A peek under the robes of an increasingly partisan court
" ... just another political body"
In another 5-4 vote Monday, and without bothering to hear arguments in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court blithely tossed out a longstanding Montana law that barred corporations from making campaign contributions in state elections. States’ rights, it seems, must bow to corporate power in the Roberts court.
Or as Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock noted afterward, “It is a sad day for our democracy and for those of us who still want to believe that the United States Supreme Court is anything more than another political body.”
Bullock’s condemnation of the nation’s highest court as just “another political body” may sound harsh to some ears, but it is depressingly accurate. The Montana law had been on the books for 100 years, and for most of those 100 years its constitutionality had not been called into serious question. It was considered well within established law.
The absurd notions that have now forced its demise — corporations are people and speech is money — are novel law that has been imposed upon Montana and the rest of the country by an increasingly activist, inventive and yes, partisan Supreme Court.
Let’s be honest about this: The increasingly partisan nature of the court is not an accident. It did not occur by magic, but by concerted effort. For at least a quarter of a century, the Republican Party has made the creation of such a court one of its primary goals. The same sort of rigid ideological tests that the party has imposed on candidates for elective office have also been imposed on those it supports for nomination to the federal judiciary. Over a generation, that campaign has succeeded in creating a court that is far more friendly to the powerful than to the individual citizen.
The “smoking gun” in that evolution is of course the court’s “Citizens United” decision, in which the conservative majority decided that bans or limits on corporate expenditures are unconstitutional because “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”
That finding is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. It contradicts common sense, it contradicts history, it contradicts what we can see taking place in plain sight at this very moment and it contradicts the elected politicians who passed campaign-finance laws in the first place. Unlike the unelected justices, those politicians know the system intimately; they know firsthand what power can be wielded by unlimited money spent anonymously.
The people of Montana know it as well. I would strongly advise those interested in the issue to read last year’s 5-2 decision of the Montana Supreme Court (available here) as it attempted to uphold and defend their state’s law against the conservative judicial majority in Washington. The decision lays out in clear language that state’s difficult history in trying to fend off outside corporate control.
It’s also important to note that neither of the two dissenters on the Montana court embraced the logic of the Citizens’ United decision. Instead, they based their dissent on the fact that Montana had no choice but to bow to the federal court’s greater authority, however irrational it might be.
One of those dissenters, Justice James C. Nelson, used the opportunity to express his clear and eloquent disgust with the decision of his federal counterparts. I cannot recommend it more highly.
Here’s part of what he had to say:
“For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield inordinate power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins; the transition is seamless and overlapping.
In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s “open marketplace” of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian corporatists. Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.
Furthermore, it defies reality to suggest that millions of dollars in slick television and Internet ads — put out by entities whose purpose and expertise, in the first place, is to persuade people to buy what’s being sold—carry the same weight as the fliers of citizen candidates and the letters to the editor of John and Mary Public. It is utter nonsense to think that ordinary citizens or candidates can spend enough to place their experience, wisdom, and views before the voters and keep pace with the virtually unlimited spending capability of corporations to place corporate views before the electorate….
I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of “independent expenditures” expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the “quid pro quo” of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty. And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely.
I cannot agree with the holding that the prevention of corruption in the form of independent expenditures is not a compelling state interest. There is no plausible reason why a state would not want to protect the integrity of its election process against corruption and undue influence; to do otherwise would render the fundamental right to vote a meaningless exercise….
Lastly, I am compelled to say something about corporate “personhood.” While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in the law, I find the entire concept offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers — not constitutional rights, but legislatively conferred powers — that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business.
Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”
President Obama, name that man to the U.S. Supreme Court.
– Jay Bookman
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
1,368 comments Add your comment
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
8:32 pm
“Romney can’t do that”
Well, no…he can’t. But if the American voters are stupid enough to elect him AND give him a filibuster proof Senate as well, I have NO DOUBT they’ve got the repeal legislation already written, ready to be passed and signed. All it would take is one sentence and about 10 minutes.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
8:34 pm
“That would have my complete support.”
