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
Steve
June 26th, 2012
1:50 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.”
WELL SAID
Adam
June 26th, 2012
1:50 pm
Peadawg: Next year, my man. Next year.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:51 pm
Towncrier — “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.”
Given that no one here has expressed such a desire — and you admit to that — then where did the notion come from that that’s something that “a lot of libs” want?
That claim is as uncreditable as saying that the GOP is composed of American Taliban who won’t stop until they have us all occupying pews on Sunday mornings and tithing 10% of our income before taxes to the church. After all, no poster here has *expressed that view,* but you can’t PROVE that no conservative posters here actually think that.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:51 pm
Adam @ 1:43
Very interesting points but :
1) Were they challenged in the courts at that time?
2) Even if they were determined to be Constitutional then, should they be now?
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
1:51 pm
“What do you think they are”
An entity on paper.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
1:51 pm
sfd
Don’t count on it
oh, if I had to bet, I’d be going with yet another 5-4 right wing ruling. I do think, however, if Kennedy decided PPACA was constitutional, that Roberts would go along for posterity’s sake.
Boris Badnoff
June 26th, 2012
1:51 pm
Now that The Peanut Picker has jumped ship
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/06/obamas-newest-critic-jimmy-carter/1#.T-n1m1Jchmo
can Jay Bookman be far behind? Nope. He is the quintessential Bitter Clinger. If Bookman had been on the Titanic, he would have called Room Service and asked for ice.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
1:52 pm
46 million Americans are on food stamps so corporates next move is to end the food stamp program.
Anything that helps Americans is not acceptable to corporate power.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
1:52 pm
getalife:
Not to worry. I’m thinking he will be eventually paroled.
You know ………. no “life without parole” now for juveniles.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
1:55 pm
Granny
Disclosure of what? That part of your post was not very clear.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
1:56 pm
“You know ………. no “life without parole” now for juveniles.”
One thing they got right.
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
June 26th, 2012
1:56 pm
JAY,
Appointing Obama to SCOTUS is ridiculous…as we will see later this week, President Trillions so called constitutional scholar didn’t even remember that two WILLING parties make a contract.
We need Congress to have the balls to push constitutional amendment clarifying that corporations are not citizens….the court only interprets….too bad the corporations will continue to toss money at the group of whores known as congress…
Adam
June 26th, 2012
1:56 pm
JHM: The claim that a “lot of libs” want undocumented immigrants to vote comes from the assertion first that they ARE voting – therefore we NEEEEEED the voter ID laws (more on the REAL reasons here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=EuOT1bRYdK8) – and because a “lot of libs” are against voter ID laws, they must be FOR undocumented immigrants voting! Also they are FOR dead people voting! See how it works?
By the way, in case it was lost, that video proves that Republicans want voter ID laws for reasons other than the ones they have been touting. And, JUST COINCIDENCE, but those reasons are exactly the same as Democrats have portrayed them – It’s about getting Republicans more of an advantage in elections.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
1:56 pm
0311 — “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.”
Here’s where you asked:
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/06/26/a-peek-under-the-robes-of-an-increasingly-partisan-court/?cp=1#comment-992374
I challenged you near the bottom of Page 3.
“2) I also don’t have the time to go back and see if any lib. on here posted such a view.”
In other words, you admit that you made it up. Thank you for your concession.
“3) That said, do you support granting illegals the right to vote in any election: local, state or federal?”
This makes the fifth time I’ve posted this this week. Catch up to the rest of the class, Poindexter.
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/06/15/obama-offers-temporary-reprieve-to-young-illegal-immigrants/?cp=10#comment-984295
If you’d spend more time being and adult and talking to us, and less time being a jackass and making things up, you might actually find that we have a lot of common ground to work from.
