Justices Reject Campaign Finance Limits

[Big Fitz]

More to the point, any one of us can call up our Congresscritter and ask for a meeting, but we can always be told "no". When it comes to hearing and being heard, you're on your own.

Make sure they know the sign "Proceed at your own risk" is present when they do that. Most likely he loses voters every time a congresscritter does this.

Yep. Having the right to do something doesn't mean doing it is right.

There once was a day when right = legal. But we've separated morality from law.

Are we really better for it?

 

[goldcatt]

Make sure they know the sign "Proceed at your own risk" is present when they do that. Most likely he loses voters every time a congresscritter does this.

Yep. Having the right to do something doesn't mean doing it is right.

There once was a day when right = legal. But we've separated morality from law.

Are we really better for it?

Depends on what kind of morality you're talking about. I don't agree with legislating personal, individual morality on individuals. But in an institutional sense where morality equals real justice instead of special favors and backslapping I'd agree with you.

 

[Intense]

Wow ... The Constitution protects both Free Speech and Your Right to not Listen. Back to square one. LOL

Both Free Speech and Forced Audience are beyond Federal Authority. Imagine that. I guess that where some of Us differ is Political Censorship based on Origin, not Content, sadly with no regard for the Sincerity, Importance, and Truth of The Message. Why are We so opposed to shooting something down before it is heard? Why not instead hear it, evaluate it, and address it. Let the Argument stand or fall on merit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Your assertion is stupid since you made the false claim "by [my] reasoning."

You cannot speak for me. You can barely speak at all you're so retarded.

No, idiot. A criminal association has no right to freely speak about plotting to commit a criminal act.

A corporation, in exercising free speech, is not plotting to commit a crime.

Some folks (I deem them to be slow studies) take the unsupportable position that the First Amendment guarantee of Freedom of Speech is an "absolute." It isn't. It never was. Good God in heaven you libs are tedious.

You have no right to shout fire in a crowded theater unless there really is a fire or you reasonably and honestly believe there is a fire.

You have no right to share military intelligence secrets with the nation's enemies, either.

And, no, of course you may not plot and conspire to overthrow this Government by force and violence, you moron.

And if Exxon were to attempt to make THAT the "speech" they tried to offer, their right to free speech wouldn't extend that far in THEIR case, either.

But if I want choose to advocate that the AGW Faither's theory is bullshit and that legislation based on that imbecility is a bad idea, then yes, Exxon SHOULD have the right to say as much, too.

You're too funny. I'm not sure if you need an enema or a valium - I suspect both. I would dissect your post if inclined to root out your profane insults to discover if you made a valid point, if I felt your were worth it. You're not, and I suspect you've gotten that reaction from others throughout your miserly life.

Fuck off, Fly Catcher. We all already know that you are nothing but a cowardly pussy unwilling to engage because you lack any of the skills or tools needed to engage.

I couldn't give a rat's ass that you object to my use of the "profane" especially since you resort to it yourself without hesitation you sissy hypocrite.

In any event, you are a pussy and your posts have never included anything of value. So, run away, You might as well. Nobody will care. Nobody will even notice.

"Fuck off", one more brilliant comment from a coward. Liability wants to be seen as a tough guy, yet hiding behind a computer screen bloviating makes him little more than a windbag. The one thing Liability cannot hide is his anger, pathological, intense and focused at anyone or anything that challenges him.
I stand by my opinion, he needs an enema and a vial of valium - he's one sick puppy.

 

[goldcatt]

Wow ... The Constitution protects both Free Speech and Your Right to not Listen. Back to square one. LOL

Both Free Speech and Forced Audience are beyond Federal Authority. Imagine that. I guess that where some of Us differ is Political Censorship based on Origin, not Content, sadly with no regard for the Sincerity, Importance, and Truth of The Message. Why are We so opposed to shooting something down before it is heard? Why not instead hear it, evaluate it, and address it. Let the Argument stand or fall on merit.

Because political speech protection was designed specifically for real people to be free of reprisal for the content of their speech, not to hand a bullhorn to a nonhuman shell. Anything that can be funnelled through a corporate shell can more easily be said directly by the puppetmasters behind it, after all. Back to square one, indeed!

