Supreme Court Blocks Key Part of Campaign Law

[Winehole23]

I've already asked how could have the Court decided in a narrower way. I mean, even in the alternative universe where the oral arguments didn't happen, what would be the point? What exactly they could have done?

Adhere more strictly to their own customs re: judicial restraint, but it is clear they never meant to.

Rehnquist wasn't exactly a big adept of the First Amendment, to put it gently, he was extremely hostile to free-speech claims. His dissent in Belloti is plain scary. If you agree with Rehnquist, than I'm not sure how do you agree with the rationale for the decision in CU.

I wouldn't expect federalism to mean much to you.

Irrelevant. Your juvenile good-faith is noted, but it's immaterial for the questions.

Yeah, you're probably right. What the little people think of the actions of their government isn't very consequential.

And who exactly says the free speech right is absolute? Pure strawman.

Fair enough.

Tell us then, how may the right be abrogated by the state in a way that is legitmate, in your view?

This is simple: either some Cons utional Rights are applied to corporations and not only to individuals or not.

It's clear that they are, and were, before this case ever happened. Your point?

[DarrinS]

[Wild Cobra]

What is this supposed to mean? NSLs are a product of statutory law, they aren't part of the Cons ution. Can you clarify how this answers those questions?

There seem to be too many people that think a law can override the cons ution.

[Wild Cobra]

Sure.

Question: Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

Answer: Yes, they do have the right to do so under the authority granted to them by the Patriot Act. The tool to do so is the National Security Letter.

The rest of the questions can pretty much be answered the same way basically.

My God "the no no it all." When you dierected us in the past to the NSL, and I read the law behind it, there were clear avenues to stop such things from happening before they do.

[mogrovejo]

Sure.

Question: Do you believe the FBI has the right to enter and search the offices of the ACLU without probable cause or warrants, and seize whatever they want?

Answer: Yes, they do have the right to do so under the authority granted to them by the Patriot Act. The tool to do so is the National Security Letter.

The rest of the questions can pretty much be answered the same way basically.

I disagree with your opinion on the practical effect of the NSL and what the government is allowed to do behind it, but that's completely beyond the point. Statutory legislation can't take away cons utional rights by definition; what if the PA and the NSLs are uncons utional?

Either companies are en led to protection under the 4th Amendment or not. You can forget the existence of non-cons utional legislation.

[mogrovejo]

Adhere more strictly to their own customs re: judicial restraint, but it is clear they never meant to.

For the nth time, that part I understand. For the nth time, the court starts the syllabus by explaining why a narrower decision, while desirable, wasn't possible. But what you are yet to explain is how exactly would you do it. I mean, narrower how? I mean, how could you decide in favour of CU without killing Section 203? That's what I'd like to now.

I wouldn't expect federalism to mean much to you.

Non sequitur and strawman. You're on a roll.

Yeah, you're probably right. What the little people think of the actions of their government isn't very consequential.

I don't know, but, more importantly, I don't want to be put in a situation where I'd know. That's exactly the point!

Fair enough.

Glad you recognize your tendency to appeal to strawman arguments.

It's clear that they are, and were, before this case ever happened. Your point?

Huh.... I linked some questions directed to those who defend the view that "corporations aren't persons and cons utional rights are for persons". If you don't defend that view, why are you ing answer to them? My point is that people who believe that corporations aren't en led to Cons utional protections are flat out wrong.

[Winehole23]

Yes, that is your strawman.

[Winehole23]

And again you dodged a direct question.

[spursncowboys]

WH, you seem to put more stock into the customs of the court hearing than of the sc job in deciding if a law is cons utional or not. Why even give the justices chance to ask questions or even have a trial? My interpretation of judicial activism is the judicial branch making laws, instead of interpreting the cons utionality of law in question.

[Winehole23]

I think the majority was more aggressive than it needed to be.

[Winehole23]

The decision apparently does have political verve.

[mogrovejo]

Yes, that is your strawman.