Dekalb comments
June 26th, 2012
1:57 pm
Jm-TSPLOST @ 1:01
You are incorrect on liens and levies. Quoting 42 U.S.C. 18081 – Sec 1411 h (3)
(3) LIMITATIONS ON LIENS AND LEVIES.—The Secretary (or,
if applicable, the Attorney General of the United States) shall
not—
(A) file notice of lien with respect to any property of
a person by reason of any failure to pay the penalty imposed
by this subsection; or
(B) levy on any such property with respect to such failure
That means they cannot lien or levy or garnish any wages with respect to the civil penalties in the bill – i.e. cannot actually collect if you refuse pay. Further there are no criminal penalties in the bill with respect to the individual mandate.
Senior Citizen Kane
June 26th, 2012
1:57 pm
“What do you think they are”
An entity on paper.
OK, granny, I’ll go for a law that limits speech by an entity on a piece of paper. I didn’t know an entity on a piece of paper could write or speak.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
1:57 pm
I also think it weakens one’s argument to use language like that.
as do I, of course. If I have even the slightest hope of engaging another poster from the “other side of the aisle” in civilized chat, it’s always either “President Bush” or, usually, “GWB”, just to avoid confusion with GHWB.
Donovan
June 26th, 2012
1:57 pm
Well, there you go again. It seems that the closer we get to taking out the trash in November, the more we hear the rumblings of anti-capitalism rhetoric and corporate greed.
Nice try with the campaign rallying choir speech.
The Supremes hold a narrow conservative edge and you don’t like it. Tough luck. I’m quite sure all you liberals would be happier than pigs in slop if it were the other way around. It is no wonder that liberals desperately try to get their agendas passed using the court system. Otherwise, nothing would be passed using common sense legislation.
Thank God there still remains a majority of conservative thought on the Supreme bench. The American people had to already endure the past nominations of two fruit cakes under Obamination.
It’s really all about liberal marginalization and anti-capitalism, Mr. Bookman. You know and I know it.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
1:58 pm
Scout: 1) Were they challenged in the courts at that time?
2) Even if they were determined to be Constitutional then, should they be now?
1) I do not know. However, the point of course is that the Founding Fathers were perfectly fine with mandating purchase of private goods. At least 3 of them, anyway.
2) I thought we were supposed to adhere to the founding principles of the Constitution. If it does not specifically forbid it, as 3 of the founding fathers clearly thought, then has anything been added to the Constitution that DOES forbid it? I think not.
Stevie Ray..Clowns to the left and Jokers to the right..here I am...
June 26th, 2012
2:00 pm
STEVE,
Obama went with the cash, predictably, for obamacare…the largest hospital operators in the country kicked in billions so they could actually collect the 20-25% of revenues that are uncollectable due to lack of insurance. The insurance companies will shrink in market share if mandate is found unconstitutional (i agree it is unconstitutional) and the balance of the law remains. A crappy bill when taken in the aggregate. The favorable features including pre-existing conditions and cover for up to 26 year olds will not be affordable for insurers if the pool only includes those currently insured..
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
2:01 pm
Jay I agree with you on your opinion of the ruling from the court, but then you have to start your “this has been the Republicans plan all along to stack the court with conseravtive judges and they will…..blah, blah, blah. Of course the Repbulicans try and stack the court with conservative judge just like the Democrats would try and stack it with liberals. This is what is destroying the politacal discourse in this country, too many people are like you, they believe their side is pure good and the other side is pure evil. Isn’t it enough for you to state that you believe the court is wrong. You seem like a very intelligent person, but just like Rush Limbaugh, you see the devil on the other side of your opinion and not a person. One day you may actually have something nice to say about someone from the other side and be critical of someone on your side. Forget the Repubs and Dems, lets everyone vote Libertarian.
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
2:01 pm
“Free Kam.
Free Kam.
Free Kam.”
Kamchak got banned?
1. What for?
2. Thank goodness.
ken
June 26th, 2012
2:01 pm
Donovan, I couldn’t have said it better.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
2:04 pm
Adam — “and because a “lot of libs” are against voter ID laws, they must be FOR undocumented immigrants voting! Also they are FOR dead people voting! See how it works?”
