An analysis of the recent Supreme Court ruling

[tvashtarkatena]

Nothing in the ruling favored moneyed interests.

 

If you want to limit campaign financing, the pathway to legislative reform remains wide open. If you don't believe that is politically possible, that's a political problem, not a constitutional or judicial one.

 

You have to be kidding. I think what you are saying is that McCain Feingold was too broad and limited speech - maybe. And that the ruling opens up speech for all, which is a good thing. But you're ignoring the direct - real world consequences.

 

And it's not a political problem that affects real reform - it's MONEY sloshing around the system problem.

 

I stand firmly by my statement. Show me what part of the ruling favors 'big, bad corporations' over other types of organizations and how the court makes this determination. You won't be able to. Again, you're layering your value judgements on the ruling.

[ivan]

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".

okay then, watson, you appear to be admitting that money IS speech - do you want then to delve into the specifics now of how you are going to limit political speech? what's the max dollar/decibel level? how does you idea ultimately translate into a meaningful and enforceable and constitutional law?

[prole]

I stand firmly by my statement. Show me what part of the ruling favors 'big, bad corporations' over other types of organizations and how the court makes this determination. You won't be able to. Again, you're layering your value judgements on the ruling.

 

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?

Edited February 5, 2010 by prole

[Jim]

I stand firmly by my statement. Show me what part of the ruling favors 'big, bad corporations' over other types of organizations and how the court makes this determination. You won't be able to. Again, you're layering your value judgements on the ruling.

 

Simple-

 

Were there limits on corporate financing on attack ads by corporations before the ruling - YES

 

Are there any limits now - NO

 

Is my opinion of the ruling based on the idea that moneyed interests now have a greater advantage than those without resources - of course it is. Any real-world perspective leads to the same conclusion.

 

If you're arguing that the overall outcome of free speech is better than this negative fallout - then that's your opinion. But to say that this gives no advantage to the entity with the bigger cash pile is false.

[ivan]

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. Why?

gee prole, why don't you answer your own fucking question?

 

could it be b/c you come across as a dislikable asshole? that arguing w/ you is fucking aggravating?

[ivan]

Simple-

 

Were there limits on corporate financing on attack ads by corporations before the ruling - YES

 

simple as well - were those limits worth fuckall?

 

should that movie have been obstructed?

[Jim]

Yes - limits were useful

 

The film? Sticky wicket.

 

I'm not aguring that MF was great, or that it didn't need major tweaks. But the real world consequences of the decision favor those with the most money. That is very clear.

[prole]

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

[tvashtarkatena]

I stand firmly by my statement. Show me what part of the ruling favors 'big, bad corporations' over other types of organizations and how the court makes this determination. You won't be able to. Again, you're layering your value judgements on the ruling.

 

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?

 

All SC rulings have implications. After all, it's our highest court. One might expect and certainly hope that the justices involved just might understand this. Furthermore, many SC rulings are split. Unanimous decisions are rare. It's a balancing act of interpretation, analysis, and opinion.

 

That this ruling resembles many, many others regarding the aspects you've highlighted would seem to make it more of an example of normality rather than anomaly, no? If you think that a split decisions and potential consequences somehow make this or any other SC illegitimate or unusual, you simply need to get out more.

 

Welcome to the real world.

 

 

[Jim]

Welcome to the real world.

 

...and don't ignore the real world consequences either.

[tvashtarkatena]

I stand firmly by my statement. Show me what part of the ruling favors 'big, bad corporations' over other types of organizations and how the court makes this determination. You won't be able to. Again, you're layering your value judgements on the ruling.

 

Simple-

 

Were there limits on corporate financing on attack ads by corporations before the ruling - YES

 

Are there any limits now - NO

 

Is my opinion of the ruling based on the idea that moneyed interests now have a greater advantage than those without resources - of course it is. Any real-world perspective leads to the same conclusion.

 

If you're arguing that the overall outcome of free speech is better than this negative fallout - then that's your opinion. But to say that this gives no advantage to the entity with the bigger cash pile is false.

 

I'm not arguing that. I'm arguing that the court did it's job: to protect constitutionally guaranteed rights from legislative erosion. What happens in the future has yet to be determined, and will, in part, be a result of how the legislative process responds to this ruling. It was a bad law, it needed to go away. The SC doesn't write laws, congress does. My advice would be take it up with them.

 

 

[rob]

OMG This is a very important thread!!!1

[tvashtarkatena]

Yes - limits were useful

 

The film? Sticky wicket.

