Alito

[Ibanez]

Yeah, the slights should have been done anonymously and behind closed doors. Yep, Gannon you should be good at that (AGS Board of Directors/Mod 33)

Wah Wah Wah - I've never been a Mod in my life. And I'm pretty sure I've been very public in my slightings of you over the years. Hasn't everybody?

Pretty much.

[HI54UNI]

Here's another take on it.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... urt&st=cse

[BDKJMU]

Schmuck. Perhaps he show go cry in public.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01 ... preme.html

If BHO makes false accusations in public then he should be rebuked in public. Good for Alito. Too bad someone or multiple people shout out "You lie" when BHO was lying like that. If more of that happened I might actually start watching these boring dog and pony shows.

[mcveyrl]

Here's another take on it.

http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/20 ... urt&st=cse

That is an excellent and informative piece by a Pullitzer Prize winning former Supreme Court beatwriter. Thank you for posting. That one might be going on Facebook.

[BDKJMU]

--

[kalm]

Here's another intriguing take on the issue, written well before the Citizens United Ruling. Corporate personhood has never been decided in a court of law. These are activist judges projecting their right wing corporatist agenda.

In early 1944 the New York Times asked Vice President Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answers to those questions were published in The New York Times on April 9, 1944, at the height of the war against the Axis powers of Germany and Japan:

"The really dangerous American fascists," Wallace wrote, "are not those who are hooked up directly or indirectly with the Axis. The FBI has its finger on those... With a fascist the problem is never how best to present the truth to the public but how best to use the news to deceive the public into giving the fascist and his group more money or more power."

"American fascism will not be really dangerous," he added in the next paragraph, "until there is a purposeful coalition among the cartelists, the deliberate poisoners of public information..."

Noting that, "Fascism is a worldwide disease," Wallace further suggested that fascism's "greatest threat to the United States will come after the war" and will manifest "within the United States itself."

In his strongest indictment of the tide of fascism the Vice President of the United States saw rising in America, he added:

"They claim to be super-patriots, but they would destroy every liberty guaranteed by the Constitution. They demand free enterprise, but are the spokesmen for monopoly and vested interest. Their final objective toward which all their deceit is directed is to capture political power so that, using the power of the state and the power of the market simultaneously, they may keep the common man in eternal subjection."

Finally, Wallace said, "The myth of fascist efficiency has deluded many people. ... Democracy, to crush fascism internally, must...develop the ability to keep people fully employed and at the same time balance the budget. It must put human beings first and dollars second. It must appeal to reason and decency and not to violence and deceit. We must not tolerate oppressive government or industrial oligarchy in the form of monopolies and cartels."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/thom-hart ... 26256.html

[native]

Here's another intriguing take on the issue, written well before the Citizens United Ruling. Corporate personhood has never been decided in a court of law. These are activist judges projecting their right wing corporatist agenda.

In early 1944 the New York Times asked Vice President Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answers to those questions were published in The New York Times ...

Do you actually believe any of this communist BS is true, or adds value to civil discourse?

Or are you just being sarcastic?

[kalm]

"Said Obama, in triggering Alito's reaction: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.""

Patently false. The ruling had nothing to do with the portion of the law governing foreign influence.

What do truth, the Supreme Court, reality, and the US Constitution have in common?

Our President finds them all very inconvenient.

The 4 dissenting justices disagree with you on the influence of corporations.

[kalm]

Here's another intriguing take on the issue, written well before the Citizens United Ruling. Corporate personhood has never been decided in a court of law. These are activist judges projecting their right wing corporatist agenda.

In early 1944 the New York Times asked Vice President Wallace to, as Wallace noted, "write a piece answering the following questions: What is a fascist? How many fascists have we? How dangerous are they?"

Vice President Wallace's answers to those questions were published in The New York Times ...

Do you actually believe any of this history or that it adds value to civil discourse?

Or are you just being sarcastic?

FIFY

[JoltinJoe]

Schmuck. Perhaps he show go cry in public.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01 ... preme.html

Was is the big deal? The news networks had the text of the speech in advance, so they knew when the cut on the court was coming and had their cameras focused. But for that, no one would have even noticed, Alito's reaction was so mild.

Interesting, though, that this incident happened, because the president greatly exaggerated when he claimed the decision upset nearly a century of precedent or that the decision authorized foreign corporations to air political commentary .

Actually, the case overruled two prior decisions, both relatively recent decisions that took great pains to "distinguish" cases going back nearly a century.