I don’t know if this is *actually* the thought process they’re engaging in, but if it is, it really puts the lie to the notion that conservatives are ‘motivated by logic.’
There are plenty of good reasons to oppose voter ID laws *as they were proposed* in the last few years — but that doesn’t mean that liberals are *categorically opposed* to voter ID laws — just that the ones that conservatives proposed were really, really poorly thought-out.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
2:05 pm
Jm
Not clear or are you also playing possum?
The Disclose Act. H.R. 5175
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:06 pm
“That means they cannot lien or levy or garnish any wages with respect to the civil penalties in the bill – i.e. cannot actually collect if you refuse pay. Further there are no criminal penalties in the bill with respect to the individual mandate.”
Good luck with that when you end up in court over non payment of federal taxes.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
2:06 pm
Pea,
scout was bragging about it so ask him.
kayaker 71
June 26th, 2012
2:06 pm
So, now Bozo and Holder have established a hot line for those who are stopped in Arizona to call the Justice Dept to complain about the way they are being treated, this a result of the one provision that the Supreme Court upheld in the Arizona law. So, now, it appears that Arizona is an open state, anyone can come and go freely without consequences, no police interference…. nothing. And if you are arrested, you can just call old Eric and he’ll make it good. Jan Brewer stated on Greta last night that Bozo had sold Arizona down the river with his imperialist decrees, proclamations and such. The American public is not going to stand for this crap. November, where are you.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
2:08 pm
Senior Citizen Kane
“I didn’t know an entity on a piece of paper could write or speak.”
That’s funny, everybody else did. Just how senior are you?
A corporation cannot write or speak either. A human must do it for it.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
2:08 pm
kay,
Arizona will go bankrupt from lawyer costs.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
2:08 pm
Towncrier
““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.”
Thanks for attempting to answer. What did I want you to say? To respond to the question.
From you answer I gather you are not in favor of the Supreme Court decision or denial of reconsideration.
But what I asked was for those on the Right who supported the Court decision to state why.
So far, none know why they like it, nor are they able to cogently express themselves.
Which is not at all surprising.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
2:08 pm
Pea,
scout was bragging about it so ask him.
Before the bragging, came the crying…
http://blogs.ajc.com/jay-bookman-blog/2012/06/21/romney-dawdles-and-ducks-on-immigration/?cp=all#comment-988987
(and then the banning? I don’t think Jay ever offered a ’splanation (not that he has to.))
kayaker 71
June 26th, 2012
2:09 pm
getalife, 2:08,
That must make you and the other liberals here really happy. How can you live with yourself.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
2:09 pm
JHM: The voter ID laws were well thought out. They were designed to accomplish the goal of requiring ID of specific forms, and pushing voters out of the process who would not have these things or have easy enough access to them. The whole purpose, from the beginning, was to give Republicans an advantage. It’s why they didn’t include student IDs, it’s why they changed DMV office hours and closed some of them, it’s why they fake offered rides to people without transportation, and it’s why this man said this
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
2:09 pm
Adam:
Your point #2
Those three founding fathers were not on the Supreme Court and therefore their opinion is just that ………….. an opinion ………. same as you or I. They may have also thought slavery was Constitutional so by “your” logic ……………………… we should still have it.
We are a nation of law not opinion.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
2:10 pm
Stevie Ray
“Appointing Obama to SCOTUS is ridiculous”
I believe Jay’s point was to nominate Montana Justice Nelson to the Court.
Exhale.
Relax.
Fo-cus.
0311/8541/5811/1811/1801
June 26th, 2012
2:10 pm
O.K. Gone for the afternoon.
Everyone be nice ………… and no name calling.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
2:10 pm
Of course corporations are people.
IMO, sophist nonsense.
They are an artificial entity. They are not a person and they have NO constitutional claim to personhood. In spite of the neocons love for legal fiction. And activist (mainly Republican) judges, who treat the US Constitution as a living, breathing document. have extended other rights – not specified in that sacred document that I just referenced – to these corporation FAR beyond those necessary to ensure that they are held liable for debts.
