no matter who they are.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 4:57pm

 Lazy8 wrote:

No, they didn't. They ruled that getting a message to the public costs money, and that restricting the spending of that money restricted the message.

But that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.
 
In today's reality, would you agree that this decision tilts the board too far in the direction of the few who have most of the money?

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 4:51pm

 romeotuma wrote:
Yeah, everything you say is true, but it's more complex than just an issue of "free speech"...  ultimately, I have to go with the ACLU...  but I don't have to love it...  I am just glad we have Colbert to mock it...  he be a true patriot...

So...Colbert can mock the decision (even tho it was the correct decision) and lead a movement to overturn that correct decision, mislead people about what the decision was about and what it means and that's cool 'cuz he hates all the right people.

The issue is more complex than free speech, but free speech trumps those complexities. Colbert, for instance, has the right to play demagog. You have the right to cut & paste your opinions. But you don't have the power to do so unchallenged. That's why we need free speech for everybody.

(former member)

(former member) Avatar

Location: hotel in Las Vegas
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 10:32am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 Stephen Colbert may lead an army of pitchfork-and-torch-weilding comedy fans, but that won't change the law. If congress wants to overturn the Citizens United case it will have to amend the constitution and carve out an exception to the first amendment protection of free speech to accomplish it. Probably by repealing the first amendment and replacing it with something much more convoluted and arbitrary, like the 18th amendment.

This is the left's equivalent to the flag burning panic of the last century. Face it folks, when there's free speech some of it will be supporting things you don't like, coming from people you don't like.
 
Yeah, everything you say is true, but it's more complex than just an issue of "free speech"...  ultimately, I have to go with the ACLU...  but I don't have to love it...  I am just glad we have Colbert to mock it...  he be a true patriot...

other things have occurred that I am infinitely more concerned about than Citizens United over issues of civil liberty—



Are we becoming a police state? Five things that have civil liberties advocates nervous

by Sal Gentile
PBS
December 7, 2011

Is our Constitution under siege?...

Here are five issues that are especially worrisome to civil liberties watchdogs...



 
Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 10:22am

 hippiechick wrote:
They ruled that money = speech, right?

No, they didn't. They ruled that getting a message to the public costs money, and that restricting the spending of that money restricted the message.

But that doesn't fit on a bumper sticker.

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 10:20am

 romeotuma wrote:
Yes, that's true, and it is a good point...  but the primary thesis of Dahlia Lithwick's article is that Colbert is educating the public about the absurdity of Citizens United, while the Supremes are hampered by a lack of public relations—

But in the history of the Supreme Court, nothing has ever prepared the justices for the public opinion wrecking ball that is Stephen Colbert. The comedian/presidential candidate/super PAC founder has probably done more to undermine public confidence in the court's 2010 Citizens United opinion than anyone, including the dissenters. In this contest, the high court is supremely outmatched.


Stephen Colbert may lead an army of pitchfork-and-torch-weilding comedy fans, but that won't change the law. If congress wants to overturn the Citizens United case it will have to amend the constitution and carve out an exception to the first amendment protection of free speech to accomplish it. Probably by repealing the first amendment and replacing it with something much more convoluted and arbitrary, like the 18th amendment.

This is the left's equivalent to the flag burning panic of the last century. Face it folks, when there's free speech some of it will be supporting things you don't like, coming from people you don't like.

samiyam

samiyam Avatar

Location: Moving North


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 10:16am

 hippiechick wrote:

They ruled that money = speech, right?
 
Isn't that always the case?

(God Help Us!!)

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 10:12am

 Lazy8 wrote:
 hippiechick wrote:
Corporations are people too, my friend

No they aren't, and the supremes never said they were.

Go read the decision. Those words, that thought, that argument are nowhere in it. That is the strawman that burns so brightly here.

Mitt Romney does not have the wit to defend the decision when the question comes up, but this isn't about Mitt Romney. It's about the first amendment, which is why the ACLU filed an amicus breif in favor of the plaintiffs.
 
They ruled that money = speech, right?

(former member)

(former member) Avatar

Location: hotel in Las Vegas
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 10:11am

 Lazy8 wrote:


But there’s a problem with Lithwick’s narrative:  Virtually everything Stephen Colbert is doing was legal before Citizens United
 


Yes, that's true, and it is a good point...  but the primary thesis of Dahlia Lithwick's article is that Colbert is educating the public about the absurdity of Citizens United, while the Supremes are hampered by a lack of public relations—

But in the history of the Supreme Court, nothing has ever prepared the justices for the public opinion wrecking ball that is Stephen Colbert. The comedian/presidential candidate/super PAC founder has probably done more to undermine public confidence in the court's 2010 Citizens United opinion than anyone, including the dissenters. In this contest, the high court is supremely outmatched. 

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 10:10am

 hippiechick wrote:
Corporations are people too, my friend

No they aren't, and the supremes never said they were.