What?! You would actually support an event that demeans all the hundreds of thousands of MEN in our military?
Dekalb comments
June 26th, 2012
8:35 pm
@ Doggone/GA 8:32
And if that happens, millions of Americans are affected. Thousands will die needlessly but the American insurance companies are saved from certain, well less than 10% returns on their investment in human sickness and death. What a win for the free market!!!!!
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
8:36 pm
DeKalb comments,
You sir or mam are nothing more than a presumptuous jack ass. I would discuss my position but because of your presumption, you’re unworthy of my time.
Normal, Human Rights Thug...and liking it!
June 26th, 2012
8:38 pm
jm ,
Possibly suspect??? What the hell does that mean?
——————–
Jay…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zzeLoa1gwCU
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
8:38 pm
“And if that happens, millions of Americans are affected”
You don’t really think they care about that, do you? I don’t.
Dekalb comments
June 26th, 2012
8:40 pm
Recon @ 8:36
Oh, I love your taunting jabs. I doubt you have the intellectual capability of crossing the street but I will give your parents likely credit for that.
Typical reich-winger.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
8:40 pm
Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) moved this week to hold a noncontroversial flood insurance bill hostage until the Senate agrees that life begins at fertilization.
Republicans are such idiots. What happens if you have sex and do not produce a child. Is the couple sentenced to death. And how will Republicans determine who has had sex and with whom so said couples can be monitored. Is this the “jobs” package that Republicans have been promising since 2010.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
8:40 pm
Sorry, got in a hurry! I meant to say “I don’t think THEY do care.”
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
8:44 pm
TaxPayer
Whaaaaa? You mean that when a couple has sex and do not produce a child, the couple isn’t sentenced to death?
Gosh, you liberals are sooooo smart.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
8:45 pm
“Republicans are such idiots.”
I don’t know if what you posted is true or not, but if it is…I want them to keep it up. Keep going off the deep end, sooner or later they won’t be able to claw their way back out.
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
8:48 pm
“I doubt you have the intellectual capability of crossing the street but I will give your parents likely credit for that.”
For insulting a bloggers family if Jay had any ounce of credibility you would be kicked squarely off his blog, but that’s up to Jay.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
8:49 pm
Yea. LOL!! Republicans are going off the deep end!?!?
That’s because we are supporting this power hungry incompetent Chicago gangster that obviously should have stayed organizing communities.
Jm
June 26th, 2012
8:52 pm
Normal
Every charity is suspect to me until having done due diligence on how they spend $
Jay has spidey sense? He does weave tangled webs……
“sons of confederate veterans” lessee…..
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
8:53 pm
Presumptive GOP presidential candidate Mitt Romney often makes a point of claiming to be a practical joker, though many have questioned the nature of some of his most famed “pranks.” On Monday, Romney’s sense of humor was again on display when his campaign repeated a stunt involving driving its bus around President Barack Obama supporters while honking.
Afterward, Romney, with scissors in hand, and his pranksters were seen chasing someone that Romney did not approve of.
Mighty Righty
June 26th, 2012
8:53 pm
I had to go to the city today for the first time in a while. Boy,Obama’s economic program has really reduced traffic. A lot fewer people wasting gasoline these days going to work. No need to worry about T SPLOST. We don’t need any kind of transit syetem or new roads. Just fix a few pot holes. Gasoline price is way down. I understand there is a glut of oil.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
8:53 pm
“Yea. LOL!! Republicans are going off the deep end!?!?
That’s because we are supporting this power hungry incompetent Chicago gangster that obviously should have stayed organizing communities”
I can go with that. Obama obviously has driven them insane. Not hard to do either.
Jm
June 26th, 2012
8:55 pm
Normal charities that aggressively solicit funds like that are even more suspect
Often just supporting a payroll
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
8:56 pm
“I understand there is a glut of oil.”
Along with a weak economy that hasn’t revived on Obama’s watch.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
8:57 pm
Doggone/GA
Obama has been a real concern for anyone smart enough to see past talking points and class warfare.
Face it, Dog. He’s desperate. He can’t raise money and no one (with a 3 digit IQ) is still buying his BS.
