prole

[font:Arial Black]BLASPHEMER!!![/font]

Interesting that you use mom and pop groceries as an example here. Can't wait to see their Super Bowl commercials next year!

Great. Trumpet a decision that removes a key tool in our ability to limit corruption in government (limiting the amount of money corporations can spend on candidates or issues during an election cycle) then berate the dissenters for doing naught about it. Nice. The question is, WTF are you going to do about it while the rest of us continue to show this decision for the gang rape that it is. Be sure to let us know how much harder real campaign finance reforms will be post-Court decision now that this is a constitutional "free speech" issue.

As long as absolute anonymity is preserved, I think death threats could be really fun and should even be encouraged.

A very wise solution.

Yeah, my folks were from Chew.

Hey Folks, there's already a thread dedicated to this topic. It's called "WHO DAT?!" If you don't mind, please take it over there.

Could you please join a church-group casserole club, already? For fuck's sake...

http://movetoamend.org/motion-amend

Wouldn't legally loose arguments tend to, you know, violate the rule of law, which is supposed to 'represent our values and ethics'? You're acting like the SC squeeked this one by 'on a technicality'. A law that denies a non-profit from running a political ad? Hardly a 'nit' issue. Justices are expected to understand and rule in part based on the real-world implications of their rulings, as you note above. But you continue to advance your opinion on the ruling from the narrowest possible reading: non-profit denied running political ad. The justices involved were certainly more adept at seeing (or at least admitting) the big picture. From the article above that you didn't read:

WHO DAT?!

Better check that "best before" date.

I said, "it's been said that this is the worst case..." There's a difference. It's not a claim I would make.

"sky islands" Sounds almost as catchy as "global warming" Almost as good as "environment" or "ecology"! Hoo-boy, how much further could we keep this one going?

"That would be sweet..."

Splits are not rare but rarely does a decision and its opinions cleave so closely along ideological lines. The dissenters' opinion expressed the greatest concern for the impact that this decision would have on a functioning republic. They understood what this would do. The majority (the corpo-Nazi fucks) would certainly understand the impacts as well. The difference in approach is simple, as Jim alludes to above: the majority need not expressly favor rich over poor or corporations over unions and non-profits; a "marketplace" where one dollar equals one decibel would just as surely decide the issue in their favor once the infrastructure was in place.

I have been neglecting this thread.

"The Constitution is not a suicide pact". I love that.

This is a flatly disingenuous line of argumentation and you know well know it. While I agree the media has interpreted this ruling too broadly, you've obviously taken on a blinkered bunker mentality and are determined to view it as narrowly as possible and ignore its far-reaching implications for our already sickened social order. The Court's split on the decision and the dissenters' opinion suggests that the justices involved understood its implications. Why do you choose not to acknowledge the real world context and the range and impact of the decision outside of the immediate case?

but it takes money to speak! wether it be a bullhorn, a bus-ticket to reach the park where you plan on spewing free-crazy to the masses, the computer to type up your manifestoes on cc.com, whatever - to speak in the political sense requires money, and giving money to a cause your passionate about is speech too - it says "i love this shit X much" No shit Sherlock. And when one dollar equals one decibel the political discourse looks like corporate equivalent of a Ministry vs. Nine Inch Nails concert (yeah, the corporations are the bands) while the rest of us blow our vocal cords trying to be heard by the person standing right next to us. We need to pull the plug on the amps, not just say "okay kid, sure you still have the right, get on up there with your harmonica".

Illuminated a pathway? If anything, it's illuminated a way for corporations to press for further eliminations on restrictions to campaign finance. Once money equals speech and limits on "speech" are done away with, how would any legislative action placing limits on campaign contributions not be deemed unconstitutional? The questions above still stand: once this is a "free speech" issue, why should there be limits on contributing to a candidate directly at all or why should anyone have to disclosure who contributed the money?