What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

unofan said:
Yeah, but not every case is groundbreaking. There are a lot of appeals that don't have a chance in hell of winning or even need a clarification of law. And sitting judges generally shouldn't have blogs, websites, or the like.

Meh, I think the world needs more colorful people. There is way too much toeing the PC line in everything. That, or we need to make a department of follies and hire official court jesters.
Click to expand...

Neither are some of the reports I and many others write. Leave the limericks at home.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
All those people who support states' rights will support this, right? ;)
Click to expand...
What a state does with a state election is the state's business. If they say that no campaigning for state wide positions cannot occur until 90 days before the general election, then it should be ok.

A corporation is a legal person - that is settled law and has been for 200 years. Surely you're not going there?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

joecct said:
What a state does with a state election is the state's business. If they say that no campaigning for state wide positions cannot occur until 90 days before the general election, then it should be ok.

A corporation is a legal person - that is settled law and has been for 200 years. Surely you're not going there?
Click to expand...
A Negro was a piece of furniture. That was settled law for 90 years (and since it predated the US Constitution, for closer to 250 years). "Separate but Equal" was settled law for 100 years.

Just because a wrong has been a wrong for a long period of time doesn't mean it becomes right.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

joecct said:
A corporation is a legal person - that is settled law and has been for 200 years. Surely you're not going there?
Click to expand...
Of course I'm going there. If a corporation is a "person" then why can't it apply for citizenship and the vote? Why can't I marry it (if it's a corporation of the opposite gender, of course. I'm sure there's something in the Bible about same-sex corporations cohabitating.)

There can still be a legal standing of "fictive personhood" without the automatic right to obliterate democracy with financial muscle.

If Citizens United was decided "correctly" then we have to amend the Constitution. If it was a wrong decision then it must be reversed. Either way is OK with me --the former is probably the more sure method -- as long as we take our system back.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
It was. You do. Best of luck.
Click to expand...
The sad thing is that this is even partisan. I'm sure you'll enjoy it when the money that swamps the people's will is of an opposing philosophy.

But because it's convenient one side of the spectrum applauds it. That's awful.

Anyway, it was 5-4, so you're one fish bone away from it being "incorrect." :rolleyes:
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Priceless said:
A Negro was a piece of furniture. That was settled law for 90 years (and since it predated the US Constitution, for closer to 250 years). "Separate but Equal" was settled law for 100 years.

Just because a wrong has been a wrong for a long period of time doesn't mean it becomes right.
Click to expand...

You can't have it both ways though. Russ Feingold is fond of saying

"Citizens United was a recklessly activist decision on the part of the Supreme Court," ... "It overturned 100 years of decisions and case law."
Click to expand...
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
The sad thing is that this is even partisan. I'm sure you'll enjoy it when the money that swamps the people's will is of an opposing philosophy.

But because it's convenient one side of the spectrum applauds it. That's awful.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. I don't think Citizens United benefits one side. I think it's going to result in more incumbents losing their bids for reelection - on both sides of the aisle.

I'm also struggling to find an example post Citizens United of money "swamping" the people's will. Is this more of Nancy Pelosi's logic that people really loved everything she did, it was just the "late money" that came in and cost her the House? Baloney.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
Nonsense. I don't think Citizens United benefits one side.
Click to expand...
Of course you don't. It's your side.

But it's only your side for now. With time, corporate money may wind up behind things you don't like. At the moment it's just a blank check for crony capitalism, and crony capitalism is in the long run not interested in anything -- no values, no patriotism, no family, no nothing -- but its own profits.

It's a time bomb with 99% of us on the other side, and just like Dred Scott that spells real trouble.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
Of course you don't. It's your side.
Click to expand...

You could respond like that, or you could, you know, try to demonstrate that it does. I understand you have the overwhelming sample size of one election, but hey.

I also suppose that organizations like the ACLU, which filed briefs stating that
section 203 is facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it permits the suppression of core political speech
Click to expand...
are on "my side" too, right?
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Priceless said:
I never said I wanted it both ways. I said just because a wrong is a wrong for a long period of time doesn't make it right.
Click to expand...

Of course not. I'm saying, to me it appears there are two strains of opposition to the ruling. Either (a), the courts had gotten it right for 100 years, and the Supreme Court stepped in in 2010 and got it all wrong, or (b), it's been a wrong that's been around for 100s of years (like the other things you mentioned), and the Supreme Court merely continued in getting it wrong.

It seemed to me like you were having a bit of both, maybe I misinterpreted.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
Of course I'm going there. If a corporation is a "person" then why can't it apply for citizenship and the vote? Why can't I marry it (if it's a corporation of the opposite gender, of course. I'm sure there's something in the Bible about same-sex corporations cohabitating.)

There can still be a legal standing of "fictive personhood" without the automatic right to obliterate democracy with financial muscle.

If Citizens United was decided "correctly" then we have to amend the Constitution. If it was a wrong decision then it must be reversed. Either way is OK with me --the former is probably the more sure method -- as long as we take our system back.
Click to expand...
Were you employed by Cornell while you were there? IMO, if Cornell U (NYS College of Agricultural & Life Science on the other side) is not a corporation, then can they cannot legally enter into an employment contract, right?

Either corporations are legal persons or everything turns into a partnership.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Kepler said:
The sad thing is that this is even partisan. I'm sure you'll enjoy it when the money that swamps the people's will is of an opposing philosophy.
Click to expand...

When corporations owned by the Koch Brothers give money to Republicans, they're expressing their freedom of speech.

When corporations owned by George Soros give money to Democrats he is a filthy Communist spreading his propaganda.

And if George Soros owned Diebold, Republicans would scream from the rooftops against electronic voting.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
You could respond like that, or you could, you know, try to demonstrate that it does. I understand you have the overwhelming sample size of one election, but hey.
Click to expand...

As I said, it's your side only for now, because the money is pouring in to oppose liberal social and economic policies. But take a conservative issue like devolving law-making responsibilities from the federal to state governments. Once the fix is in and corporate lobbyists are getting everything they want from a tamed federal government, conservative candidates supporting that stance will never have a chance. For that matter, if the kleptocracy is being fed with federal dollars for social programs, those programs will never be cut.

Small government conservatives should be even more opposed to this than class warfare liberals are.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top