bluedot bluedot is offline
Staff Director
Venti Double Double

Mini Statistics
Join Date
bluedot's Avatar
Recent Visitors
The last 10 visitor(s) to this page were:
  1.  blynk182
  2.  CraZyKoKeNo
  3.  Lambtron
  4.  LaughingSkull
  5.  Mclovin
  6.  playingwarcraft26
  7.  romarez
  8.  Siddhartha
  9.  Spaten
  10.  WhenPeonsAttack
This page has had 32,477 visits
Tab Content
Visitor Messages
About Me

  1. WhenPeonsAttack
  2. 7smurfs
  3. bluedot
    Music to my ears!
  4. 7smurfs
  5. bluedot
    Quid pro quo corruption has been on the radar forever. And it's instructive to note that Citizens United didn't reverse anything -- no law was changed by that ruling.

    The thing is, neither you, nor I, nor the Supreme Court is smart enough to say how much money is too much and at what dollar point an otherwise scrupulous representative will fold. Do you really want a fistful of judges picking that number out of the air? What about inflation in 50 years... No change?
  6. CraZyKoKeNo
    another article

    to quote in part

    "Relying in part on the logic of the Citizens United decision, the justices held that the government could limit donations only as a way to prevent explicit bribery, not to restrict donors who seek to gain political influence."

    what kind of pedantic nonsense is that? to continue the discussion from last time (somewhat), how can the court uphold this line of reasoning? surely they had to anticipate plenty of borderline cases cropping up, if not an actual increase in real, actionable corruption cases, if they are holding to a distinction of this sort. do you know whether, for citizens united, they were concerned at all about this sort of thing?
  7. bluedot
    In addition to the closing passage, here is what I found most penetrating On the issue of whether this is good law: "Those conservative justices [who favored corporate speech rights], Professor Neuborne wrote, found willing allies in liberal justices long committed to free speech." To me, that's the crux. The ones committed to free speech in the past stuck with it and the ones who were reading the new challenges were also convinced. The court can only hear real controversies that come to it from outside parties, so it's not the case that judges began "inventing" corporate speech rights, they had simply never been asked about them before.
  8. bluedot
    Citizens United gets a lot of hate from people I'm politically sympathetic to, but the many interviews and writings from Floyd Abrams explain why I think it was correctly decided. The linked piece by Tribe (linked in the NYT piece below) takes a very different approach but makes some strong arguments in that direction as well.

    As a data analyst, the "turning point" that is cited is supremely unmoving. Our system of law is case law, so when a case is settled that ruling is effectively law. So when there is a drop-off in the number of protest speech cases all it means is that the law has already worked for protestors! In other words, they don't need any more help from the courts. Similar with business speech law; it was new and so more new case law had to be made.
  9. bluedot
    I think that remark is probably true. There are lots of different ways of interpreting the constitution but for the sake of your question, you can think of it as the literalist (textual) versus consequentialist interpretations. One asks what the letters on the page say, take the view that society is ordered by the law and he only thing thing we all have access to is that same text, and base their decisions on that. Others are more interested in things like historical context, legislative history, and so forth. Those folks might look at the Federalist Papers, or the similar laws that were enacted before and after a particular law in question. They also realize that law is meant to order our society, but they think they can get a better sense of that by incorporating a view of the consequences of their decisions and so take a more expansive approach. (It is worth noting that universally, everyone starts with text and it is never ignored.)
  10. CraZyKoKeNo
    also curious about your thoughts on the closing remark

    “There is truth in the proposition that a number of recent First Amendment victories in recent years have been on behalf of the ‘haves’ — some of them corporations, some individuals,” he said. “But that is no basis for concluding that the decisions were wrongly analyzed or wrongly decided.”

    i don't know a ton about the SCOTUS but i've seen this sentiment echoed elsewhere: the SCOTUS and the justice system generally is more interested in the process of the legal/justice system machinations than it is in its results. is that right? if so, has that always been the case? what i'm looking for is a broader perspective on how it is that they view their own work, and how that affects their judgment
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 154
Page 1 of 16
1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast
Page 1 of 16
1 2 3 4 5 11 ... LastLast

About bluedot

Basic Information

About bluedot
Am I a bot?
No Gateway


Death steals everything except our stories. - Jim Harrison



Total Posts
Total Posts
Posts Per Day
Visitor Messages
Total Messages
Most Recent Message
General Information
Join Date

35 Friends

  1. <3Chicas<3Chicas is offline


    • Send a message via AIM to <3Chicas
  2. 7smurfs7smurfs is offline


    • Send a message via AIM to 7smurfs
  3. AdamXAdamX is offline

    1000 Point Level

  4. AmezAmez is offline

    Director Emeritus

  5. BetrayerOfLightBetrayerOfLight is offline

    Director Emeritus
    Dyado Koleda

  6. blazeblaze is offline

    Tamale Pepper

  7. blynk182blynk182 is offline

    Made Fresh Daily

  8. CielCiel is offline

    Heaven's Sky

    • Send a message via MSN to Ciel
    • Send a message via AIM to Ciel
  9. DfowDDfowD is offline

    Replay Submitter

  10. ex0duzex0duz is offline

    2000 Point Level

    • Send a message via MSN to ex0duz
Showing Friends 1 to 10 of 35
Page 1 of 4
1 2 3 4 LastLast