Supreme Court screws the pooch yet again, unlimited campaign money funnelling to self

[D3thray]

For people like you supporting terrible things seems to be a positive.

Your hand wringing about Hillary rings hollow as you happily cheerlead a man who enacted literal government sanctioned kid napping and had to regularly be told things like maybe it's not a great idea to shoot missiles into Mexico.

As opposed to a guy who literally blew up an entire family. War is bad m’kay? I make no apologies for opposing it.

[unfilteredJW]

As opposed to a guy who literally blew up an entire family. War is bad m’kay? I make no apologies for opposing it.

This certainly says a lot.

[Veggie50]

You keep trying to hold Clinton to a lower standard than we hold Democrats, so you can hang that up.

When it comes to Republicans, we have talked plenty of times over the years about how if a Republican comes out against racism or bigotry in any real way that they will snub their voters and run them off. Those voters are monsters who deserved to be snubbed and ran off but you openly admit that doing that isn't the fault of the voter who refused to vote for them, it would be on the politician for turning their back on those monstrous voters.

Stop holding Clinton to a lower standard than even that. Her actions ran her voters off, her actions ran off my vote. Not Trump, not the GOP, not Russia, not Sanders, Clinton's actions personally.

Unless you are saying that Clinton had zero part in this:
https://fortune.com/2016/07/24/wasse...nton-campaign/

Because that was the final straw for me.

So, said it before, can said it again. No amount of white knighting for Clinton will have her fuck you any harder than she did in 2016, so stop trying. It won't change the results of that election but making the mistake she made may very well cost future elections if they try and repeat it hoping for a different outcome.

I think the point hes making is that Americans insist on voting for a person instead of voting for their policies.

The republicans dont vote on policies either though, they’re just supporting their team. Still gives them a more reliable voter base though, and that’s a problem.

[Fugus]

I think the point hes making is that Americans insist on voting for a person instead of voting for their policies.

The republicans dont vote on policies either though, they’re just supporting their team. Still gives them a more reliable voter base though, and that’s a problem.

Understood and I agree, got family who calls Democrats devil worshipers to justify the evil stuff he has supported.

I apologize and am not trying to be mean anything but the moderation has came into this and said we need to drop the Clinton stuff which has derailed this thread since it was brought up on page 1. The same people have derailed multiple threads trying this same stuff.

[Drutt]

This. I kind of feel that since the bid to expand the Supreme Court failed last year, they're doing whatever they can right now in case Democrats get enough of a majority to attempt expansion after the midterms.

They don't seem to realise they've made a rod for their own backs, though. Pretty much every member of the Supreme Court is on record as saying Roe v Wade is settled law. They're revisiting it anyway.

This means any supposed "settled law" can be revisited. Anything they do can therefore be undone when the pendulum swings the other way (and it always does).

That's the danger of ignoring precedent: if you don't respect it in one area, it's back on the table in all areas, including the decision you just made.

[Glorious Leader]

This 100%. Reason why Democrats tend to lose is because of exactly that. The party has no balls to just fall in line and get things done like their Republican counterparts.

Right. They are big and dumb like the lenny. It has its advantages. It's also the most disgusting and naked form of partisanship you can shake a stick at. Not sure its a model worth replicating but for its efficacy unfortunately. Sean Connery said it best in the rock. Winners go home and fuck the prom queen.

[Trifle]

This means any supposed "settled law" can be revisited. Anything they do can therefore be undone when the pendulum swings the other way (and it always does).

That's the danger of ignoring precedent: if you don't respect it in one area, it's back on the table in all areas, including the decision you just made.

Thanks to lifetime appointments they don't really need to worry about this for the next 20-30 years, though. So they're probably fine with that.

[Fugus]

Thanks to lifetime appointments they don't really need to worry about this for the next 20-30 years, though. So they're probably fine with that.

Depends on if they push hard enough that the Democrats end with a large enough majority to expand the courts and so much public will that they aren’t allowed to throw away doing the right thing.

Which also why they are trying to make it easier to rig elections with money.

[Cthulhu 2020]

Or. Or. She supported legitimately terrible things. Like bombing even more children. The amount of hand wringing about Bernie bros smh. And you wonder why Democrats keep chasing off people who would otherwise vote for them.

And then Trump ended up droning children and putting them in cages and stealing them from their parents instead. Funny how that works eh? Also, I like how Hillary's support of a no fly zone over Syria turned into "She wants to bomb children"

But on topic, who's ready for even more campaign finance reforms that go the WRONG direction? Like Republicans just going full "You can now accept donations from foreign governments". You don't think this shit will happen, but in 2010 I never foresaw the 2022 supreme court bullshit either.

This country has been sliding backwards dramatically ever since the 2016 election. 514 judges across most branches of government issues, all conservative shills. You people think they're going to stop at overturning Roe Vs Wade, and making campaign donations a lot easier to receive? LOL, this is just barely the beginning of what they hope to do with the judicial branch packed full of Trump-tier crazies.

Edit: Been trying to think of things conservatives could potentially do with control of all these courts. While they couldn't touch a lot of legislation that I'm sure they'd love to, there are things like Brown vs Board of Education. While they couldn't strike down the Civil Rights act, it wouldn't be outside of the imagination to think they'd go for things like that.

[beanman12345]

Yeah, damn Bernie Bros being the cause of all of US's problems, or something.

