Should we be afraid or VERY afraid? (Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision)

http://washington.cbslocal.com/2014...-taxes-go-too-high-perhaps-you-should-revolt/

Scalia responded that the government has the right to implement the tax, “but if it reaches a certain point, perhaps you should revolt.”

/quote

And we all know that taxes are at an all-time high thanks to Obummer!

 

Were we to 'revolt' this same schmuck would support the 'right' of Government troops to use depleted uranium rounds to put it down.

 

He supports the right to revolt. For the right kind of people it is.

 

I think Scalia is losing his mind.

 

From the same people that gave you Citizens United and the reduction of Civil Rights Act, comes:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/04/22/michigan-affirmative-action_n_5191458.html

 

I have read a couple of articles on this. This particular decision has to do with process. Apparently the majority decided that a state constitutional amendment cannot be overturned by a court on the grounds that it would be expensive and difficult for the opponents of such a amendment to change it in the future using the same process that put it there in first place. The majority ruled that having to use the same process is not a violation of equal protection. If both sides must use the same process, that seems to define equal.

Imagine the outrage if the SC overturned a state constitution amendment allowing same sex marriage because it would be difficult for Catholics to change it in the future.

The SC did not address if the amendment itself violates the US constitution. Given the language of the 14th amendment, that would seem to be a non-starter. The SC has previously ruled that affirmative action/racial considerations are permissible on a somewhat limited basis. To the best of my knowledge, they have never ruled that they are required, and to overturn this Michigan amendment would truly fly in the face of both the language and spirit of the 14th amendment. Allowing affirmative action is one thing, specifically saying that you may NOT codify the equal/colorblind treatment of races by the government is something different, and IMHO a bridge too far.

Somewhat related to this. Has anybody here been keeping up of the split of the Asian American in California with the Democrats regarding afirmative action. AA legislation was recently stopped in the legislature because three Asian American democrat representative broke ranks with the rest of the Dems. I wonder if those reps will receive the same scorn from this board the the SC will receive regarding this decision.

 

Errr... Separation of Church and State... What's that?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/05/06/opinion/a-defeat-for-religious-neutrality.html?ref=opinion

 

All that law school, just to vote red vs. blue. What a useless pack of wankers.

 

The supreme court has been going hard in some of these issues since '07.

I have questions.

First, can a corporation or person fund a political group that participates in terrorism and call it free speech?

Second, can the US Supreme Court confirm that we will not go back to affirmative action once the colleges will become mainly Asian? Especially with the growth of the Chinese middle class and their need to get out of the Chinese education system. Plus, with the already high number of asians in some of the more prestigious schools?

Third, if one holds prayer at 4 am, 6 am, and 9 pm for their religion, will government buildings be open to allow for their prayer before a government meeting?

 

Im waiting for one some troublemaker to offer as one of the 'officially sanctioned' or 'student lead' prayers

Hare, Hare
Rama, Rama...

Then lets see what these theosupremacists think about free speech.

 

While I think Kagan's dissent is spot on and Alito's response to it disingenuous, I don't know as this decision will matter very much. The superficial perception of the town of Greece's practice is that it is analogous to the U S Congress'.

Tactically what was really needed was the election of a Jew or Muslim or Hindu or Buddhist to the Nebraska legislature, and a revisit of the previous decision now that something resembling harm can be shown.

(If an issue along these lines can be properly decided by "tradition" then any pernicious practice in place since the Constitution was written would be invulnerable to law, wouldn't it? Like, y'know slavery, or the flogging of sailors, or...)

 

Take this SCOTUS!

http://www.bustle.com/articles/2401...st-let-me-open-meetings-with-a-satanic-prayer

 

Interesting analysis on the SCOTUS views on Freee Speech (TM):

http://www.salon.com/2014/05/15/sca...crisy_what_a_new_study_proves_about_his_bias/

 

More free speech by the Kochs!