They were once our servants and served us well.
They are now our masters and they damn near destroyed this nation under during the Reign of Error in September of 2008. And unlike that cowardly idiot, Dick Cheney, men of integrity and vision predicted this exact scenario hundreds of years ago:
I hope we shall crush in its birth the aristocracy of our monied corporations which dare already to challenge our government to a trial by strength, and bid defiance to the laws of our country. ~Thomas Jefferson
And…
The money powers prey upon the nation in times of peace and conspire against it in times of adversity. The banking powers are more despotic than a monarchy, more insolent than autocracy, more selfish than bureaucracy. They denounce as public enemies all who question their methods or throw light upon their crimes. Corporations have been enthroned and an era of corruption in high places will follow, and the money power of the country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the people until all wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed. ~Abraham Lincoln’s biographer
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:11 pm
Kam isn’t banned.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
2:12 pm
Jan Brewer stated on Greta last night that Bozo had sold Arizona down the river with his imperialist decrees, proclamations and such.
hee hee. Got video? I mean, I’d love to hear that screech owl calling the President an “imperialist.”
Adam
June 26th, 2012
2:13 pm
Anyway JHM, it’s perfectly logical, as long as you take an assertion on faith. For instance:
Talk radio asserts dead people are voting. Talk radio also asserts voter ID laws will fix this problem. It also asserts, incorrectly, that you need an ID for just about everything (more on that in a minute). And then it asserts liberals are against the laws. If you hear all that, you can put the pieces together to mean liberals support letting dead people vote. In fact, talk radio often asserts that very thing. And as you can see from the assertions, not much truth exists i them if you cared to look. But people don’t look up their news anymore, they have it spoon fed, usually from sources that tell them what they think they want to hear.
Dekalb comments
June 26th, 2012
2:13 pm
Jm-TSPLOST @ 2:06
As an attorney, I am fully confident there will be no issue when dealing with the IRS. I have worked with them for years. If you have facts and relevant law in order I have had no issues in representing my clients.
Actually in reading some of the Congressional record when this provision was being discussed, there was concern raised by some that this could result in draconian enforcement action by the IRS. By way of compromise the enforcement mechanism was essentially gutted. I’m not saying you won’t still be legally liable for the penalty but they cannot take any of your property, place a lien on it, garnish your wages in order to satisfy the amount owed. Further they cannot incarcerate you.
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
2:13 pm
“Kam isn’t banned.”
Damn…too good to be true.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
2:14 pm
Scout: Those three founding fathers were not on the Supreme Court and therefore their opinion is just that ………….. an opinion
What the hell kind of logical backflips and cognitive dissonance rattles around in your head to come up with the people who WROTE THE CONSTITUTION “just have an opinion.”
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
2:14 pm
Kam isn’t banned.
eh, you’re no fun at all, Jay. Couldn’t you just play along for awhile?
getalife
June 26th, 2012
2:15 pm
Where is Kam?
kay,
It was self inflicted so I have no pity for that.
Paul
June 26th, 2012
2:15 pm
kayaker 71
“So, now Bozo and Holder have established a hot line…to call the Justice Dept to complain about the way they are being treated… The American public is not going to stand for this crap. November, where are you.”
So do I take it that during your 31 years in the military, when you attended staff meetings as an O-6, that you voiced the opinion that the Commander’s Hot Line, the Office of the Inspector General and other such entities where people could send in concerns of possible illegal activity, were a bunch of crap and should be abolished?
kayaker 71
June 26th, 2012
2:18 pm
Bookman,
I have avoided the word “hack” for a long time now as regards to you. The word is demeaning and cruel and depicts a person with blind loyalty to a cause which all common sense tells you to avoid. How can a person of your supposed intelligence and knowledge continue to defend what this president does and says? You cannot possibly ignore all of this and still maintain credibility. I have blogged on this site for close to four years now and have yet to see you with a distaff opinion for any liberal cause, no matter how insane it might be. I will continue to avoid the word “hack” to describe you……. for awhile longer, that is.
