The Courts under Trump - Mega Thread

[Guy Chamberlin]

7 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

How much money you can spend is not a limit on speech but on spending. And corporations aren't a "someone".

 

I think the chilling comment from Mitt Romney was "corporations are people, my friend"

 

They're not. 

[Ric Flair]

5 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

I think the chilling comment from Mitt Romney was "corporations are people, my friend"

 

They're not. 

 

Under the law, they really are. 

[knapplc]

 

[knapplc]

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Newt Gingrich can f#&% right off.

[Danny Bateman]

Please kick these people out of the government. They are rotting it from the inside out.

 

is suc

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I don't intend this to be crass or harsh, but just a blunt reality.

 

This country will be better off when some/most of the 65-70+ legislators aren't around.

 

They are the f#&%ing worst people.

[sho]

7 hours ago, It'sNotAFakeID said:

I don't intend this to be crass or harsh, but just a blunt reality.

 

This country will be better off when some/most of the 65-70+ legislators aren't around.

 

They are the f#&%ing worst people.

 

Problem is, there are a lot of 40 - 65 year olds that feel the same way as those 65+ people feel.  It's not about the older generation retiring, it's about motivating the under 40 crowd that it's worth their effort to be involved.  

[Moiraine]

7 hours ago, It'sNotAFakeID said:

I don't intend this to be crass or harsh, but just a blunt reality.

 

This country will be better off when some/most of the 65-70+ legislators aren't around.

 

They are the f#&%ing worst people.

 

 

I'll take it further in harshness. As far as politics goes, I think the country will be better off when the baby boomers die off. Having a top heavy old fart population is a big part of the problem right now, both in voting and in the economy. The former is why the GOP is cheating more and caring less about democracy as time goes by. Demographics will be less and less in their favor unless they change or get even better at lying (which they are far better at than the Democrats).

[QMany]

14 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

 

Just came here to post this.

 

It was obvious Kavanaugh was put on SCOTUS to protect Trump; it is just refreshing they're being so honest about something for once.

[Danny Bateman]

4 hours ago, QMany said:

 

Just came here to post this.

 

It was obvious Kavanaugh was put on SCOTUS to protect Trump; it is just refreshing they're being so honest about something for once.

 

+1.

 

It's kind of anathema anyway. All they'd have to do is request the docs from the IRS and they'd turn them over to the tax committee head. Newt is getting lost in the weeds a bit so he can puff his chest about what a fight it would be.

 

I'm sure they'd try to fight it, but it's literally IRS code IIRC. It's not like even the president could order them to just ignore that code.

[Landlord]

On 10/25/2018 at 10:51 AM, Ric Flair said:

Rich people have always been able to leverage their wealth to have an outsized influence on politics. So what?

 

So what?

 

So....that's bad. So, we should want to make that not the case. That hurts America. That hurts all of us. 

 

What the f#&% are you talking about "so what?"

 

 

 

 

 

 

On 10/25/2018 at 11:10 AM, Ric Flair said:

Putting limitations on how much speech someone can engage in is a violation of the First Amendment.

 

What about limitations such as slander, libel, publishing confidential/copyrighted material, speech that insights violence, or material support to terrorist groups?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

On 10/25/2018 at 11:10 AM, Ric Flair said:

 

Putting limitations on how much speech someone can engage in is a violation of the First Amendment.

 

So, hear me out: "putting limitations on how much speech someone can engage in is a violation of the First Amendment."

 

It's no shock that corporations, special interest groups, lobbyists have the ears of lawmakers. They're able to have the ear of lawmakers through political contributions. Doesn't that, in some way, limit the free speech of those without $? 

 

I would think, legally, as the law is interpreted and written, the answer is no. But practically, peoples' free speech is being limited.

 

I can't get the attention of a politician because I don't have $25,000,000. 

[sho]

3 minutes ago, It'sNotAFakeID said:

 

So, hear me out: "putting limitations on how much speech someone can engage in is a violation of the First Amendment."

 

It's no shock that corporations, special interest groups, lobbyists have the ears of lawmakers. They're able to have the ear of lawmakers through political contributions. Doesn't that, in some way, limit the free speech of those without $? 

 

I would think, legally, as the law is interpreted and written, the answer is no. But practically, peoples' free speech is being limited.

 

I can't get the attention of a politician because I don't have $25,000,000. 

 

In fairness, the lack of money isn't stopping you from saying what you want, it's just preventing you from getting the audience that you want.   That really isn't a 1A issue.  

 

The system needs to be tweeked, so that the voice of everyone is considered and not the voice of the wealthiest.   There are ways to do that without limiting what the wealthiest want to donate to the cause.

[ZRod]

Didn't we supposedly fight a war of some kind because people felt their voice wasn't being heard?