I'm not sure you know what a strawman argument is. Addressing questions specifically to those who defend the view that "corporations aren't persons and cons utional rights are exclusively for persons" as Greenwald did and I copied, it's NOT a strawman argument.

[Winehole23]

You did and you copied. We all marvel at it.

[mogrovejo]

Whatever, but do you now understand why I haven't made a strawman argument or not?

[Winehole23]

Citizens United SBrief. Quoted ipsis verbis:

QUESTION PRESENTED
For the proper disposition of this case, should the
Court overrule either or both Austin v. Michigan
Chamber of Commerce, 494 U.S. 652 (1990), and the
part of McConnell v. Federal Election Comm’n, 540
U.S. 93 (2003), which addresses the facial validity of
Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act
of 2002, 2 U.S.C. § 441b?

If you disagree that what Stevens said was well founded that is one thing, but that is not what you said. You said I was making stuff up.

Having read the Stevens dissent, as you claim you have, how could you say that with a straight face?

Do you assume nobody else read through? How funny.

You're almost as bad as SnC and WC. You build your castles on the ignorance of your intended audience, plus your laziness, plus your idiosyncrasies.

[mogrovejo]

It's there, quoted and linked for everybody to read: CU taking the position that section 203 is facially uncons utional under the First Amendment. Accordingly to you, something that "Citizens United never made". I don't know what else is here to discuss. Maybe you should read the dissent more carefully, I really don't know what to say. You have problems admitting you were wrong or mis-informed, it seems to me. I really don't care, but my point was just to elucidate and clarify the forum on this issue.

Sorry to insist, but can you now understand why I wasn't making a strawman argument?

[Winehole23]

You're not sorry, and I don't agree.

[Winehole23]

If my restatement of something Stevens said is inaccurate, please do correct it, if you have indeed detected an error.

Sometimes you allude to your own corrections without really making them, profe.

[mogrovejo]

If my restatement of something Stevens said is inaccurate, please do correct it, if you have indeed detected an error.

I don't think it remains any doubt about the inaccuracy - which is solely yours, and not Stevens. Justice Stevens is not to blame for your inability to understand his writings.

I've quote you and Citizens United.

Sometimes you allude to your own corrections without really making them, profe.

This again? Sue me. You too much.

[Winehole23]

I don't think it remains any doubt about the inaccuracy - which is solely yours, and not Stevens.

Doubtless not.

Again you show your rather ostentatious grasp of the obvious, Maestro, in your usual bad English.

I've quote you and Citizens United.

More bad English.

Whatever, sue me.

Watching you flip around on the dock is amusement enough for me.

[Winehole23]

This again? Sue me. You too much.

You came up with a new line.



(golf clap)

[Winehole23]

It is a better line.

[ElNono]

I disagree with your opinion on the practical effect of the NSL and what the government is allowed to do behind it, but that's completely beyond the point. Statutory legislation can't take away cons utional rights by definition; what if the PA and the NSLs are uncons utional?

Either companies are en led to protection under the 4th Amendment or not. You can forget the existence of non-cons utional legislation.

But I cannot simply forget, because until challenged and struck down, it's the law of the land and must be complied with. Or you disagree with that?

[mogrovejo]

But I cannot simply forget, because until challenged and struck down, it's the law of the land and must be complied with. Or you disagree with that?

Yes, I don't think people have an obligation to comply with unethical and unjust laws (I don't think NSLs qualify though). That's very beyond the point though. The existence of legislation doesn't change the Cons ution. If tomorrow the congress passes a law prohibiting people from talking politics, would that mean that the right to free-speech is no longer cons utionally protected? No.

That's what I'm asking: are corporations en le to certain Cons utional rights? Enter a suspension of disbelief if you need to.

[Wild Cobra]

You're almost as bad as SnC and WC. You build your castles on the ignorance of your intended audience, plus your laziness, plus your idiosyncrasies.

What if you are the ignorant one for not having the open mind to understand my viewpoint?

Ever consider that?