Keep Up the Good Fight!
June 26th, 2012
2:20 pm
I think I saw Kam early today at a Starbucks….. wait, maybe it was the Whole Foods.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
2:21 pm
stands, LOL.
Watching pea pee all over himself at that prospect was kinda humorous…
kayaker 71
June 26th, 2012
2:21 pm
Paul, 2:15,
Apples and Oranges.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
2:22 pm
How can a person of your supposed intelligence and knowledge continue to defend what this president does and says
You answered your own question – because he is intelligent and has knowledge. I would suggest to you that perhaps those who peddle the nonsense that defending what Obama says and does (sometimes, not all the time, mind you – Jay has criticized him as well) is somehow stupid are the ones who should look more closely at just how willfully ignorant, partisan, and feverish they are being.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
2:23 pm
Kayaker 71
Jay seems like a good guy and smart enough, he has just been sucked into the current of todays politics. Put your blinders on and support your team, regardless. The conservatives has the same blinders with the last president.
Adam
June 26th, 2012
2:23 pm
Keep Up. Yeah, he was in an Escalade. I’m not sure what year though, since there’s been no recognizable change to the body style since their 2002 model year…. so I don’t know if it’s new or used. But it was washed and well taken care of, so it MUST have been new….
kayaker 71
June 26th, 2012
2:24 pm
Outta here. This is just too much.
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:24 pm
Your continued restraint is noted, kayaker.
stands for decibels
June 26th, 2012
2:24 pm
Watching pea pee all over himself at that prospect was kinda humorous…
that didn’t bother me, actually. I’ve expressed somewhat similar happiness when an especially irksome regular has gone beyond-the-beyond and gotten himself red-carded.
Figured PD was entitled to do the same, without the same “why do you hate free speech? why do you support Bookman’s censorship?” nonsense.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:24 pm
Granny 2:05
I don’t know anything about the disclose act
I am generally in favor of transparency as long as nothing violates proprietary business secrets
Paul
June 26th, 2012
2:25 pm
kayaker 71
“Paul, 2:15,
Apples and Oranges.”
Why? There’s this word known as “because” that people use to join a phrase with reasons supporting the phrase.
Both are set up to allow people to report illegal actions of those in a position of authority.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
2:26 pm
Adam
I would love to see the blog where Jay disagreed with one of the Presidents opinions, policys, or beliefs. I have seen where he disagrees with HOW the President is going about thing, but NEVER, EVER about one of his policys.
Senior Citizen Kane
June 26th, 2012
2:26 pm
‘A corporation cannot write or speak either. A human must do it for it.’
Exactly my point to begin with. Thank you .
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
2:27 pm
Jam and SfD
If he had on depends he could have kept on going. Since he didn’t the will be back after a brief intermission.
Mr_B
June 26th, 2012
2:28 pm
” 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.”
The difference is that nudity, flag-burning, arm band wearing, and other forms of “symbolic” speech convey a message in and of themselves, that is they speak to us about a specific topic on some level.
Money has no independent “meaning.” Other than the expression “Money talks.”
Skip
June 26th, 2012
2:28 pm
Scout must be cleaning his guns.
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
2:28 pm
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
2:26 pm
Kyle’s blog is that way >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Jay’s a Democrat. It’s not in his blood to disagree w/ Obama’s policies.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:29 pm
Peadawg 2:13
ditto
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
2:29 pm
“he will……….”
Paul
June 26th, 2012
2:30 pm
Jay
Off comment.
Texas recently had a ’stand your ground’ trial. Middle-aged retired firefighter was known for telling people how he could shoot someone and get away with it if he cited Texas’ ’stand your ground’ law. Neighbor was having a birthday party for his daughter. The antagonist
“In a 22-minute video he recorded that night, Rodriguez can be heard telling a police dispatcher “my life is in danger now” and “these people are going to go try and kill me.” He then said, “I’m standing my ground here,” and shot Danaher after somebody appeared to grab his camera. The two other men were wounded.”