 

[QUENTIN]

There once was a day when right = legal. But we've separated morality from law.

Are we really better for it?

Really?

Point to the period, era, hell, single day, when this was true.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Question: Does free speech allow for the burning of the American Flag, or a persons right to post a sign "Bong hits for Jesus"?
What say you protectors of free speech?

 

[Liability]

Wow ... The Constitution protects both Free Speech and Your Right to not Listen. Back to square one. LOL

Both Free Speech and Forced Audience are beyond Federal Authority. Imagine that. I guess that where some of Us differ is Political Censorship based on Origin, not Content, sadly with no regard for the Sincerity, Importance, and Truth of The Message. Why are We so opposed to shooting something down before it is heard? Why not instead hear it, evaluate it, and address it. Let the Argument stand or fall on merit.

Because political speech protection was designed specifically for real people to be free of reprisal for the content of their speech, not to hand a bullhorn to a nonhuman shell. Anything that can be funnelled through a corporate shell can more easily be said directly by the puppetmasters behind it, after all. Back to square one, indeed!

There is no evidence to support your first sentence.

And the fact that we can say independently what a corporation or any other association might say more clearly or with access to a broader audience doesn't alter the fact that we STILL have a freedom of peacable assembly which is recognized for a very compelling set of reasons. It is part and parcel of our First Amendment for damn good reason.

Yes, I can stand on a soap box and share my view on the meaning of the Second amendment, for example. But I can also have the NRA do that on my behalf. Free assembly, free speech. The government cannot abridge it in either format.

Nice try. But the SCOTUS still called this one quite accurately.

 

[Liability]

Question: Does free speech allow for the burning of the American Flag, or a person right to post a sign "Bong hits for Jesus"?
What say you protectors of free speech?

Burning an American Flag is both symbolic speech and a physical act. Actions can be prohibited, sometimes. Speech (with very few exceptions) is not subject to prohibition.

Posting a sign about "bong" hits for Jesus is absolutely protected speech. The Government should have no say in it (for at least two reasons, both evident in the First Amendment).

I hated it when the Nazis "marched" in Skokie, Illinois, for example. It was very hateful "speech." But I don't doubt for one second that they had the legal right to do so. And the rest of us would have the right to stand at the curbs along their parade route, wearing clown costumes and flipping them off and mooning their retarded asses, too.

So what?

 

[Annie]

Question: Does free speech allow for the burning of the American Flag, or a persons right to post a sign "Bong hits for Jesus"?
What say you protectors of free speech?

Yes. Also masks of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Pelosi, etc. Signs that portray Bush or Obama as Hitler, monkeys, etc.

 

[Intense]

Wow ... The Constitution protects both Free Speech and Your Right to not Listen. Back to square one. LOL

Both Free Speech and Forced Audience are beyond Federal Authority. Imagine that. I guess that where some of Us differ is Political Censorship based on Origin, not Content, sadly with no regard for the Sincerity, Importance, and Truth of The Message. Why are We so opposed to shooting something down before it is heard? Why not instead hear it, evaluate it, and address it. Let the Argument stand or fall on merit.

Because political speech protection was designed specifically for real people to be free of reprisal for the content of their speech, not to hand a bullhorn to a nonhuman shell. Anything that can be funnelled through a corporate shell can more easily be said directly by the puppetmasters behind it, after all. Back to square one, indeed!

What I defend is Impartial. What You defend is Selective and Arbitrary. It also opens a Pandora's Box of Imagined Government Powers, in a way You are currently blind to. If the Venues are Corporately Controlled such as Networks and Publishers, Airways, be it Internet or Phone, the Totalitarian Statists, can make new intrusive claims on how The control Our Liberty. Book Censorship was a part of this Law Suit. The Government Power to Censor, Restrict, and Deny Publishing. Books, Movies, Documentaries.

I'm anti Monopoly, and am not a big fan of Corporations Goldcatt. I've studied more than my share of articles on Your side of the Argument, I probably stand with You on most issues of Corporate Abuse. Speech in self defense is not one of them. Speech, that informs, that is verifiable, deserves to be allowed.

The Abuses You are concerned about seem more related to what goes on behind the closed doors of Corporate / Government Negotiation and are totally separate of the issue of Public Voice.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither Persons or Corporations are mentioned here, in relation to speech.

