Lazy8 wrote: 
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.

 oldslabsides 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.

 Lazy8 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?

 romeotuma wrote:
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.

 Lazy8 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...

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...

 

 hippiechick 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.

 romeotuma 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.

 hippiechick wrote: 
Isn't that always the case?

(God Help Us!!)

 Lazy8 wrote: 
They ruled that money = speech, right?

 Lazy8 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. 

 hippiechick wrote:
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.

 Lazy8 wrote: 
Corporations are people too, my friend

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:

 hippiechick wrote:
Very Nice  

Colbert v. the Court

 cc_rider wrote: 
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.

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

 oldslabsides 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.

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

 steeler 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.