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
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 26th, 2012
1:12 pm
josef
June 26th, 2012
1:06 pm
Are you saying Jay keeps the streets clean???
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:12 pm
0311 — “Got you goat !!”
I have no goat. And you have no character.
Madmax
June 26th, 2012
1:13 pm
Jay – I agree it is partisan but let’s “be honest about this” and share the blame on this one? Which party instituted litmus tests on abortion as part of their hearings on candidates? Which party held that Robert Bork was unfit because he experimented with marijuana (hint the same party that put Bill (I didn’t unhale) and Barack ( a more honest user/abuser) in the oval office. Have the Democrats put any constitutional experts on the court? What were the exceptional characteristics of Obama’s appointments other than political?
Erwin's cat
June 26th, 2012
1:13 pm
USinUK – Erwin’s Cat PAC….I like the sound of that
…but it would likely be an army of 1
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:13 pm
USinUK – pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout :
If you don’t understand the difference between “personal name calling” and “opinion” then I can’t help you.
P.S.
I don’t think Kamchack did either.
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
1:13 pm
“If this blog was populated with dozens of ignorant cons, you’d hear me giving the the boot too”
jm – it is. on a daily basis. and all we see is you being their lickspittle.
in the meantime, I give you evidence to refute your assertion that the Obama and Mittens plans were different and you go into radio silence. .. not that I’m surprised.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:14 pm
Madmax:
“What were the exceptional characteristics of Obama’s appointments other than political?”
EXCELLENT POINT !
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:15 pm
RB — “JHM, are you prepared to apply that same logic to the conservatives you disagree with?”
I do it every day. However, I *rarely,* if ever, see ANY of you say that you’re expressing an OPINION.
Your ideological compatriots toss out the vilest of insults and slurs, and when you’re ever called on it — HEY THAT WAS JUST MY OPINION.
If that’s the case, then show some character and say it ahead of time, to wit: “in my opinion, liberals are completely out to lunch on this issue.”
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:15 pm
Joe Hussein Mama:
Sorry, but I’ve been told I am “quite a character” !!!
USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout
June 26th, 2012
1:15 pm
“If you don’t understand the difference between “personal name calling” and “opinion” then I can’t help you.”
and it’s my opinion that you’re an effing wanker because despicable slime treatment of a man of valor
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 26th, 2012
1:15 pm
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:07 pm
…and we will proudly salute the Corporate logos and Stripes as it passes…
Common Sense
June 26th, 2012
1:15 pm
One blog and you want the states to have no rights(Arizona), and then later you do(Montana).
At least be consistent.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
1:16 pm
“Do any on the Right here support the Court’s initial decision, disagree with the Montana court and agree with the Court’s decision to refuse reconsideration?”
What do you want me to say? Logically, if nudity can be a form of protected speech then I suppose money can be as well. I don’t think either are (as speech is just speech), to be candid, but it sure is interesting to see liberals get all riled up about the latter but not the former. A little consistency would help your complaint, I feel.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:16 pm
HEAR YE, HEAR YE, HEAR YE ………………. LET IT BE KNOWN HENCEFORTH AND FOREVERMORE:
“in my opinion, liberals are completely out to lunch on EVERY issue.”
Erwin's cat
June 26th, 2012
1:17 pm
JHM – “Bribes aren’t protected speech.”
they shouldn’t be, but unfortunately they are
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:17 pm
0311 — “Sorry, but I’ve been told I am “quite a character” !!!”
Indeed.
BTW, I’m still waiting for you to produce a liberal regular here who has expressed a desire for illegal immigrants to be afforded the right to vote, as you claimed earlier in this thread. How are you coming with that?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:17 pm
Towncrier:
LOL !
josef
June 26th, 2012
1:18 pm
NORMAL
Maybe we ought to start calling him Al Shariff Imam Bruin Torquemada the Street Sweeper…
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
1:18 pm
Is this compassionate liberalism again wishing death on those they disagree with?
naw, if you want that, I can be a good deal more colorful and explicit.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:18 pm
USinUK – pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout :
That’s a little better.