Go read the decision. Those words, that thought, that argument are nowhere in it. That is the strawman that burns so brightly here.

Mitt Romney does not have the wit to defend the decision when the question comes up, but this isn't about Mitt Romney. It's about the first amendment, which is why the ACLU filed an amicus breif in favor of the plaintiffs.

hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 10:03am

 Lazy8 wrote:
hippiechick wrote:
Colbert is making a strong argument...against a strawman. Most of the people outraged about the Citizens United case haven't read it, and understand only the spin that the left end of the media have put on it.

Here's a response from someone who actually has read the decision and does understand it:


Slate’s U.S. Supreme Court commentator Dahlia Lithwick has written a paean to Stephen Colbert and his satirical Super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.  As Lithwick sees it, the members of the Citizens United majority are getting their just deserts, as Colbert uses his Super PAC to attack a decision that contributed to the creation of Super PACs.

 

But there’s a problem with Lithwick’s narrative:  Virtually everything Stephen Colbert is doing was legal before Citizens United

 
Corporations are people too, my friend

Lazy8

Lazy8 Avatar

Location: The Gallatin Valley of Montana
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 9:59am

hippiechick wrote:
Colbert is making a strong argument...against a strawman. Most of the people outraged about the Citizens United case haven't read it, and understand only the spin that the left end of the media have put on it.

Here's a response from someone who actually has read the decision and does understand it:


Slate’s U.S. Supreme Court commentator Dahlia Lithwick has written a paean to Stephen Colbert and his satirical Super PAC, Americans for a Better Tomorrow, Tomorrow.  As Lithwick sees it, the members of the Citizens United majority are getting their just deserts, as Colbert uses his Super PAC to attack a decision that contributed to the creation of Super PACs.

 

But there’s a problem with Lithwick’s narrative:  Virtually everything Stephen Colbert is doing was legal before Citizens United


ScottN

ScottN Avatar

Location: Half inch above the K/T boundary
Gender: Male


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 8:24am

 hippiechick wrote:
Very Nice   {#Yes}
hippiechick

hippiechick Avatar

Location: topsy turvy land
Gender: Female


Posted: Feb 4, 2012 - 7:59am

Colbert v. the Court


aflanigan

aflanigan Avatar

Location: At Sea
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 6, 2012 - 8:54am

 cc_rider wrote:
Of course that is possible, but I like to imagine the storm troopers would want some reason to come get you: they're not likely to spend much energy on you, unless you do something actively wrong, like writing hot checks. If you really live off the grid, don't make enough money for the IRS to come knockin', and don't bother anybody else, it could be years, if ever, before the authorities come around.

 
I'd be willing to bet that there are at least a handful of people residing in the US who are utterly undocumented and roughing it "off the grid" unbeknownst to any authority.  Although modern infrared imaging makes it a lot easier to locate such folks if they live in areas where you need a fire in the winter to keep warm.

Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jan 5, 2012 - 6:26pm

 cc_rider wrote:
Of course that is possible, but I like to imagine the storm troopers would want some reason to come get you: they're not likely to spend much energy on you, unless you do something actively wrong, like writing hot checks. If you really live off the grid, don't make enough money for the IRS to come knockin', and don't bother anybody else, it could be years, if ever, before the authorities come around.

 
or, out of boredom they could entrap you like they did randy weaver.
cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 5, 2012 - 2:36pm

 oldslabsides wrote:
what's the diff if they pick & choose or disregard all laws?  gubment gonna come get your ass either way.
  Of course that is possible, but I like to imagine the storm troopers would want some reason to come get you: they're not likely to spend much energy on you, unless you do something actively wrong, like writing hot checks. If you really live off the grid, don't make enough money for the IRS to come knockin', and don't bother anybody else, it could be years, if ever, before the authorities come around.


Red_Dragon

Red_Dragon Avatar



Posted: Jan 5, 2012 - 2:06pm

 cc_rider wrote:

Exactly. If they just wanted to live in the hinterlands, unfettered by the trappings of civilization, I wouldn't care a whit. Declare yourself sovereign, heck crown yourself king for all I care. But it's all-or-nothing: you don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey.


 
what's the diff if they pick & choose or disregard all laws?  gubment gonna come get your ass either way.

cc_rider

cc_rider Avatar

Location: Bastrop
Gender: Male


Posted: Jan 5, 2012 - 2:03pm

 steeler wrote:
Ah, the freemen!  Asserted the right to declare themselves sovereign — and to engage in check-kiting{#Lol}
{#Whisper} Sorry, couldn't resist. I always think that each time I hear them mentioned . . .been a while.  
 
Exactly. If they just wanted to live in the hinterlands, unfettered by the trappings of civilization, I wouldn't care a whit. Declare yourself sovereign, heck crown yourself king for all I care. But it's all-or-nothing: you don't get to pick and choose which laws to obey.

Page: Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17  Next