Licorice,

You must remember that we have had an activist court since the 1930s. There were 70 years of 'original intent' that were just flatly ignored.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-The facts do not care about your narrative. The "GREAT NOTICING" continues apace.

I'm just pointing out that a lot of people who call themselves "conservative" these days are actually radicals - reactionaries, even.

To Eleua - I understand that there is a school of thought that wants to reverse everything decided by the courts going back to Franklin Roosevelt - but it's starting to look like these guys want to repeal everything going back to Teddy Roosevelt!

----------

Print the money and give it to the people.

Ads: the test is not whether it is good for the corporations, it is whether it is correct.

If you dislike the constitution you amend it - not violate it.

----------

Licorice,

"Conservative" is not to be construed as "status quo." The modern working definition of "conservative" is ordered liberty. The law is the law.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-The facts do not care about your narrative. The "GREAT NOTICING" continues apace.

If you support ripping up 100 years of laws just because you think you are right, you are no longer a conservative. As Rush Limbaugh loves to say, words mean things.

----------

Print the money and give it to the people.

Yes, words do mean things. When those words were ignored or twisted for 100 years, establishing the original doctrines and intent is radical, but necessary.

Extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-The facts do not care about your narrative. The "GREAT NOTICING" continues apace.

As a practical matter, it seems kind of foolish to make a major change of direction like this with just a 5-4 vote. Generally the court tries to get super-majorities in cases like this. If the makeup of the court were to change under Obama, and it probably will, we could easily see the court go the other way again on campaign finance. It's not good for the law of the land to be so unpredictable.

----------

Print the money and give it to the people.

Licorice,

You keep citing problems that are created with an activist court. The 4 members in the dissent are activists and don't give two shits about the written law, the Constitution or judicial restraint. They are there to impose the will of those that can't get their governing ideas through the political process.

We have 4 constructionists that see things in terms of written law and original intent.

Justice Kennedy trends constructionist, but has been known to be an activist.

All the decisions of late are 5-4, because there is no common ground between constructionists exercising restraint and activists ideologues. One would think the law would be the common ground, but they would be wrong.

----------

Diversity + proximity = WAR

-The facts do not care about your narrative. The "GREAT NOTICING" continues apace.

Quote:

As a practical matter, it seems kind of foolish to make a major change of direction like this with just a 5-4 vote. Generally the court tries to get super-majorities in cases like this. If the makeup of the court were to change under Obama, and it probably will, we could easily see the court go the other way again on campaign finance. It's not good for the law of the land to be so unpredictable.

It seems to me that if you object to this sort of unpredictability you are essentially challenging the doctrine of judicial supremacy which goes back about 200 years. Who's the radical now?

I agree that it is bad practice for the law of the land to be that way but that's the system we stumbled into. Any attempt to change that now absent an utterly clear and overwhelming public consensus would likely turn out badly as a significant portion of the population would regard the resulting changes as illegitimate.

So if nothing else a major direction change as you call it that really raises the hackles of the left would be helpful. They'll feel the pain conservatives feel from other cases such as the Roe v. Wade decision. Then perhaps the left and right might agree to changes that will eliminate the possibility of only five unelected people making decisions that fundamentally change the country regardless of the wishes of the public.

When activists judges out number constructionist judges, we will have lost our republic.

Some might say, Eaglewwit, "what do you mean 'when'?"

----------

Every man is guilty of all the good he didn't do - Voltaire

We are obviously quite close, if not there.

I want to thank everyone that posted in this thread.

Gen,thank you for posting this ticker! I am grateful to everyone,that both agreed and disagreed,all that have contributed to the conversation.I have learned much,and have enjoyed my reading,throughout -all- these 14+ pages
thus far.I have in the process,had a VERY heated debate with the hubby (Jinroh) and have discovered something about my self and him.

We can discuss and continue to look at this wonderful Nation,to see where we want to go.Do we want to be a nation of men and no laws,or does the law apply and to what extent?

I fear for this country in regards to where we are going but,many of us are not sure where we are now,therefore how do we know where we will be in a few months ? Through continued debate and open discussion !

As for me,I want to ensure the conversation keeps going,where we can all live with what is happening.

----------

We have made law abiding citizens criminals and criminals our Rulers~Twocents

Laughter is an instant vacation~Milton Berl

Quote:

Scalia is losing his mind. There is a specific clause in the 1st amendment about freedom of the press. There is no specific clause about corporations in general

good point.

Freedom of speech is often restricted, limits are put on the way in which people speak. You can't just buy a megaphone so big that you drown out all other sounds in the neighborhood 24/7. No one says you can't talk, but try standing on the street blasting everybody else, and you get your megaphone taken away.

----------

"It signifies injustice of the king and of the rich against the masses... and deceptions. Because of this, depredation kills some, and poverty afflicts others" -- Flores Albumasaris

This is one of the more essential issues of our time.