In any event, the president's hyperbole has now become the central issue, overshadowing what was otherwise a brilliant night. He should have left this swipe on the cutting room floor. It detracted from what could have been a flawless night.

[kalm]

Schmuck. Perhaps he show go cry in public.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01 ... preme.html

Was is the big deal? The news networks had the text of the speech in advance, so they knew when the cut on the court was coming and had their cameras focused. But for that, no one would have even noticed, Alito's reaction was so mild.

Interesting, though, that this incident happened, because the president greatly exaggerated when he claimed the decision upset nearly a century of precedent or that the decision authorized foreign corporations to air political commentary .

Actually, the case overruled two prior decisions, both relatively recent decisions that took great pains to "distinguish" cases going back nearly a century.

In any event, the president's hyperbole has now become the central issue, overshadowing what was otherwise a brilliant night. He should have left this swipe on the cutting room floor. It detracted from what could have been a flawless night.

Considering this ruling how are foreign corporations prevented from airing political commentary?

Was the consititution created to protect the rights of real, natural individuals, or were the founders intending artificial beings as well?

[JoltinJoe]

Was is the big deal? The news networks had the text of the speech in advance, so they knew when the cut on the court was coming and had their cameras focused. But for that, no one would have even noticed, Alito's reaction was so mild.

Interesting, though, that this incident happened, because the president greatly exaggerated when he claimed the decision upset nearly a century of precedent or that the decision authorized foreign corporations to air political commentary .

Actually, the case overruled two prior decisions, both relatively recent decisions that took great pains to "distinguish" cases going back nearly a century.

In any event, the president's hyperbole has now become the central issue, overshadowing what was otherwise a brilliant night. He should have left this swipe on the cutting room floor. It detracted from what could have been a flawless night.

Considering this ruling how are foreign corporations prevented from airing political commentary?

Was the consititution created to protect the rights of real, natural individuals, or were the founders intending artificial beings as well?

As for the latter point, you can argue that corporations should not have protected First Amendment rights, but that position would be inconsistent with a long line of cases going back to the 1800s.

As for the former, the court wrote in its decision:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominantlyby foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Gov-ernment has a compelling interest in limiting foreigninfluence over our political process. See Broadrick, 413
U. S., at 615.

As such, the court struck down 2 U.S.C. Section 441b -- but not 2 U.S.C. 441e, applying expenditure ban to "foreign nationals." A foreign national would include a foreign corporation.

As such, this provision of section 441e was not affected by the court's decision:

http://openjurist.org/title-2/us-code/s ... -nationals

[kalm]

Considering this ruling how are foreign corporations prevented from airing political commentary?

Was the consititution created to protect the rights of real, natural individuals, or were the founders intending artificial beings as well?

As for the latter point, you can argue that corporations should not have protected First Amendment rights, but that position would be inconsistent with a long line of cases going back to the 1800s.

As for the former, the court wrote in its decision:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominantlyby foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Gov-ernment has a compelling interest in limiting foreigninfluence over our political process. See Broadrick, 413
U. S., at 615.

As such, the court struck down 2 U.S.C. Section 441b -- but not 2 U.S.C. 441e, applying expenditure ban to "foreign nationals." A foreign national would include a foreign corporation.

As such, this provision of section 441e was not affected by the court's decision:

http://openjurist.org/title-2/us-code/s ... -nationals

Thanks Joe, but you still didn't answer my question concerning coroporate citezenship.

[native]

...In any event, the president's hyperbole has now become the central issue, overshadowing what was otherwise a brilliant night. He should have left this swipe on the cutting room floor. It detracted from what could have been a flawless night.

"brilliant?!???"

"flawless?!???"

[JoltinJoe]

As for the latter point, you can argue that corporations should not have protected First Amendment rights, but that position would be inconsistent with a long line of cases going back to the 1800s.

As for the former, the court wrote in its decision:

We need not reach the question whether the Government has a compelling interest in preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’spolitical process. Cf. 2 U. S. C. §441e (contribution and expenditure ban applied to “foreign national[s]”). Section 441b is not limited to corporations or associations that were created in foreign countries or funded predominantlyby foreign shareholders. Section 441b therefore would be overbroad even if we assumed, arguendo, that the Gov-ernment has a compelling interest in limiting foreigninfluence over our political process. See Broadrick, 413
U. S., at 615.

As such, the court struck down 2 U.S.C. Section 441b -- but not 2 U.S.C. 441e, applying expenditure ban to "foreign nationals." A foreign national would include a foreign corporation.

