|
Friendly reminder that those wonderful sweet justices on the left side of the SCOTUS have no problem making GBS threads all over things like property rights or 2nd amendment rights. They think it's perfectly OK for government to take your land or home and sell it to the highest bidder, and perfectly OK for a city or state to ignore the bill or rights and strip its citizens of their constitutional rights. The Supreme Court is going to be awful no matter which way the 4-4-1 split eventually breaks.
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 23:57
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
I guess McCutcheon was just ... a bridge too far.
|
|
#
?
Apr 4, 2014 23:59
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:Friendly reminder that those wonderful sweet justices on the left side of the SCOTUS have no problem making GBS threads all over things like property rights or 2nd amendment rights. They think it's perfectly OK for government to take your land or home and sell it to the highest bidder, and perfectly OK for a city or state to ignore the bill or rights and strip its citizens of their constitutional rights.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:Friendly reminder that those wonderful sweet justices on the left side of the SCOTUS have no problem making GBS threads all over things like property rights or 2nd amendment rights. They think it's perfectly OK for government to take your land or home and sell it to the highest bidder, and perfectly OK for a city or state to ignore the bill or rights and strip its citizens of their constitutional rights. I smoke the 2nd amendment, sucka. Also the Supremes should just kick it all at once, no favorites, do it under what's left of Obama's administration, or Clinton's next. Sotomayor can keep chillin' though, she's got it the most together up there. Joementum posted:The McCutcheon decision is actually net positive for people who are worried about the influence of money in politics. Does this mean we can finally push for a constitutional convention which will be hijacked the moment it actually exists? Nonsense fucked around with this message at 00:06 on Apr 5, 2014 |
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:01
|
|
|
The McCutcheon decision is actually net positive for people who are worried about the influence of money in politics.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So by #1 are you talking about eminent domain This, although I certainly think some of the sensationalized (and isolated) incidences of EPA going overboard screwing with individual land owners are b.s. But it is legitimate for EPA to protect everyone's interests and the environment and that sometimes means corporate/industrial or even individual land owners can't do anything they please on their own property.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:05
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:This, although I certainly think some of the sensationalized (and isolated) incidences of EPA going overboard screwing with individual land owners are b.s. But it is legitimate for EPA to protect everyone's interests and the environment and that sometimes means corporate/industrial or even individual land owners can't do anything they please on their own property. Care to cite any examples of the EPA going overboard?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:08
|
|
|
Nessus posted:As for #2, ah yes, I recall this coming up-- though I'd ask, how do you expect to defend the 2nd Amendment if the billionaires ever decide they don't like it? If they were evil gungrabbers, Jesus wouldn't have showered them with money in the first place. Duh. That's why it's so important that those with the cash rule the country.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:13
|
|
|
Joementum posted:The McCutcheon decision is actually net positive for people who are worried about the influence of money in politics. I am starting to feel this way. I'm seeing a massive blowback coming from both liberals and conservatives which dud not happen following Citizens United, which I actually saw conservatives defend. Or do you mean in another way?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:14
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I am starting to feel this way. I'm seeing a massive blowback coming from both liberals and conservatives which dud not happen following Citizens United, which I actually saw conservatives defend. Conservatives defended Citizens United because Hillary. Other than that, most people didn't like Mitt Romney coming out swinging for the concept, should have left that to the sharks. McCutcheon just fulfills all of the hyper-rhetoric both sides have said about each other's pet-elites.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:18
|
|
|
Nessus posted:Aye, same idea Was hoping I would get more milage out of that troll
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Nessus posted:So by #1 are you talking about eminent domain or are you being more generic and including things like environmental restrictions? As for #2, ah yes, I recall this coming up-- though I'd ask, how do you expect to defend the 2nd Amendment if the billionaires ever decide they don't like it?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:22
|
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:I am starting to feel this way. I'm seeing a massive blowback coming from both liberals and conservatives which dud not happen following Citizens United, which I actually saw conservatives defend. McCutcheon lets people donate to multiple campaigns, but those donations need to be disclosed and are subject to FEC (rather than IRS) regulations. If we're going to allow unlimited money in politics, and it looks like the Roberts court is going to allow this, then I much prefer that money going through channels where all the donations are disclosed and where the people spending it are the DNC, RNC, or campaigns where the candidate is required to say, "and I approve this message", rather than ads being run by PACs named "Americans for Liberty and Justice".