 

[goldcatt]

Wow ... The Constitution protects both Free Speech and Your Right to not Listen. Back to square one. LOL

Both Free Speech and Forced Audience are beyond Federal Authority. Imagine that. I guess that where some of Us differ is Political Censorship based on Origin, not Content, sadly with no regard for the Sincerity, Importance, and Truth of The Message. Why are We so opposed to shooting something down before it is heard? Why not instead hear it, evaluate it, and address it. Let the Argument stand or fall on merit.

Because political speech protection was designed specifically for real people to be free of reprisal for the content of their speech, not to hand a bullhorn to a nonhuman shell. Anything that can be funnelled through a corporate shell can more easily be said directly by the puppetmasters behind it, after all. Back to square one, indeed!

There is no evidence to support your first sentence.

And the fact that we can say independently what a corporation or any other association might say more clearly or with access to a broader audience doesn't alter the fact that we STILL have a freedom of peacable assembly which is recognized for a very compelling set of reasons. It is part and parcel of our First Amendment for damn good reason.

Yes, I can stand on a soap box and share my view on the meaning of the Second amendment, for example. But I can also have the NRA do that on my behalf. Free assembly, free speech. The government cannot abridge it in either format.

Nice try. But the SCOTUS still called this one quite accurately.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment: Annotations pg. 12 of 21

 

[Liability]

Because political speech protection was designed specifically for real people to be free of reprisal for the content of their speech, not to hand a bullhorn to a nonhuman shell. Anything that can be funnelled through a corporate shell can more easily be said directly by the puppetmasters behind it, after all. Back to square one, indeed!

There is no evidence to support your first sentence.

And the fact that we can say independently what a corporation or any other association might say more clearly or with access to a broader audience doesn't alter the fact that we STILL have a freedom of peacable assembly which is recognized for a very compelling set of reasons. It is part and parcel of our First Amendment for damn good reason.

Yes, I can stand on a soap box and share my view on the meaning of the Second amendment, for example. But I can also have the NRA do that on my behalf. Free assembly, free speech. The government cannot abridge it in either format.

Nice try. But the SCOTUS still called this one quite accurately.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment: Annotations pg. 12 of 21

And?

Right out of the box, the citation you offered has THIS to say:

''It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.'' 194 It would appear from the Court's opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, 195 although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment. 196

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment: Annotations pg. 12 of 21(Highlighting and emphasis mine).

And it CITES, among other things, U.S. Supreme Court case law which I referenced here just a day or two ago: NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460 -61 (1958).

So, yeah. Good post.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Question: Does free speech allow for the burning of the American Flag, or a persons right to post a sign "Bong hits for Jesus"?
What say you protectors of free speech?

Yes. Also masks of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Pelosi, etc. Signs that portray Bush or Obama as Hitler, monkeys, etc.

Yet these same Justices found for unlimited monied interests and against an 18 year old. I submit that Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are hypocrits - and the 'greater good' argument is at best an emotional one, given the harm that unlimited support from one source to a candidate or elected offical to our republic.

 

[Annie]

Question: Does free speech allow for the burning of the American Flag, or a persons right to post a sign "Bong hits for Jesus"?
What say you protectors of free speech?

Yes. Also masks of Obama, Bush, Clinton, Pelosi, etc. Signs that portray Bush or Obama as Hitler, monkeys, etc.

Yet these same Justices found for unlimited monied interests and against an 18 year old. I submit that Roberts, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy are hypocrits - and the 'greater good' argument is at best an emotional one, given the harm that unlimited support from one source to a candidate or elected offical to our republic.

Well that's a statement, not an argument. So be it.

 

[goldcatt]

Wow ... The Constitution protects both Free Speech and Your Right to not Listen. Back to square one. LOL

Both Free Speech and Forced Audience are beyond Federal Authority. Imagine that. I guess that where some of Us differ is Political Censorship based on Origin, not Content, sadly with no regard for the Sincerity, Importance, and Truth of The Message. Why are We so opposed to shooting something down before it is heard? Why not instead hear it, evaluate it, and address it. Let the Argument stand or fall on merit.