As such, this provision of section 441e was not affected by the court's decision:

http://openjurist.org/title-2/us-code/s ... -nationals

Thanks Joe, but you still didn't answer my question concerning coroporate citezenship.

I think I did answer your question. I think if you read Justice Scalia's dissent in the Austin case, which was essentially the position adopted by Justice Kennedy the other day, you might see this in an opposite way -- what this law actually is a means by which incumbents (who else would be targeted by a corporation) insulate themselves from political commentary and criticism -- an extraordinary concept under the First Amendment.

The remedy is not to restrict speech, but to require proper disclosure. I can't understand why corporations can funnel money to PACs with warm and fuzzy names (when their real intent is to string high-tension power lines across your child's playground) and you have no idea who is really paying for the ad or what the PAC actually stands for.

If you require genuine disclosure, at a certain point corporate political commentary would even become counter-productive. If Exxon Mobil were running ads day and night targeting your congressman, you would feel pretty good about voting for him.

[CID1990]

"Said Obama, in triggering Alito's reaction: "With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests –- including foreign corporations –- to spend without limit in our elections. I don't think American elections should be bankrolled by America's most powerful interests, or worse, by foreign entities. They should be decided by the American people. And I'd urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.""

Patently false. The ruling had nothing to do with the portion of the law governing foreign influence.

What do truth, the Supreme Court, reality, and the US Constitution have in common?

Our President finds them all very inconvenient.

The 4 dissenting justices disagree with you on the influence of corporations.

Kalm, you are like a blindfolded retard 12 year old with a BB gun... taking blind potshots in all directions. Where did I offer any opinion on the influence of corporations?

[Ivytalk]

...In any event, the president's hyperbole has now become the central issue, overshadowing what was otherwise a brilliant night. He should have left this swipe on the cutting room floor. It detracted from what could have been a flawless night.

"brilliant?!???"

"flawless?!???"

Yup, stick to your Con Law, Perfesser Joe. A political pundit you ain't.

Meanwhile, Barry pulled a disrespectful and sophomoric stunt. If he'd done that to the DE Supreme Court, our CJ would've bitch-slapped him into next week.

[ngineer]

Schmuck. Perhaps he show go cry in public.

http://www.opensecrets.org/news/2010/01 ... preme.html

The President's unprecedented public attack during a State of the Union speech on a captive Supreme Court was the shameful act.

You gotta be out of your mind or have horrible amnesia...How many times over the past decades have Republican presidents lambasted the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade??! UFR.

[native]

The President's unprecedented public attack during a State of the Union speech on a captive Supreme Court was the shameful act.

You gotta be out of your mind or have horrible amnesia...How many times over the past decades have Republican presidents lambasted the Supreme Court on Roe v. Wade??! UFR.

Not during the SOTU address where the Justices are a captive audience.

Lehigh must have social science degrees. You are clearly not an engineer.

[kalm]

The 4 dissenting justices disagree with you on the influence of corporations.

Kalm, you are like a blindfolded retard 12 year old with a BB gun... taking blind potshots in all directions. Where did I offer any opinion on the influence of corporations?

My bad, I meant foreign entities. Damn, there goes my chance at guard duty in the compound.

[Wedgebuster]

Isn't he a gook?

We should kill his ass every Dec. 7th.

There, that is my conk response for the week.

[native]

Isn't he a gook?

We should kill his ass every Dec. 7th.

There, that is my conk response for the week. ...

No points for killing gooks, and that "response" does not qualify as conkish.

[Baldy]

So you have no problem with the Insurance or Drug industrry directly pumping millions of dollars into elections? You know they expect the elected to work for them.

So you have no problem with labor unions directly pumping millions upon millions of dollars into elections?

This decision more or less evens the playing field between big labor and corporations.

[Grizalltheway]

So you have no problem with the Insurance or Drug industrry directly pumping millions of dollars into elections? You know they expect the elected to work for them.

So you have no problem with labor unions directly pumping millions upon millions of dollars into elections?

This decision more or less evens the playing field between big labor and corporations.

I don't think either of them should be allowed to. Limit campaign contributions to individuals and call it a day.

[JoltinJoe]

"brilliant?!???"

"flawless?!???"

Yup, stick to your Con Law, Perfesser Joe. A political pundit you ain't.

Meanwhile, Barry pulled a disrespectful and sophomoric stunt. If he'd done that to the DE Supreme Court, our CJ would've bitch-slapped him into next week.

Don' be a hater, Ivy. In times of trouble, we always turn to the Hahvarhd Law Review.