[tehdang]

Good decision. Good majority opinion. In a rare case for arguments on standing, there was a funny bit included.

These arguments have an Alice in Wonderland air about them, with the Government arguing that appellees would not violate the statute by repaying Cruz, and the appellees arguing that they would

Government: But Mr. Cruz, what you did was legal under the law! You're good to go, except for this this minor government regulatory approach to the law, but the law isn't your problem!
Court: Are you high? The law empowers the FEC to do this, so it's of course a challenge to the law, and he has standing.

The opinion includes good Roberts trashing of the government's inability to provide evidence of corruption that the FEC wants to believe it's fighting.
Government: Ok, we don't have evidence of any corruption ever taking place from campaigns repaying loans the candidates took out to fund their campaign. But we do have some hypotheticals about access and influence!
Court: You don't have evidence, and hypotheticals aren't proof of corruption justifying limits on First Amendment rights. You can't just posit the existence of a disease sought to be cured to justify burdening speech.
Government: What about these media reports and anecdotes?
Court: How strange, constituents supporting candidates that hold their beliefs and interests, and then the candidates, once elected, are very responsive to their concerns. Much corruption. Huge surprise.
Government: We've got an academic article, a poll, and statements from Senators!
Court: Article admits authors can't differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate changes in voting patterns, and only exists as a first step in understanding the topic. The poll made no attempts to ask questions relevant to this law subsection, and used too-broad definitions. And a few straw floor statements from Senators don't constitute evidence.

Perhaps to make up for its evidentiary shortcomings, the Government falls back on what it calls a “common sense” analogy

Roberts is ruthless.

The analogy also proves too much. By the Government’s logic, post-election contributions to retire candidate loans are little different from gifts given directly to the candidate. But that logic is belied by how the Government treats the two categories of purported “gifts.”[...] Either the Government is openly tolerating a significant number of “gifts” far more generous than what it would normally think fit to allow, or post-election contributions that go toward retiring campaign debt are in no real sense “gifts” to a candidate. We find the latter answer more persuasive.

The government has suspect logic, boys.

[Kathranis]

Depends on if they push hard enough that the Democrats end with a large enough majority to expand the courts and so much public will that they aren’t allowed to throw away doing the right thing.

Which also why they are trying to make it easier to rig elections with money.

They're also aggressively blaming inflation, gas prices, and baby formula shortages on Biden while actively making the problems worse.

[Draco-Onis]

Good decision. Good majority opinion.

No one is surprised that you are pro corruption.

[Edge-]

No one is surprised that you are pro corruption.

"All speech is equal, but some speech is more equal than others."

[Gestopft]

Holy shit this is about money given AFTER the election. This makes it magnitudes worse than I thought, woooooowwwww

[Kaleredar]

Good decision. Good majority opinion. In a rare case for arguments on standing, there was a funny bit included. Government: But Mr. Cruz, what you did was legal under the law! You're good to go, except for this this minor government regulatory approach to the law, but the law isn't your problem!
Court: Are you high? The law empowers the FEC to do this, so it's of course a challenge to the law, and he has standing.

The opinion includes good Roberts trashing of the government's inability to provide evidence of corruption that the FEC wants to believe it's fighting.
Government: Ok, we don't have evidence of any corruption ever taking place from campaigns repaying loans the candidates took out to fund their campaign. But we do have some hypotheticals about access and influence!
Court: You don't have evidence, and hypotheticals aren't proof of corruption justifying limits on First Amendment rights. You can't just posit the existence of a disease sought to be cured to justify burdening speech.
Government: What about these media reports and anecdotes?
Court: How strange, constituents supporting candidates that hold their beliefs and interests, and then the candidates, once elected, are very responsive to their concerns. Much corruption. Huge surprise.
Government: We've got an academic article, a poll, and statements from Senators!
Court: Article admits authors can't differentiate between legitimate and illegitimate changes in voting patterns, and only exists as a first step in understanding the topic. The poll made no attempts to ask questions relevant to this law subsection, and used too-broad definitions. And a few straw floor statements from Senators don't constitute evidence.

Roberts is ruthless.

The government has suspect logic, boys.

can you enumerate on how this is a good decision, other than that this allows corporations to more directly pump money into your chosen politician's pockets?

[Glorious Leader]

No one is surprised that you are pro corruption.

His entire post reads like trolling

[tehdang]

can you enumerate on how this is a good decision, other than that this allows corporations to more directly pump money into your chosen politician's pockets?

The biting parts I pulled from the decision. Maybe you can start by telling me what you don't understand about the post you quoted?

[Kaleredar]

The biting parts I pulled from the decision. Maybe you can start by telling me what you don't understand about the post you quoted?

You didn't comment on any of them. You just linked a block of text. The closest you came to opining was that "the government has no corruption."


Which, uh... hot take, I guess. Guess there's no swamp that needs draining, after all?

[tehdang]

You didn't comment on any of them. You just linked a block of text. The closest you came to opining was that "the government has no corruption."

Which, uh... hot take, I guess. Guess there's no swamp that needs draining, after all?

The paraphrase is my comment on the decision. You're quoting it, but really dismissing the post as some "block of text," shows you have no real value in the interaction. Like, you can get your jollies mocking and trolling about pro-corruption, but are you really needing a response like "Sounds like Kalredar loves incumbents perma winning, the way he digs handicapping opponent fundraising?"