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:23
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:You're giving Scalia too much credit. This is the justice who wrote in his dissent in Brown v. Plata: Oh come on, how do you not quote the all-star line from that dissent?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
nvm beaten above
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:24
|
|
|
The Warszawa posted:Oh come on, how do you not quote the all-star line from that dissent? I almost threw it in there as a bonus, because it is so very revealing. However, since my point was more about Scalia getting too much credit for having weight behind his arguments and not about Scalia's fantasies of ripped black prisoners being loosed on the countryside, I decided to let it go.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:28
|
|
|
Joementum posted:McCutcheon lets people donate to multiple campaigns, but those donations need to be disclosed and are subject to FEC (rather than IRS) regulations. If we're going to allow unlimited money in politics, and it looks like the Roberts court is going to allow this, then I much prefer that money going through channels where all the donations are disclosed and where the people spending it are the DNC, RNC, or campaigns where the candidate is required to say, "and I approve this message", rather than ads being run by PACs named "Americans for Liberty and Justice". The decision does not mandate disclosure and doesn't even guarantee that the court would find any disclosure regulations constitutional. quote:(4) Disclosure of contributions also reduces the potential for abuse of the campaign finance system. Disclosure requirements, which are justified by "a governmental interest in 'provid[ing] the electorate with information' about the sources of election-related spending," Citizens United, supra, at 367, may deter corruption "by exposing large contributions and expenditures to the light of publicity," Buckley, supra at 67. Disclosure requirements may burden speech, but they often represent a less restrictive alternative to flat bans on certain types or quantities of speech. Particularly with modern technology, disclosure now offers more robust protections against corruption than it did when Buckley was decided. Pp. 35-36. This at best says 'maybe we won't shoot down your regulatory framework mandating disclosure, unless we don't like it because mandated disclosure is still a 1a violation'. Given the way this court makes decisions, I would expect any such disclosure regulations (if they were ever enacted, which they currently are not and will never be) to be shot down because corruption in politics (defined strictly as quid pro quo arrangements and nothing else, remember?) is not currently a legitimate government issue because there isn't enough of it: the same rationale that justified overturning VRA preclearance.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
Nonsense posted:I smoke the 2nd amendment, sucka. I heard one bloc is gonna take out the other bloc in a to-the-death battle.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:43
|
|
|
thefncrow posted:I almost threw it in there as a bonus, because it is so very revealing. However, since my point was more about Scalia getting too much credit for having weight behind his arguments and not about Scalia's fantasies of ripped black prisoners being loosed on the countryside, I decided to let it go. So as we sit here today, is there any evidence one way or the other that Brown vs. Plata resulted in the sky is falling scenario of the dissent?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:46
|
|
|
UberJew posted:The decision does not mandate disclosure and doesn't even guarantee that the court would find any disclosure regulations constitutional. It's true that the decision does not mandate disclosure, but regulation currently does mandate it for donations in excess of $100. I do believe that the Roberts court will have few problems overturning limits on donations to individual campaigns when that case inevitably comes before the court in a couple years, but I'm not so pessimistic as to believe that they will overturn disclosure requirements, nor do I predict a serious legal challenge on that front. In fact, a key part of the McCutcheon decision cites the ease with which voters can see information about campaign donations and expenditures on sites like OpenSecrets as a reason why ceilings on donations were no longer necessary.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
radical meme posted:So as we sit here today, is there any evidence one way or the other that Brown vs. Plata resulted in the sky is falling scenario of the dissent? Whether or not the nightmare scenario occurred would require CDCR to have actually fulfilled the court mandated reliefs that case required. Still hasn't even come close to doing so!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:50
|
|
|
Someone mind posting the line from the dissent for those of us without photographic memories of every Supreme Court decision ever.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:51
|
|
|
Here it is:quote:It is also worth noting the peculiarity that the vast majority of inmates most generously rewarded by the release order—the 46,000 whose incarceration will be ended—do not form part of any aggrieved class even under the Court's expansive notion of constitutional violation. Most of them will not be prisoners with medical conditions or severe mental illness; and many will undoubtedly be fine physical specimens who have developed intimidating muscles pumping iron in the prison gym.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:53
|
|
|
Joementum posted:It's true that the decision does not mandate disclosure, but regulation currently does mandate it for donations in excess of $100. Not if the donations are to a 501(c), or more likely in the future to a JFC (except in the latter case if the donor earmarks their donations for a specific candidate, as long as they do not there is no disclosure mandate)
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:54
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Not if the donations are to a 501(c), or more likely in the future to a JFC (except in the latter case if the donor earmarks their donations for a specific candidate, as long as they do not there is no disclosure mandate) Yes, but that was already the case pre-McCutcheon without limit. My (qualified) argument that McCutcheon is a net positive is that in an environment where that lack of regulation exists, and is unlikely to spring into existence soon, it may end up being better for voters if donor give directly to campaigns rather than 501(c)s.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 00:57
|
|
|
Joementum posted:Yes, but that was already the case pre-McCutcheon without limit. My (qualified) argument that McCutcheon is a net positive is that in an environment where that lack of regulation exists, and is unlikely to spring into existence soon, it may end up being better for voters if donor give directly to campaigns rather than 501(c)s. Fair enough, I can see that perspective.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:I really wish one of the Conservatives on the bench would just die already. Only one? If they all died in a fiery car crash on their way to CPAC I'd probably drink myself in to a coma from excessive celebration. Fried Chicken posted:I don't know what a "phylactery" is, is it like a horcrux? Goddamn kids and their Harry Potter/lack of Dungeons & Dragons. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:03
|
|
|
Gravel Gravy posted:Could USC's mascow Sir Big Spur make an appearance? His name is Cocky. 