I have to hand it to you. Not a lot of people are brave enough to still try to defend his incompetence.
Jm
June 26th, 2012
9:00 pm
There is a glut of stupidity
Mostly in the blue states
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:00 pm
“Not a lot of people are brave enough to still try to defend his incompetence”
Please quote where I did that…but don’t hurt yourself trying.
Jay
June 26th, 2012
9:02 pm
Let me get this straight, Recon:
You call someone a “presumptuous jackass,” and then claim victim status when fire is returned?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
9:02 pm
Recon 0311 2533 :
“I think you know that while I’m not on this blog to upset anyone personally, should that happen, I have no remorse.”
Collateral damage !!
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:02 pm
Dog,
Bravo. I would make that demand, too. God knows, I wouldn’t want people to think that I support that clown.
Jm
June 26th, 2012
9:02 pm
Health alert
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-06-24/is-your-couch-trying-to-kill-you-.html
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:03 pm
“God knows, I wouldn’t want people to think that I support that clown.”
I accept your capitulation. Since I already know you can’t find any such quotes.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:05 pm
Dog
Really? So Its all about you? Is this a problem in your life? You try to make everything about you being a judge and jury?
So I capitulated? Do you want to make yourself feel really powerful and sentence me? LOL!!
Jay
June 26th, 2012
9:06 pm
Exec, under the circumstances — the state of the economy that he inherited compounded by a disloyal opposition — Obama has done a very good job.
Mighty Righty
June 26th, 2012
9:06 pm
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
8:28 pm
Your take is different than mine. Obama has set a precedent that it is okay for a president to ignore even congressionally approved law merely based on his personal preference. Therefore, using Obama’s treatment of the law as an example, Romney would be perfectly legal within this new precedent as established by Obama in not enforcing the Obamacaire law. Obama added a caveat that he wasn’t changing the law he was just not going to enforce it which is a distinction without a difference. Romney or any future president would be well within his rights to ignore any and all laws he might disagree with. BTW, this new precedent is okay with a Republican congress since they have taken no action to impeach Obama. In the future we will not need a congress or laws in as much as the president will be able to rule according to his favorite whim of the day.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:09 pm
“So I capitulated?”
Ok, I’ll retract it…as soon as you produce the quotes. I’m patient, I can wait. But I do have to go to bed sometime tonight, so don’t take TOO long. It’s got to be pretty easy for you…since I haven’t posted much tonight.
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
9:09 pm
“You are a communist, a socialist, an America-hater. How can you be so small unless your preacher told you to hate. Good luck on judgment day!!!”
Jay, a little excerpt from Dekalbs comments post that addressed my post that had nothing to do with this blogger. I merely replied in kind. Guess you’re into selective oversight. Huh?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
9:11 pm
Well, finally there will be an NCAA Division I football playoff of four teams.
I predict it will eventually go to eight.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2012/football/ncaa/06/26/college-football-playoff-plan-bcs-presidents.ap/index.html?eref=sihp&sct=hp_t11_a0
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
9:11 pm
Jay, not to mention the insult directed toward my deceased parents@8:40pm. Guess you are selective.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:11 pm
Jay
Your standards for a very good job and my standards for a very good job are obviously two very, very different things.
Unless,
You are saying that he has done all this on purpose.
To be honest. I think he meant to ruin the economy. Think about it. All those EPA rules. Do you really think this Chicago thug really cares that much about CO2?
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
9:12 pm
“There are three rules that we used to follow in my prior business career, in a turnaround: fee, fee, and fee: First we load them down with debt and charge a fee for the service, second, we provide an annual consultation in exchange for fees and finally we sell off the parts upon their demise for a fee,” Romney said at a New Jersey fundraiser when asked how he would rejuvenate his economic well-being.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:13 pm
Dog
Yes, it’s all about you. If you don’t mind, why don’t you hold your breath while I look for those quotes. I’ll have them in just a few seconds. Really I will.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:15 pm
“Yes, it’s all about you”
Yep, took you long enough to figure it out. But maybe the next time you’ll think at least a LITTLE before you post a speculative lie about someone here. Next time, be SURE you can back it up.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:16 pm
TAXPayer
Did a search. Didn’t find that quote from Romney. Can you provide a link?