Jury deliberations took only a few hours. He was found guilty and will be sentenced any day now.
The victim paid a terrible price for this person asserting he knew what the law really said and what it allowed him to do.
http://www.star-telegram.com/2012/06/14/4033487/texas-man-in-stand-your-ground.html#storylink=misearch
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:31 pm
I’d disagree with Obama more often if the Republicans offered me a sane alternative.
mm
June 26th, 2012
2:31 pm
“Of course corporations are people.”
I’ve never seen one in the military.
I’ve never seen one arrested.
I’ve never seen one run for office.
I’ve never seen one at the drive thru.
I could do this all day.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
2:32 pm
K71 — “Bookman, I have avoided the word “hack” for a long time now as regards to you.”
I’m sure Jay returns the favor only too gladly.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
2:33 pm
Peadawg
I really don’t read Kyle’s blog that much, don’t know why, maybe because he doesn’t answer the statements made as much as Jay does. Everyone is so set in their opinions and beliefs that their is no more sitting down and reaching middle ground, such as Reagan and Tip O’Neaill sitting down and hashing out aggreements.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
2:33 pm
Skip — “Scout must be cleaning his guns.”
Is that what the kids are calling it these days?
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:33 pm
“I’d disagree with Obama more often if the Republicans offered me a sane alternative.”
Sorry, I don’t see republicans running to the left of Obama. He’s already tiptoeing to stay in bounds on that side of the field already.
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
2:34 pm
Kayaker
You feeling ok today? I know you just didn’t call out someone for “blind loyalty”, did you?
Senior Citizen Kane
June 26th, 2012
2:34 pm
mm
June 26th, 2012
2:31 pm
“Of course corporations are people.”
I’ve never seen one in the military.
I’ve never seen one arrested.
I’ve never seen one run for office.
I’ve never seen one at the drive thru.
I could do this all day.
But you’ve seen people who work for them do all of the above. I love how you people keep making my point for me.
mm
June 26th, 2012
2:34 pm
“Outta here. This is just too much.”
Yes, you should go to a con blog where everyone lives in your fantasy land.
mm
June 26th, 2012
2:35 pm
“But you’ve seen people who work for them do all of the above. I love how you people keep making my point for me.”
Wow, what a stretch. Did your nose hit the screen when you typed that?
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:36 pm
That’s a sad story, Paul. I bet a number of people have made similar calculations about the law but did so more quietly and got away with it.
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 26th, 2012
2:37 pm
Jay @ 1431:
I agree with that and the Shape Shifter is no sane alternative…
getalife
June 26th, 2012
2:37 pm
Money is not free speech and corporations are not people.
Just con sc activism.
mdouglasman
June 26th, 2012
2:37 pm
Another worthless bit of blather. Corporations are owned by the shareholders and the owners elect the directors,,,,,,seems just like a union, doesn’t it…and who do the union bosses contribute their members money to???? Geez…grow up.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:38 pm
“I’ve never seen one in the military.
I’ve never seen one arrested.”
Never heard of hallivurton, northrop grumman, blackwater, raytheon? I could do this all day.
Never heard of worldcom, Arthur Andersen, enron? I could do this all day….
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
2:39 pm
Be honest Jay you would never find any of their opinions sane, they are the DEVIL. So I guess all the Republicans in Washington are horrible, stupid people that have never had a good idea. I disagree with alot of the ideas of President Obama, but I believe that he thinks they are the best way to go about things and do right for the country. I repect him for that. Just you saying that the Republicans do not have SANE alternatives, shows that you have no respect for them, implying that all of their ideas are insane. It took 2 political parties to get this country in this mess, not just one.
getalife
June 26th, 2012
2:39 pm
Chuck,
kyle responded to me with name calling.
He does not respond to cons in his echo chamber.