 

I'm not aguring that MF was great, or that it didn't need major tweaks. But the real world consequences of the decision favor those with the most money. That is very clear.

 

It's not at all clear yet.

[prole]

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.

[tvashtarkatena]

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.

 

Even a quick study of the court and its rulings indicates 'Originalist versus Activist' more accurately describes the taxonomy of the justices that 'Corpo-Nazi Fuck' and (presumably) 'anti-Corpo-Nazi fuck'. This well established and described difference in judicial philosophy has far more to do with the consideration given to the potential impacts of decisions than whatever labels the Daily Kos came up with that week.

[rob]

There are Nazi's on the supreme court? OMG!! Why isn't the media talking about this? Stupid corpo-Nazi media.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

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.

 

Even a quick study of the court and its rulings indicates 'Originalist versus Activist' more accurately describes the taxonomy of the justices that 'Corpo-Nazi Fuck' and (presumably) 'anti-Corpo-Nazi fuck'. This well established and described difference in judicial philosophy has far more to do with the consideration given to the potential impacts of decisions than whatever labels the Daily Kos came up with that week.

 

It always annoys me when there is a 5-4 decision. It seems at that level the minimum should be 6-3 for a ruling to actually take effect.

[Jim]

I'm placing this over-reaching ruling in the same file labled "Stupid" as the Kelo v. City of New London ruling.

[ivan]

OMFG this just in!

[tvashtarkatena]

Such a system would probably produce more controversy, in that it would produce majority decisions that did NOT take effect, effectively handing a win to minority decisions.

 

There are a number of reasons for split decisions. The court may be philosophically split through a history of appointments (the public usually assumes this is the primary reason for EVERY split decision), lower courts tend to filter out the more cut and dry cases; in many instances, the high court will let a more straightforward lower court decision stand, choosing instead to deal with more complex, difficult cases. By that yardstick more split decisions in the high court are an indication that the judiciary as a whole is efficiently doing its job.

 

Justices are people, and all people are political by nature. The public tends to want judicial activism from those justices with which they feel politically aligned, and less activism from those with whom they are not.

 

Historically, the High Court has been largely deferential to the legislative and executive branches. This is not necessarily a bad thing, as justices correctly understand that they are not elected, and therefore should appropriately represent weakest of the three branches.

[KaskadskyjKozak]

Such a system would probably produce more controversy, in that it would produce majority decisions that did NOT take effect, effectively handing a win to minority decisions.

 

I think of such a system as the equivalent of a 'hung jury', where the issue would need to be revisited, rather than become part of precedent with a narrow margin.

 

 

[rob]

Such a system would probably produce more controversy, in that it would produce majority decisions that did NOT take effect, effectively handing a win to minority decisions.

 

I think of such a system as the equivalent of a 'hung jury', where the issue would need to be revisited, rather than become part of precedent with a narrow margin.

 

 

In other words, keep talking about it until they change their minds? Maybe they'll come to a different conclusion if they just have more flip charts.

Edited February 5, 2010 by rob

[KaskadskyjKozak]

In other words, keep talking about it until they change their minds? Maybe they'll come to a different conclusion if they just have more flip charts.

 

No.

 

Another case would have to rise up through the courts addressing a similar issue which could then be ruled on, hopefully with a bigger majority. This could be years later.

 

It just seems to me that 5-4 is a flawed way to decide matters this important that then become precedent (which is very difficult to overturn)

 

[tvashtarkatena]

Such a system would probably produce more controversy, in that it would produce majority decisions that did NOT take effect, effectively handing a win to minority decisions.

 

I think of such a system as the equivalent of a 'hung jury', where the issue would need to be revisited, rather than become part of precedent with a narrow margin.

 

 

It's the High Court. Revisited by whom? And when? It's not like the Supreme Court just sits around twittling its thumbs waiting for something to come along. Buck stops here and all that.

[rob]

Such a system would probably produce more controversy, in that it would produce majority decisions that did NOT take effect, effectively handing a win to minority decisions.

 

I think of such a system as the equivalent of a 'hung jury', where the issue would need to be revisited, rather than become part of precedent with a narrow margin.

 

 

It's the High Court. Revisited by whom? And when? It's not like the Supreme Court just sits around twittling its thumbs waiting for something to come along. Buck stops here and all that.

 

How is their work-ethic? I really hope that they are putting in an honest-days work.