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:06
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:Friendly reminder that those wonderful sweet justices on the left side of the SCOTUS have no problem making GBS threads all over things like property rights or 2nd amendment rights. So do I  .Sorry!
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
On Terra Firma posted:That is beautiful. Not to derail but I had private insurance through work, and then got a plan through the state exchanges. I have in my possession 6 letters from my private insurer from work demanding I provide documentation saying I was covered all the way back to 2011 for different three month time periods (this would require six appeals) because they don't want to pay for one. allergist. visit. Through my medicaid I am seeing the #2 specialist in the world for my auto immune disease for $0 copay. That is my story about why I will never vote for or date Republican.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:25
|
|
|
UberJew posted:Not if the donations are to a 501(c), or more likely in the future to a JFC (except in the latter case if the donor earmarks their donations for a specific candidate, as long as they do not there is no disclosure mandate) Note that in the event that a donor maxed out to multiple committees, there's a reasonable argument that an inferred aggregate limit exists based on the inference that a max out donation to a committee is intended to be distributed to the candidates (since there's a separate maximum on party committee donations and on non-party committees) and thus the donor can reasonably infer they are donating to a candidate in excess of the individual limit. There is still an effective aggregate limit, it's just that now it's basically #candidates*candidate limit + #party committees*party limit + #ofpacs that DO NOT contribute or coordinate at all*pac limit. (Remember that your donations are attributable to a candidate even if donated to a committee if you know "that a substantial portion will be contributed to, or expended on behalf of, that candidate for the same election".) You might be able to get the inference in on party committees as well if you're doing a max-out candidate donation separately. Most likely outcome is donors give a max out on the total candidate limit to the party committees for distribution, split up as they like (with separate effective aggregate maxes for the chamber-specific committees in theory.). Which gives the party more power and reduces superPAC influence since donors can donate more in an attributable manner, which on net is probably a good thing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:33
|
|
|
Chris Christie posted:Friendly reminder that those wonderful sweet justices on the left side of the SCOTUS have no problem making GBS threads all over things like property rights or 2nd amendment rights. They think it's perfectly OK for government to take your land or home and sell it to the highest bidder, and perfectly OK for a city or state to ignore the bill or rights and strip its citizens of their constitutional rights. Oh seriously gently caress off. We are less than 48 hours out from the latest spree shooting and you are in here  MA GUNS! Literally, not at all figuratively, the names of the victims hadn't even been released at the time of this post. I'm firmly on the side of gun rights, but twits like you make it hard to defend. You are like Hugo Schwyzer for feminism, Richard Dawkins for atheism, or tumblr-ites for any brand of social justice. poo poo like this makes me want to throw my hands up and side with the other guys just to thwart you, no matter how important the ideal is.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 01:41
|
|
|
peter banana posted:Ted Cruz posts "Quick Poll" on Facebook about whether or not Americans are better off now with the ACA. It doesn't go exactly the way he planned. One day, there will be a politician who understands social media. But until that day, good times.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:15
|
|
|
sullat posted:One day, there will be a politician who understands social media. But until that day, good times. Unfortunately that politician already exists* and his name is Steve Stockman. * for another nine months.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:17
|
|
|
There are republican politicians that understand social media. They're the ones that avoid using it as much as possible.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:23
|
|
|
Fried Chicken posted:Oh seriously gently caress off. We are less than 48 hours out from the latest spree shooting and you are in here No but see without the second amendment his child will inherit a hell somehow worse than the one the Republicans are currently constructing.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:25
|
|
|
Immediately shrieking about your gun rights right after a shooting should be a legal symptom of being mentally unfit to carry guns.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:28
|
|
|
To be fair, it might've been a generic piece of counter-sass, because really when have we NOT just had some random public massacre?
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:31
|
|
|
Sometimes the ol' deuce-alpha has a way of delivering full-metal irony to gunbunnies a la Inhofe's son dying in a plane crash a couple years after Inhofe almost killed a runway crew by landing on the closed runway they were working.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 03:13 |
|
|
Nessus posted:To be fair, it might've been a generic piece of counter-sass, because really when have we NOT just had some random public massacre? Help, someone gave this person the ability to depress me while making me laugh.
|
|
#
?
Apr 5, 2014 02:50
|
|