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.  Hybred
  4.  Lambtron
  5.  LaughingSkull
  6.  Mclovin
  7.  playingwarcraft26
  8.  romarez
  9.  So.nic
  10.  Spaten
This page has had 34,618 visits
Tab Content
Visitor Messages
About Me

  1. CraZyKoKeNo
    a thought crossed my mind earlier today, which is that if trump ultimately faces impeachment, he could be the first president to face such accusations on the basis of activities he and his team performed prior to and perhaps even in service of gaining office. moreover, and also unlike the clinton and johnson impeachments (based on my, ahem, wikipedia research), it seems likely that the basis of any trump impeachment would not be "political" in nature, but rather owing to his having been coopted at some level by foreign adversaries. i am curious what your thoughts are on that as we would really be treading untested waters if that were to come to pass.
  2. WhenPeonsAttack
  3. 7smurfs
  4. bluedot
    Music to my ears!
  5. 7smurfs
  6. 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?
  7. 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?
  8. 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.
  9. 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.
  10. 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.)
Showing Visitor Messages 1 to 10 of 155
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. QuothQuoth is offline

    Short Story Contest

  2. RaLLy[JaCk]RaLLy[JaCk] is offline

    200 Point Level

    • Send a message via AIM to RaLLy[JaCk]
  3. RedMeansDeadRedMeansDead is offline

    1000 Point Level

  4. RedRagToAnOrcRedRagToAnOrc is offline

    Director Emeritus
    Hearthstone Fanatic

    • Send a message via Skype™ to RedRagToAnOrc
  5. shiver-shiver- is offline

    100 Point Level

  6. SinsationSinsation is offline

    100 Point Level

    • Send a message via MSN to Sinsation
    • Send a message via AIM to Sinsation
  7. Siphon.ImageSiphon.Image is offline

    25 Point Level

  8. SlymerSlymer is offline


  9. SuRaaLSuRaaL is offline

    On Leave

    • Send a message via ICQ to SuRaaL
    • Send a message via MSN to SuRaaL
    • Send a message via Skype™ to SuRaaL
  10. tfatfa is offline


Showing Friends 21 to 30 of 35
Page 3 of 4
FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 LastLast