Because political speech protection was designed specifically for real people to be free of reprisal for the content of their speech, not to hand a bullhorn to a nonhuman shell. Anything that can be funnelled through a corporate shell can more easily be said directly by the puppetmasters behind it, after all. Back to square one, indeed!

What I defend is Impartial. What You defend is Selective and Arbitrary. It also opens a Pandora's Box of Imagined Government Powers, in a way You are currently blind to. If the Venues are Corporately Controlled such as Networks and Publishers, Airways, be it Internet or Phone, the Totalitarian Statists, can make new intrusive claims on how The control Our Liberty. Book Censorship was a part of this Law Suit. The Government Power to Censor, Restrict, and Deny Publishing. Books, Movies, Documentaries.

I'm anti Monopoly, and am not a big fan of Corporations Goldcatt. I've studied more than my share of articles on Your side of the Argument, I probably stand with You on most issues of Corporate Abuse. Speech in self defense is not one of them. Speech, that informs, that is verifiable, deserves to be allowed.

The Abuses You are concerned about seem more related to what goes on behind the closed doors of Corporate / Government Negotiation and are totally separate of the issue of Public Voice.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither Persons or Corporations are mentioned here, in relation to speech.

You know, I have yet to see anyone explain how exactly from a Constitutional standpoint dumping unlimited sums of money into the political system using the corporate shell as a front is a form of self defense?

Explain that, and we can talk about it rationally.

 

[goldcatt]

There is no evidence to support your first sentence.

And the fact that we can say independently what a corporation or any other association might say more clearly or with access to a broader audience doesn't alter the fact that we STILL have a freedom of peacable assembly which is recognized for a very compelling set of reasons. It is part and parcel of our First Amendment for damn good reason.

Yes, I can stand on a soap box and share my view on the meaning of the Second amendment, for example. But I can also have the NRA do that on my behalf. Free assembly, free speech. The government cannot abridge it in either format.

Nice try. But the SCOTUS still called this one quite accurately.

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment: Annotations pg. 12 of 21

And?

Right out of the box, the citation you offered has THIS to say:

''It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.'' 194 It would appear from the Court's opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, 195 although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment. 196

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment: Annotations pg. 12 of 21(Highlighting and emphasis mine).

And it CITES, among other things, U.S. Supreme Court case law which I referenced here just a day or two ago: NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460 -61 (1958).

So, yeah. Good post.

So in other words, you didn't read any of the synopsis or annotated cases on the history, nature and purpose of association. Why am I not surprised?

There's just no point attempting to debate with a pie-throwing troll.

 

[Liability]

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment: Annotations pg. 12 of 21

And?

Right out of the box, the citation you offered has THIS to say:

''It is beyond debate that freedom to engage in association for the advancement of beliefs and ideas is an inseparable aspect of the 'liberty' assured by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, which embraces freedom of speech. . . . Of course, it is immaterial whether the beliefs sought to be advanced by association pertain to political, economic, religious or cultural matters, and state action which may have the effect of curtailing the freedom to associate is subject to the closest scrutiny.'' 194 It would appear from the Court's opinions that the right of association is derivative from the First Amendment guarantees of speech, assembly, and petition, 195 although it has at times seemingly been referred to as a separate, independent freedom protected by the First Amendment. 196

FindLaw: U.S. Constitution: First Amendment: Annotations pg. 12 of 21(Highlighting and emphasis mine).

And it CITES, among other things, U.S. Supreme Court case law which I referenced here just a day or two ago: NAACP v. Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 U.S. 449, 460 -61 (1958).

So, yeah. Good post.

So in other words, you didn't read any of the synopsis or annotated cases on the history, nature and purpose of association. Why am I not surprised?

There's just no point attempting to debate with a pie-throwing troll.

LOL!

You offer a link with no commentary and I am supposed to spend pointless time reading through to find the snippets that you find supportive of your contention?

Here's a clue. If you imagine that there are portions contained within that set of annotations that are valuable in the context of supporting YOUR POV, you could stop being such a lazy joke and cull it a bit. Take an excerpt and quote it, cite it and then share with the rest of us how it allegedly helps make your case.

In the interim, I went to the link you had offered and (apparently unlike you) I read it starting at the beginning. And, as I correctly observed, it supports MY position right from the very opening words.