Jay
June 26th, 2012
9:16 pm
OK, Exec. I didn’t spot your tinfoil hat at first. Sorry to have bothered you.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:17 pm
Dog
Calm down. Did I make you upset?
But if you don’t mind, finding liberals with giant chips on their shoulders is a lot of fun. Thanks for playing.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:20 pm
Jay
So you won’t address the point. You actually think that this clown that wrote his first book dedicated to his Marxist Father and his second book dedicated to his racist Black Liberation Preacher is on the up and up?
Read his books, Jay. And believe what he says in his books because his is definitely living up to the people he dedicated his books to.
Mighty Righty
June 26th, 2012
9:20 pm
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
9:12 pm
Can you source your quote, pleae?
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:21 pm
“Calm down. Did I make you upset? ”
Nope.
“But if you don’t mind, finding liberals with giant chips on their shoulders is a lot of fun. Thanks for playing”
So objecting to being lied about is now having a “chip” on my shoulder? Funny, it seems to me that it is YOU is a tad upset at being called out on your lie.
Jay
June 26th, 2012
9:21 pm
I find it hard to hold a conversation with someone who’s in the midst of diving off the deep end, Exec.
josef
June 26th, 2012
9:21 pm
Ooooh! We better be good. Looks like the dead tree edition column is finished and the Imam’s got time to spend with his chirren…
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
9:23 pm
Cons! Living, exhaling proof that CO2 is the source of anthropogenic global warming. Well, except for the “human” part. I think that has yet to be determined.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:23 pm
Jay
When you find someone who is doing that, I couldn’t blame you. But running away from a discussion by pulling the “too crazy to talk” seems to be beneath an employee of COX.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:24 pm
TaxPayer
Link please. Two people have asked.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
9:24 pm
Carter called Obama a human rights violator ………. that’s pretty ugly.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:25 pm
Dog
Oh I’m really upset because you have a chip on your shoulder.
This little judge and jury thing might work sometimes on some, but girl, you aren’t even in the same league.
Jay
June 26th, 2012
9:26 pm
If you say so, GLL.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
9:27 pm
Mighty and Exec,
Just look for the person that asked how Romney would rejuvenate his economic well-being and you’re sure to find your answer. Or you could do a little research of how Bain made its money regardless of how poorly their acquisitions did. It’s quite enlightening.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:27 pm
“This little judge and jury thing might work sometimes on some, but girl, you aren’t even in the same league”
Evidently you are someone who has been here before, masquerading under a new name.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:27 pm
Jay
Now I see why you are running away. You understand your limitations.
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
9:28 pm
Bookman, you would admonish me@9:02, while completely giving a pass to a blogger who stoops to the low of insulting a fellow bloggers parents. You have lost my respect.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:28 pm
Dog
After I slapped Jay around one time too many, he no longer lets me keep my name. Don’t like it, talk to your half witted moderator.
barking frog
June 26th, 2012
9:29 pm
0311
when you kill someone or
order someone to be killed
you totally violate their
human rights. Carter did
the same when he ordered
the military to recover the
hostages.p
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:29 pm
Recon 0311 2533
Lost your respect?
barking frog
June 26th, 2012
9:29 pm
0311
when you kill someone or
order someone to be killed
you totally violate their
human rights. Carter did
the same when he ordered
the military to recover the
hostages.