You are improving.
Maybe there is hope.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:18 pm
0311 — “in my opinion, liberals are completely out to lunch on EVERY issue.”
Thanks for fessing up to what we all knew to be true, Congressman.
MoreRightthanLeft
June 26th, 2012
1:19 pm
tired,
carter was horrific,i guess its better to run around the golf course joking about hope and change
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 26th, 2012
1:19 pm
“Sorry, but I’ve been told I am “quite a character” !!!”
No, I heard you called “Dick”, though Is your first name Limp?
Sorry Scout, I just. Could. Not. Help. It. Sorry…
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
1:19 pm
“The Democratic appointees, however, vote lock-step down the progressive party line.”
It is curious that while a number of former liberals have become conservative in the public domain, I can’t think of a single SC justice that has (though the opposite is true).
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:19 pm
Erwin — “they shouldn’t be, but unfortunately they are”
I’m pretty sure that bribery is pretty much always a state or Federal felony, depending on the circumstances.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:20 pm
If I only had time to go back and post some of the vitriolic diatribes you peaceful, caring, compassionate, freedom loving, libs. posted about Bush ………………………..
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:20 pm
Normal and why the Corporatist Republicans are absolutely terrified of Elizabeth Warren.
That one woman has more courage to stand up against a corproate owned government and for we the people than the entire GOP leadership put together…
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:21 pm
Normal Free…Pro Human Rights Thug…And liking it! :
No ………… it was “dick”.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
1:21 pm
“BTW, I’m still waiting for you to produce a liberal regular here who has expressed a desire for illegal immigrants to be afforded the right to vote, as you claimed earlier in this thread.”
In truth, JHM, I am not sure that is something one would publicly admit. But I would be surprised if not at least a few Democratic politicians felt such a desire.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
1:21 pm
Usinuk
Apparently you didn’t see my dialogue with dekalb
Who disappeared, after I cited three significant differences
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:21 pm
JamVet:
Can anyone say “the Governor of Wisconsin !”
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:22 pm
carter was horrific
Puerile claptrap.
And I’m relatively certain that you could not make a compelling case that would persuade a room of fifth graders, much less this forum.
And I gather you voted for George?
Twice?
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:23 pm
What are you mumbling about, corporal?
Elizabeth Warren is relevant to NJ and the US Senate, not Wisconsin.
Concentrate, son!
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:23 pm
Towncrier:
“Mayor John DeStefano Jr. is pushing to give voting rights to illegal immigrants.
While speaking to the New Haven Independent following a Tuesday press conference, DeStefano said he plans to push the state for a “resident voting rights” law that would allow all New Haven residents, regardless of immigration status, to vote in municipal elections. DeStefano said he would raise the issue during next year’s session of the state legislature, which would need to approve the proposal.”
http://www.yaledailynews.com/news/2011/dec/17/destefano-pushes-voting-rights-illegal-immigrants/
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:24 pm
JamVet:
Just reminding you that you already got beat down on that in Wisconsin ……………..
getalife
June 26th, 2012
1:25 pm
All cons should have corporate tattoos on their foreheads to show their support corporate.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:27 pm
Joe Hussein Mama:
“BTW, I’m still waiting for you to produce a liberal regular here who has expressed a desire for illegal immigrants to be afforded the right to vote, as you claimed earlier in this thread. How are you coming with that?”
You’re confused again. I wasn’t the one who posted that.
However ………… see my 1:23 post.
Erwin's cat
June 26th, 2012
1:27 pm
JHM – i totally agree with you…unfortunately the Supremes feel differently, and at the moment, that is all that counts…it’s like racing, you don’t have to like the rules, you just need to understand them enough to use them to your advantage….
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:27 pm
You make no sense at all, corporal.