I would argue that a corporation is nothing more than a collection of 'coerced' individuals, involved strictly for monetary gain, whether from salary, dividends, or other monetary reasons.

An individual, however, cannot be coerced into being that individual. They simply are.

Money in the system undermines the fundamental checks and balances that were laid out by the founding fathers. It skewers motivations and lays impotent vast swaths of our representative democracy.

Until the money is purged from the political system we simply cannot reasonably expect things to get better.

Certainly Genesis's proposal is much better than any other i've heard. I have no objection to money being thrown at air time, signs, etc. But the exclusive access lobbying and propping up of a broken two party system through all means necessary must be brought to an end.

Thank you for providing such an exceptional, intelligent forum for discussion. One cannot put a value on this place.

----------

'You cannot help people permanently by doing for them what they could and should do for themselves.' - Abraham Lincoln"A house isn't a speculative financial instrument. It is a place to

I think Bear was let off the hook for declaring himself elite. This is a significant problem in today's politics. "I know XXX but my neighbor doesn't and needs the government do it it for him/her".

If Bear can tell the difference between truth and lies, then so can everyone else, so disclosure of who paid should be enough for everyone to make the decision.

Hugodyson, that's because it violates people's private property if someone with a megaphone is yelling throughout the neighborhood.

Does it violate any of your rights if a corporation buys a TV ad slot (from another corporation) and says something you don't like? Does it matter that it's political in nature? Why?

Everyone here is admitting they're unable to make good decisions because of TV ads lying to them so we must stop these ads. No wait, everyone here is admitting *THEIR NEIGHBOR* is unable to make good decisions because of TV ads, therefore *I* must stop these ads *for their own good*!

Heh.

Mrbill+1

No, the same thing would happen if you were in a public place. Property rights are not the issue here. And throwing the nanny state in here is a strawman.

My point is that the megaphone metaphor is flawed.

----------

"It signifies injustice of the king and of the rich against the masses... and deceptions. Because of this, depredation kills some, and poverty afflicts others" -- Flores Albumasaris

Are you saying TV is public space? That seems like a pretty flawed argument too.

Edit: Can you not just change the station if someone runs too many ads that you don't want to see (because you know they're corporate lies)?

Go back and read what I wrote. I said that we regulate the way speech is conducted in many instances, while still maintaining the right to free speech as a general principle.

Therefore the metaphor of buying a bigger megaphone is flawed. If you want to respond to that fine, otherwise I'm not sure what your point is.

----------

"It signifies injustice of the king and of the rich against the masses... and deceptions. Because of this, depredation kills some, and poverty afflicts others" -- Flores Albumasaris

According to Views Espoused by those Supporting this Decision, King George (or a Domestic Front/Shell acting in his interest) could have just purchased all the assets of this nation in 1795 and ruled forever. That is a logical outcome of your line of thinking because to 'Restrain' that would have been a restraint on his freedom of speech.

IMHO, You are wrong ... Money is Not Speech and we've already done enormous damage to Liberty in this Nation trying to Accommodate "Constitutional Rights" for Corporations. The founders didn't have to go through any mental gerrymanders, etc. to write the Constitution. The gerrymanders that those in support of this decision (and the like) are going through to support their views is Prima Facie Proof that the views are flawed.

Really, This Time I'm Done w/ this Thread.

Peace.

Uhh, I read what you wrote. Come up with a better example then. I may be talking past you but you seem to agree with the minority, so I'm trying to coax out some extra defense, since your metaphor is flawed.

KD already said it, but I'll paraphrase. Speech is only regulated when the effects of the speech itself is unlawful or is intended to incite unlawful behavior. That's why the megaphone is banned, it violates other's rights, you acknowledge it's a broken metaphor anyway.

The placement of TV ads on private TV stations that plainly advocate something (buy this, support this political viewpoint) is not one that should be regulated by the government.

Local governments could try to pass restrictions but the 1st Amendment would seem to win. And Congress is explicitly barred from attempting to try.

Widg: Seriously? Because we will let corporations run advertisements about political views rather than just selling crap, we also think that someone rich can buy the entire country and then somehow remove our ability to govern ourselves? They don't even sell stuff that strong at Venice Beach.

No one can restrain Wal-Mart from offering to buy all the land in the country, but, I believe I have a right to not sell them anything I don't want to. Further, they can own everything, but they still don't vote and can't "rule" anything.

I think we are going around in circles here. What he wrote was that the megaphone can be taken away if it violates others' rights by drowning them out. That's the point.

Free speech is regulated all the time. Whether we like it or not. Cigarette ads are banned from TV despite the fact that smoking is legal. The right to free speech is not an absolute principle. You have to take account of KD's exception to the metaphor.

----------

"It signifies injustice of the king and of the rich against the masses... and deceptions. Because of this, depredation kills some, and poverty afflicts others" -- Flores Albumasaris