Jay
June 26th, 2012
9:30 pm
No, GLL, I understand yours. I don’t go around picking on those unable to defend themselves.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 26th, 2012
9:32 pm
Seems to be a lot of whine being served in the cellar tonight.
barking frog
June 26th, 2012
9:33 pm
well that’s a new one. two
for me one for recon @929.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
9:33 pm
Food for thought – voices of alarm from the past:
It can be of no weight to say that the courts, on the pretense of a repugnancy, may substitute their own pleasure to the constitutional intentions of the legislature. This might as well happen in the case of two contradictory statutes; or it might as well happen in every adjudication upon any single statute. The courts must declare the sense of the law; and if they should be disposed to exercise WILL instead of JUDGMENT, the consequence would equally be the substitution of their pleasure to that of the legislative body. The observation, if it prove any thing, would prove that there ought to be no judges distinct from that body. – from no less than Alexander Hamilton, who generally supported judicial review
You seem to consider the judges as the ultimate arbiters of all constitutional questions; a very dangerous doctrine indeed, and one which would place us under the despotism of an oligarchy. Our judges are as honest as other men, and not more so. They have, with others, the same passions for party, for power, and the privilege of their corps…. Their power [is] the more dangerous as they are in office for life, and not responsible, as the other functionaries are, to the elective control. The Constitution has erected no such single tribunal, knowing that to whatever hands confided, with the corruptions of time and party, its members would become despots. It has more wisely made all the departments co-equal and co-sovereign within themselves. – Thomas Jefferson to Marshall, chief justice in the Marbury Ruling
“The supreme court then have a right, independent of the legislature, to give a construction to the constitution and every part of it, and there is no power provided in this system to correct their construction or do it away. If, therefore, the legislature pass any laws, inconsistent with the sense the judges put upon the constitution, they will declare it void.” – Robert Yates, during the ratification debate
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:33 pm
JAy
You run away from real discussions about the joke in the White House.
Crow all you want, but unfortunately for you, everyone knows you here. Go stare at a picture of Obama for a while and write another brainless article. That’s what you are good at. Discussing politics with people much smarter than you . . . not so much.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
9:33 pm
Cheney was the last true executive Dick of the land. Other cons simply aspire to be one.
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:34 pm
TaxPayer
Link? Or was it a lie?
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:34 pm
“Seems to be a lot of whine being served in the cellar tonight”
yeah, and it seems to be one particular barrel that has the biggest leak.
Don't Tread
June 26th, 2012
9:34 pm
“he has done all this on purpose”
Q. What’s the easiest way to bring down capitalism?
A. Drown it in debt. While you’re at it, give the taxpayer money to your cronies who didn’t do a thing to earn it (besides supporting your campaign). Kill two birds with one stone.
josef
June 26th, 2012
9:35 pm
I can’t hold my tongue any longer…who left the cave closet door open and let Alley Oop out again yapping about his nellie little feelings being hurt after what that miserable excuse for a human being said about MY kids…drunken swine…
Okay, that’s out of the way…now let’s get back to the gay Confederates…
Executive Dictatorship
June 26th, 2012
9:35 pm
Dog
Don’t be a hater.
barking frog
June 26th, 2012
9:35 pm
sorry recon that was
exec dic
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
9:36 pm
Doggone @ 8:32
True. A part of me wants that to happen though. At that point, they will own the issue of resolving the healthcare issue. It won’t be “blame the Democrats” anymore. For once, the GOP would actually have to govern, and based on previous attempts, I think they are way out of practice.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
9:36 pm
“…now let’s get back to the gay Confederates…”
TMI, josef.
Jay
June 26th, 2012
9:37 pm
That problem has been fixed, Josef.
As I recall the last time this happened, he promised to go over my head and get himself reinstated. Didn’t work then, won’t work now.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:38 pm
” For once, the GOP would actually have to govern, and based on previous attempts, I think they are way out of practice”
I don’t disagree, exactly…but I think at least a big part of the problem is that there are too many of them getting closer and closer to power who don’t HAVE any practice to be out of.
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
9:39 pm
I gave you a truthful answer at 9:27 regarding where to find what you seek, former GLL. No lie. It’s not my problem if you are unable to identify the person that asked the question for corroboration.
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
9:39 pm
Got some candy azzes on here who lack the balls to identify their targets. How pathetic.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 26th, 2012
9:40 pm
Hmmmm, I seem to remember that threat too Jay……..
barking frog
June 26th, 2012
9:41 pm
Recon
care to identify your targets?
TaxPayer
June 26th, 2012
9:41 pm
For once, the GOP would actually have to govern, and based on previous attempts
Bro made a funny.