I’ve been writing about the our corporate owned government – the one that you adore.
And you are off running down one of your rabbit holes and mumbling something about Wisconsin…
Steve
June 26th, 2012
1:27 pm
Since Obama is going to win, it gives me hope that the SCOTUS won’t go any more to the right these next four years.
Since Obama is going to win, is that why you conservative are all hysterical right now?
Georgia on my mind...
June 26th, 2012
1:28 pm
Dems call for Clarence Thomas ethics probe
Dozens of House Democrats are calling for an investigation into potential conflict-of-interest issues involving Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.
As the Supreme Court begins its fall session, Rep. Earl Blumenauer (D-Ore.), Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.) and some of their colleagues are asking the House Judiciary Committee to hold hearings on alleged ethical violations and raising questions on whether the justice can be impartial.
Among their charges against Thomas: that the justice failed to report at least $1.6 million that his wife, Ginni, had earned since 1997; that he might have failed to report gifts from rich supporters; and that he inappropriately solicited donations for favored non-profits, according to their letter sent to Judiciary Chairman Lamar Smith (R-Texas) and ranking member John Conyers (D-Mich.).
“The Supreme Court’s greatest assets are its integrity and the public trust,” Blumenauer said in a statement. “Yet for months now, concerns have been building about the unwillingness or the inability of the Supreme Court to address allegations of potential ethics violations by Justice Clarence Thomas.”
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1011/65275.html#ixzz1yvAuQ3oL
Madmax
June 26th, 2012
1:29 pm
“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.”
Interesting that he uses the word soulless yet the SC has held that an unborn child is also soulless and many on this blog have supported that proposition. How can you use the word soul as an arguement, if there is no God and if an unborn child is is considered nothing but a mass of tissue? Many here have demanded and ranted about separation yet this judge uses the word soul to base his arguement and Jay supports him.
MoreRightthanLeft
June 26th, 2012
1:29 pm
Facts are a stubborn thing
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
1:29 pm
“Mayor John DeStefano Jr. is pushing to give voting rights to illegal immigrants.”
Thanks for that link, Scout. Now why would a Democratic politician (who must everyone here agrees is now someone more interested in self and power than our nation) want to allow illegal immigrants to vote (when they clearly do not have that right Constitutionally)? Hmm? Anybody?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:29 pm
“All cons should have corporate tattoos on their foreheads to show their support corporate.”
Has anyone noticed that getalife might be dyslexic ?
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
1:29 pm
Couple of things….
The SCOTUS ruling yesterday on unions and the need for an opt out..
Should we not also require the same opt out for shareholders?
AND
disclosure.
disclosure.
disclosure.
disclosure.
Why is corporate America afraid to say what causes they support?
Why are they fighting disclosure?
What are they ashamed of?
Middle of the Road
June 26th, 2012
1:30 pm
I cannot more loudly express my disdain and unhappiness over Citizens United. That said, I will concede that SCOTUS ruled correctly in Montana; in this case I can’t see how the state law trumps Federal law. Sadly the long-standing state law had become obsolete.
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
1:30 pm
“Since Obama is going to win, is that why you conservative are all hysterical right now?”
I didn’t know Jay was a conservative.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:31 pm
Facts are a stubborn thing.
Only when you have the brains to actually use them…
Otherwise, just sloganeering about them is as useless as t*ts on a hog…
GT
June 26th, 2012
1:31 pm
There are times in an organization where the name of the organization and the activity separate their purpose and misinterpretation. Conservatives have reach that end. Christian right have also reach that end. Conservatives or their shell have sold out to money. They feel their principal are not strong enough to attract the majority. They no long trust the decision of this country in the hands of common people. They have become progressive in their interpretation of even human beings to suit their purpose. They define a fetus as a human, then they define a soulless corporation as the same. The value of life they call it.