Pointing that out doesn't make me a troll. Claiming that what I have done is in any way even related to "trolling" is an example of you being dishonest.

 

[Intense]

Because political speech protection was designed specifically for real people to be free of reprisal for the content of their speech, not to hand a bullhorn to a nonhuman shell. Anything that can be funnelled through a corporate shell can more easily be said directly by the puppetmasters behind it, after all. Back to square one, indeed!

What I defend is Impartial. What You defend is Selective and Arbitrary. It also opens a Pandora's Box of Imagined Government Powers, in a way You are currently blind to. If the Venues are Corporately Controlled such as Networks and Publishers, Airways, be it Internet or Phone, the Totalitarian Statists, can make new intrusive claims on how The control Our Liberty. Book Censorship was a part of this Law Suit. The Government Power to Censor, Restrict, and Deny Publishing. Books, Movies, Documentaries.

I'm anti Monopoly, and am not a big fan of Corporations Goldcatt. I've studied more than my share of articles on Your side of the Argument, I probably stand with You on most issues of Corporate Abuse. Speech in self defense is not one of them. Speech, that informs, that is verifiable, deserves to be allowed.

The Abuses You are concerned about seem more related to what goes on behind the closed doors of Corporate / Government Negotiation and are totally separate of the issue of Public Voice.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither Persons or Corporations are mentioned here, in relation to speech.

You know, I have yet to see anyone explain how exactly from a Constitutional standpoint dumping unlimited sums of money into the political system using the corporate shell as a front is a form of self defense?

Explain that, and we can talk about it rationally.

Speech is a Tool of Self Defense. Speech is used to accuse rightly or wrongly, the same Speech defends against false accusation. I'm sorry but I've seen too much false accusation go unanswered in My Lifetime. I want Truth, even if it means having to use a sieve, to get it. The thought of Anyone Denying Voice, without even knowing the content, playing God, is not My concept of serving Truth, Justice, or Serving The Public Good. Somebody slips up in the process, nail them to the wall, using Free Speech .

 

[goldcatt]

What I defend is Impartial. What You defend is Selective and Arbitrary. It also opens a Pandora's Box of Imagined Government Powers, in a way You are currently blind to. If the Venues are Corporately Controlled such as Networks and Publishers, Airways, be it Internet or Phone, the Totalitarian Statists, can make new intrusive claims on how The control Our Liberty. Book Censorship was a part of this Law Suit. The Government Power to Censor, Restrict, and Deny Publishing. Books, Movies, Documentaries.

I'm anti Monopoly, and am not a big fan of Corporations Goldcatt. I've studied more than my share of articles on Your side of the Argument, I probably stand with You on most issues of Corporate Abuse. Speech in self defense is not one of them. Speech, that informs, that is verifiable, deserves to be allowed.

The Abuses You are concerned about seem more related to what goes on behind the closed doors of Corporate / Government Negotiation and are totally separate of the issue of Public Voice.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Neither Persons or Corporations are mentioned here, in relation to speech.

You know, I have yet to see anyone explain how exactly from a Constitutional standpoint dumping unlimited sums of money into the political system using the corporate shell as a front is a form of self defense?

Explain that, and we can talk about it rationally.

Speech is a Tool of Self Defense. Speech is used to accuse rightly or wrongly, the same Speech defends against false accusation. I'm sorry but I've seen too much false accusation go unanswered in My Lifetime. I want Truth, even if it means having to use a sieve, to get it. The thought of Anyone Denying Voice, without even knowing the content, playing God, is not My concept of serving Truth, Justice, or Serving The Public Good. Somebody slips up in the process, nail them to the wall, using Free Speech .

That can already be done using already-protected commercial speech and/or the right to sue. If the corporations and unions choose not to use their pre-existing rights, that's their loss. It doesn't justify granting them more to the detriment of the already corrupt political process in order to beg them to do what they were unwilling to do before.

I can understand wanting the Truth with a capital T, but there are far less intrusive ways to go about getting it.

As for denying a voice, the individuals involved already had and have a voice - just not a front to hide behind and a shell to protect them from any personal consequences of their actions and to use to evade the law.

I can see your point, and your heart is in the right place, but this is not the way to go about doing it.