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/koch-brothers-network-plans-to-889-million-2016

 

Redistribution PAC Style...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/03/19/vote2reducedebt_n_6901058.html

Patrick Davis, 47, was a one-time political director for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, a professorial type who has worked on dozens of national and local campaigns. Hill, also 47, is a gregarious Fort Worth native known in the trucking industry for inventing a trailer that dries peanuts during transport.
The allegations of fraud started in dueling memos that went to the older Davis and the group's board of directors. Hill claimed Patrick Davis was faking expense reports and trying to award contracts to phantom companies. Davis' camp said Hill was hatching a plan to defraud the oilman out of $4 million, and alleged the PAC's attorney may have been in on a cover-up.
Both sides denied all wrongdoing, leaving it to their elderly patron to figure out if someone was trying to swindle him. The PAC imploded before he could.
"What you have here is a pretty classic case of the sort of problems one can run into when they're not familiar with politics and arrive with a pot of money," said Trevor Potter, a former Republican FEC chairman.
"Consultants are attracted like bees to honey to situations like these," Potter said.​

 

That glorious moment when the onepercenters realize they are actually 99.9 percenters..

http://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...a38b18-cdb4-11e4-8a46-b1dc9be5a8ff_story.html

Bundlers who used to carry platinum status have been downgraded, forced to temporarily watch the money race from the sidelines. They’ve been eclipsed by the uber-wealthy, who can dash off a seven-figure check to a super PAC without blinking. Who needs a bundler when you have a billionaire?

Many fundraisers, once treated like royalty because of their extensive donor networks,are left pining for their lost prestige. Can they still have impact in a world where Jeb Bush asks big donors to please not give more than $1 million to his super PAC right now? Will they ever be in the inner circle again?​

 

Democracy Citizens United Style!

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...sidential-election-super-pac-donors.html?_r=0

They are overwhelmingly white, rich, older and male, in a nation that is being remade by the young, by women, and by black and brown voters. Across a sprawling country, they reside in an archipelago of wealth, exclusive neighborhoods dotting a handful of cities and towns. And in an economy that has minted billionaires in a dizzying array of industries, most made their fortunes in just two: finance and energy.

Now they are deploying their vast wealth in the political arena, providing almost half of all the seed money raised to support Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. Just 158 families, along with companies they own or control, contributed $176 million in the first phase of the campaign, a New York Times investigation found. Not since before Watergate have so few people and businesses provided so much early money in a campaign, most of it through channels legalized by the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision five years ago.

/quote

 

Why do you hate free speach, are you German?

 

Ich spreche nicht sehr gut Deutsch.

Freiheit ist im Auge des Betrachters.

 

The law of unintended consequences. What Alito dismissed as a wild speculation, is now being done by none other than Hillary...

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry...e4b0b958f65a9501?ir=Politics&section=politics

What was once characterized as a "wild hypothetical" by Justice Samuel Alito in a 2014 campaign finance case is now a reality.

A joint fundraising committee linking Hillary Clinton to the national Democratic Party and 33 state parties is routing money through those state parties and back into the coffers of the Democratic National Committee. So far, 22 of the state parties linked to the Hillary Victory Fund have received $938,500 from the fund and sent the same amount back to the DNC, according to available campaign finance records.The Clinton campaign claims to have raised an additional $18 million for the party committees in the final three months of 2015, although records will not be disclosed until Jan. 31.

The movement of money from a joint fundraising committee through state parties and to the national party committee has been criticized by campaign finance reformers as a way to get around campaign contribution limits.​

 

All that free speech moving around bank accounts, is a beutiful thing.

 

Kind of stupid to say it's a wild hypothetical when a high powered lawyer just publicly laid out a roadmap for how to legally do it. But as some reggae singer once crooned, there is none so blind as those who are unwilling to see. (That's probably biblical, but I'm more up on reggae music than the bible.)

 

Bible verses are much more accessible when set to a reggae beat.

 

When used by those in power cash is speech. When used by those without power it is evidence of crime and subject to speculative confiscation. Perhaps the civil forfeiture scam could be ended by arguments that seizing money is a violation of the pseudo-accused first amendment rights.

 

I am waiting for one of these ultra rich millennials to live tweet buying an election and actually use the hashtag #BuyingAnElection.