They pretty well redefined the definition of Christianity along the way too. Divorce doesn’t bother them, but gays do,gambling is their main support to stay in a race they don’t belong, not descent people but thugs. This money that elects them, then picks the justice that decide on the laws the money bought lawmakers makes. The devil has bought Christianity, then the whole house. He preaches in the pulpit, on television and the radio. He covers his lies in the verses of the Bible.
WrteStufLA
June 26th, 2012
1:32 pm
Check out Justice James C. Nelson’s Wikipedia page — the guy’s reasoning shows a lot of wisdom in a lot of areas.
Steve
June 26th, 2012
1:32 pm
I don’t see Jay as hysterical at all, Peedawg.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
1:32 pm
In other news, George Washington forced Americans to buy guns and John Adams forced privately employed sailors to buy health insurance.
What’s next, brocolli?
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:33 pm
Middle of the Road,
I absolutely concur.
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
1:34 pm
“I don’t see Jay as hysterical at all, Peedawg.”
Of course you don’t.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:34 pm
0311 — “If I only had time to go back and post some of the vitriolic diatribes you peaceful, caring, compassionate, freedom loving, libs. posted about Bush”
If you actually paid attention to the things I post, you would have long since recognize that I *always* refer to sitting and past Presidents — regardless of party — as “President,” “President (name),” “The President” or “(name).” I don’t make up and use cutesy names for lawmakers I don’t agree with, because I’m a better person than that.
Georgia on my mind...
June 26th, 2012
1:35 pm
GT
June 26th, 2012
1:31 pm
Well said and best post of the day!!
mm
June 26th, 2012
1:35 pm
Based on Scalia’s diatribe Monday, I think he may have let the cat out of the bag. Maybe he’s upset because he’s going to be on the minority opinion side Thursday.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:35 pm
JamVet:
Weren’t you one of those on here predicting the evil corporate interests in Wisonsin who be volted down by the union loving people of Wisconsin?
Well …………. just maybe you’re wrong about New Jersey also.
THAT’s the connection ……………..
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:36 pm
Towncrier — “In truth, JHM, I am not sure that is something one would publicly admit.”
0311 made his assertion; now let’s see him support it.
“But I would be surprised if not at least a few Democratic politicians felt such a desire.”
Be careful with that sort of rhetoric, sir. It cuts both ways.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:37 pm
“because I’m a better person than that.”
Self serving statement not to be taken literally.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
1:38 pm
The people lost the class war so suffer the consequences.
citizen united is here to stay.
A dark period in American history is coming .
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
1:38 pm
But I would be surprised if not at least a few Democratic politicians felt such a desire.
But, that’s not even close to what JHM was asking. He wanted 0311 to produce a single, solitary, self-IDing liberal who posts here, who advocated the voting enfranchisement of undocumented aliens.
Given that it seems to be an article of faith among some conservatives that this is the plan to somehow decriminalize what is now a felony, you’d think there’d be *some* lefties who’d be embracing it.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
1:38 pm
“In other news, George Washington forced Americans to buy guns and John Adams forced privately employed sailors to buy health insurance.”
And Thomas Jefferson approved the establishment of strip clubs, Alexander Hamilton approved of legislation to allow the abortion of any unborn child if its birth should seem an inconvenience and Benjamin Franklin advocated for same sex marriage.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:38 pm
@ 1:35
Excuse me: “voted”
getalife
June 26th, 2012
1:39 pm
What happened to Kam scout?
Adam
June 26th, 2012
1:39 pm
By the way, I filled my tank for $38 this week. I blame Obama.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
1:39 pm
Corporal, you rabbit holes have labyrinths?
Awesome!
But why would I care what demented track you take down there?
If you want to talk to yourself about Wisconsin until you lil pea picking heart is overjoyed, go for it.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:40 pm
0311 — “You’re confused again. I wasn’t the one who posted that.”
No, you’re the confused one here. Look back on Page 1 of this thread.
“Why not? A lot of libs. want illegals to vote !”