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
9:42 pm
Mighty Righty @ 9:06
Your take is different than mine.
As I expect it would be. “I” would expect those who claim to be all about upholding the Constitution to actually do what they claim to do. You, on the other hand, appear to simply be looking for an excuse to justify any member of the GOP not doing what they profess to do. I bet you’re one of those who don’t even hold Isakson responsible for submitting his plan to cut repeal Obamacare, cut government spending, and create private sector jobs. After all, he did say that he had a plan to do those very things back in 2010 when he wanted everybody to vote for him.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXz5ZDrzX-w
As for me, I believe a man’s word is his bond. If he says he’s going to do something, then I expect him to do it. That’s what I respected about GW Bush, and I gave Obama credit for when he got a health care bill passed.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:43 pm
Yeah, well…if you’re going to try to sneak back under a new name it’s not a good idea to know too much about the other posters for someone who is ostensibly new here.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 26th, 2012
9:43 pm
“Meow” whines the internet tiger.
josef
June 26th, 2012
9:43 pm
IMAM
Well, you know how I feel about banning…
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:45 pm
” If he says he’s going to do something, then I expect him to do it.”
Well, yeah…but I’m not very rigid about it. If I hear a politician say he’s going to do something that I know perfectly well is not going to be within his power to do…if elected, then THAT promise I just write off as political hyperbole.
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
9:47 pm
Doggone
My view is that, if everybody held them accountable to what they “promised”, then maybe they would learn to be a bit more honest and realistic about things. However, when we have a population that’s dumbed down and live off of bumper sticker slogans, I doubt my method would really catch on.
josef
June 26th, 2012
9:47 pm
CRIER
Seriously, though. It turns out that the gay Confederates put up quite an appearance. For the life of me I cannot find the citation now (lost in a computer fry) about a unit of, uh, cabaret performers from New Orleans who entertained the troops doing drag shows during lulls in the battle. Even though the invaders didn’t know their other talents, the unit was singled out and remarked on in the reports from the Battle of Jackson as being the “meanest, most vicious” lot they had ever encountered!
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
9:47 pm
“care to identify your target”
I don’t target.
Jay
June 26th, 2012
9:48 pm
If you thought GLL was whining before, you should see him fulminating right now in unpublished comments. Pretty funny.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
9:48 pm
“Well, you know how I feel about banning…”
Not all speech is protected, josef.
Jay
June 26th, 2012
9:49 pm
And if you’re still out there, GLL, I have no idea who you are in real life and have no interest in finding out.
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
9:49 pm
Oops, in my link at 9:42 Isakson didn’t say he would repeal Obamacare. I think that was a different commercial. My appologies for putting words in his mouth.
Brosephus™
June 26th, 2012
9:50 pm
Jay
Free the comments so we can all enjoy the meltdown…
Jay
June 26th, 2012
9:50 pm
Profanity precludes that option, Bro. Take my word for it, it’s entertaining.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 26th, 2012
9:51 pm
Brosephus, it would be nice if politicians would stop making promises up front that everyone knows they cannot keep. Sort of like Day 1 promises by Romney. No politician can pass a single law by themself.
Doggone/GA
June 26th, 2012
9:52 pm
“My view is that, if everybody held them accountable to what they “promised”, then maybe they would learn to be a bit more honest and realistic about things”
Yeah, well…in an ideal world, maybe. Personally, *I* would like to see more reporters with the balls to confront them on those kinds of “promises” and “access” be damned. But I won’t hold my breath on that one.
barking frog
June 26th, 2012
9:52 pm
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
9:39 pm
Got some candy azzes on
here who lack the balls to
identify their targets. How
pathetic.
……..
are not candy azzes unidentified targets ?
Recon 0311 2533
June 26th, 2012
9:53 pm
Wow, we’re sure preoccupied with GLL, whoever that is, while hiding from the real people. I’ve seen the gutless before, so this is not the first time.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 26th, 2012
9:54 pm
Jay, perhaps we can all meet at a Starbucks to see those comments?
Have to watch ourselves in the parking lot. Never know what may be making a foray out there. 