Joe Hussein Mama
June 26th, 2012
2:39 pm
S. C. Kane — “But you’ve seen people who work for them do all of the above.”
Irrelevant. A group is not afforded some sort of ‘associate personhood status’ simply by dint of being made up of humans. The membership of an organization do not somehow transfer their status as persons to their employer or to any organizations to which they belong.
Are you seriously claiming that personhood somehow ‘rubs off’ on one’s employer?
“I love how you people keep making my point for me.”
Far from it; in fact, I don’t think you actually *have* a point.
Granny Godzilla - Union Thugette
June 26th, 2012
2:39 pm
Senior Citizen Kane
Making your point for you?
Nope.
Not even close.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
2:41 pm
He’s already tiptoeing to stay in bounds on that side of the field already.
What a load of cow patties.
Repudiated with the facts many times on this forum alone.
And as your brilliant colleague, Mr Sinkwich once wrote, your argument would be stronger if you were more specific.
LOL.
Like that is ever gonna happen!
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:42 pm
Seriously, I know for a fact that I disagreed with Clinton more often than I disagree with Obama. And I do wonder why. I think the main reason is that on so many issues — everything from taxes to foreign policy to the environment to gay rights — there is no sane alternative to what Obama proposes.
In that sense, the Republicans have made it very easy for him.
mm
June 26th, 2012
2:42 pm
“Never heard of hallivurton, northrop grumman, blackwater, raytheon? I could do this all day.”
Sorry, they dont serve in the military. They just rip it off.
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:42 pm
If the government wants to stop taxing and stop regulating corporations, I’d say: fine, no lobbying and no political involvement
But that would be stupid and only a sane solution to lala liberals
You can’t have your cake and eat it too libs
Corporations have rights, or they don’t. But if they don’t, then you can’t regulate or tax them either.
Which is it libs?
getalife
June 26th, 2012
2:43 pm
jm,
You are talking about the mic. They don’t put on the uniform and fight.
corporations are not arrested.
You live in corporate utopia la la land.
Jay
June 26th, 2012
2:45 pm
Chuck, what’s your strongest area of agreement with GOP policy? Be specific if you can.
JamVet
June 26th, 2012
2:45 pm
seems just like a union
Yep.
And as you corporatist Republicans have been a forty year union-busting binge, I’m going on a forty year corporation-busting binge…
All that you have succeeded in doing was enabling the men who have driven wages in this country down into the dumps.
To the point where a HUGE percentage of working people in this country now make less money (adjusted for inflation) than they did when Carter was president.
You’ve done a heckuva job, connies.
Might as well try a different approach, huh?
Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!
June 26th, 2012
2:46 pm
jm@1442,
http://lolcats.icanhascheezburger.com/2012/04/13/funny-cat-pictures-whuuuuuuuuuuuuutttttttt/
Jm-pass TSPLOST silly people
June 26th, 2012
2:46 pm
” I know for a fact that I disagreed with Clinton more often than I disagree with Obama”
Because Clinton was right of Obama
And you are left of Obama…. (logical conclusion)
They BOTH suck
June 26th, 2012
2:46 pm
Jam @ 2:41
I guess he is talking about extending the tax cuts, increasing the deportations of illegals, increasing drone attacks, etc, etc, uh?
mdouglasman
June 26th, 2012
2:47 pm
Jay, let me answer for Chuck…..small goverment..get the hell out of the private sectors lives…..big gov has never worked in the history of mankind
Peadawg
June 26th, 2012
2:47 pm
” I know for a fact that I disagreed with Clinton more often than I disagree with Obama”
Clinton was a lot more moderate.
Chuck
June 26th, 2012
2:47 pm
You are right Jay you are VERY open minded. I agree with you on gay rights, everyone should be treated the same, but complex issues like taxes, foreign policy, and environment you truely believe that their is only one solution and that is President Obama’s. I hope that you are kidding or maybe I have giving you too much credit as intelligent person. At least people can see with that statement why Washington D.C. is at a stand still and nothing get solved, because everyone feels that their way is the only way.