I then challenged you to present a single regular poster here who had ever expressed such a view. And I’m still waiting.
“However ………… see my 1:23 post.”
And he’s not a regular here, now is he? That’s two memory STRIKES for you in a single post, Champ. Want to go for three?
You really are making this too easy.
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
1:40 pm
“By the way, I filled my tank for $38 this week. ”
Get a more efficient car.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:41 pm
Well, the SCOTUS has ruled twice now on this corporate thing.
According to you libs. that’s “settled law” so let’s move on ……………… unless you want to entertain a Constitutional Amendment.
Go for it.
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
1:41 pm
“Be careful with that sort of rhetoric, sir. It cuts both ways.”
Why? It is my honest opinion, judging from human nature. Anyone is capable of almost anything, Democrat or Republican. I feel no need to defend members of my party if they are out of line.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
1:42 pm
Maybe he’s upset because he’s going to be on the minority opinion side Thursday.
yeah…I was kinda thinking the same thing about Alito.
Not that I’ll jump for joy if it does go 6-3 for the ACA’s constitutionality. we’ve got a lonnnng way to go before that sucker’s actually implemented, and (as longtime listeners know) I’d vastly prefer a single-payer Medicare-for-all solution anyway.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:42 pm
0311 — “Self serving statement not to be taken literally.”
No, it’s quite accurate and literal. And if you think you can refute it, then have at it.
But you will fail.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:42 pm
getalife:
You’ll have to ask Jay.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
1:42 pm
Corporal, you rabbit hole
name-caller. I’m telling Teach.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:43 pm
SFD — “But, that’s not even close to what JHM was asking. He wanted 0311 to produce a single, solitary, self-IDing liberal who posts here, who advocated the voting enfranchisement of undocumented aliens.”
“Given that it seems to be an article of faith among some conservatives that this is the plan to somehow decriminalize what is now a felony, you’d think there’d be *some* lefties who’d be embracing it.”
Exactly this. Well distilled, sir.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
1:43 pm
Granny G 1:29 – yes
Though it is worth noting that many corporate PACs are funded by business employees, not the corporations themselves
In addition, corporations shouldn’t make charitable donations period without the approval of shareholders
Berkshire Hathaway has something similar to this
Adam
June 26th, 2012
1:43 pm
Towncrier: “In other news, George Washington forced Americans to buy guns and John Adams forced privately employed sailors to buy health insurance.”
And Thomas Jefferson approved the establishment of strip clubs, Alexander Hamilton approved of legislation to allow the abortion of any unborn child if its birth should seem an inconvenience and Benjamin Franklin advocated for same sex marriage.
OR, what I said actually happened, and what you said didn’t:
George Washington in 1792 forced all men eligible for militia service to purchase firearms and ammunition, according to the Second Militia Act of 1792.
John Adams forced purchase of health insurance in 1798, see here from that bastion of Communism, Forbes: http://www.forbes.com/sites/rickungar/2011/01/17/congress-passes-socialized-medicine-and-mandates-health-insurance-in-1798/
And one that I forgot to mention, Thomas Jefferson forced people to buy into a public health insurance system.
East Cobb RINO, Inc (LLC)
June 26th, 2012
1:43 pm
Enough for today. I will STFU now. Might come back Thursday if there is anything interesting that day.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
1:44 pm
Granny g- yes (on your first point)
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
1:44 pm
I don’t make up and use cutesy names for lawmakers I don’t agree with, because I’m a better person than that.
I wish I could say the same, but “Chimpy McWarHard-On” just begs to be typed.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:45 pm
Towncrier — “Why? It is my honest opinion, judging from human nature. Anyone is capable of almost anything, Democrat or Republican. I feel no need to defend members of my party if they are out of line.”
Fair enough; we seem to be of one mind on that, even though we’re on opposite political teams.
I can’t count how many times here someone has thrust Bill Clinton’s behavior at me as a defense for some sort of Republican wrongdoing, at which point I have to remind that person that I never *voted* for Bill Clinton (either time).
Jefferson
June 26th, 2012
1:45 pm
Right, wrong not to be confused with law.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
1:45 pm
scout,
Did you get him banned?
DawgDad
June 26th, 2012
1:46 pm
“Let’s be honest about this”
Okay, Jay. When do we start?
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
1:46 pm
Mm 1:35 and sfd
Don’t count on it
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
1:46 pm
“But, that’s not even close to what JHM was asking. He wanted 0311 to produce a single, solitary, self-IDing liberal who posts here, who advocated the voting enfranchisement of undocumented aliens.”
Since you quoted from my post, go back and read it to see how I addressed his challenge.
“Given that it seems to be an article of faith among some conservatives that this is the plan to somehow decriminalize what is now a felony, you’d think there’d be *some* lefties who’d be embracing it.”
Again, if someone here truly wouldn’t object to illegal immigrants voting, I don’t think they’d admit it here – they’d get it from the right and the left. That is like admitting you enjoy raping people. So the challenge doesn’t PROVE that no one here has such a desire, only that no one has expressed it.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
1:47 pm
Jm
Do you have an issue with requiring disclosure?
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:47 pm
Joe Hussein Mama:
1) I go back and forth with a lot of you libs. on here so I will give you the benefit of the doubt on your post.
2) I also don’t have the time to go back and see if any lib. on here posted such a view.
3) That said, do you support granting illegals the right to vote in any election: local, state or federal?
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 26th, 2012
1:47 pm
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:24 pm
Scout,
Walker was neutered when he lost control of the State Houses. He won’t be able to do much more damage. And the Unions will return one day. What goes around, comes around.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:47 pm
SfD — “I wish I could say the same, but “Chimpy McWarHard-On” just begs to be typed.”
Hey, that’s on you. I don’t do it, I don’t recommend or encourage it, and I wish people would stop doing it, but there’s not much I can do about it.
That said, I think you know I pretty much share your opinion of President Bush, but I also think it weakens one’s argument to use language like that. IMO, serious people with serious points to make will do so in a serious manner. If they want to be taken seriously, of course.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:48 pm
getalife:
If he’s banned, he got himself banned for personal name calling.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
1:48 pm
Dawgdad
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:48 pm
Normal Free…Pro Human Rights Thug…And liking it! :
Time will tell ………… time will tell.
Uncle Billy
June 26th, 2012
1:49 pm
An old friend once suggested that at every Congressional hearing there should be a person on the edge whose job it would be to stand up twice an hour and yell “AWWWW HORSEMANURE!!!!!!
This he claimed would make the members very nervous since they would not want to be speaking at the particular time this happened.
Were this procedure applied to the Supreme Court all decisions would be issued in writing. I agreed with him, always.
mm
June 26th, 2012
1:49 pm
“I’d vastly prefer a single-payer Medicare-for-all solution anyway.”
I agree. Unfortunately, when Obama actually trusted the cons to work with him, he took that out of the negotiations. Thankfully, it looks like after 4 years of this Lucy and the football crap, Obama has finally learned his lesson.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
1:49 pm
Free Kam.
Free Kam.
Free Kam.
Senior Citizen Kane
June 26th, 2012
1:50 pm
Of course corporations are people. What do you think they are, objects like a fence post? Is Cox Enterprises the printing press and the television camera or the people who write for the papers and broadcast the news? And if we put limits on corporate spending for political ads, shouldn’t we put limits on newspaper columnists and bloggers who work for a corporation? Maybe the government should limit Jay to one blog a week. After all, the average Joe doesn’t have access to the wide reach of ajc.com
Towncrier
June 26th, 2012
1:50 pm
“OR, what I said actually happened, and what you said didn’t…”
Interesting stuff, Adam. I will look at it later as I have to duck out.