Dems announce plans to filibuster Gorsuch

That doesnt changes the fact that a corporation and its public stances can be regulated.

If the shareholders want their opinion heard then make a private non-profit and do whatever they want with their own money.

That is literally exactly what happened in Citizens United. A group of individuals created a non-profit organization and created a silly film about H. Clinton. The government tried to fine the group and have the film taken off the air by claiming it violated the BCRA.

I thought Hillary: The Movie wasn't the greatest film, but the BCRA would've prohibited it from being aired within 30 days of an election because it was political speech. That's crazy and it was the correct call by the SCOTUS to rule those provisions of the BCRA unconstitutional.
 
Its not tangential at all, you claim the 1st trumps over all law when it comes to speech.

Where did I say this? The first amendment restricts the government from restricting speech, with no qualifiers. The government has successfully argued since then that there are certain limitations to this right, but they are always very narrowly defined. Pornography for example, is not illegal in the US, but there are narrow limitations to where and how it can be sold.

Speech paid for or published by a corporation is not a narrow scope of censorship. It covers pretty much every book and magazine published in the USA.
 
The money itself isn't speech. A service is not equal to talking, and spending some money on advertising isn't the same thing as saying money and speech are the same construct.
No one is equating money directly to speech, they are arguing that restricting money in many cases has the practical effect of restricting speech. In my example abortion wouldn't be restricted literally, but it would certainly be restricted practically.

Public speech costs money, and so restriction on the money that can be spent on producing or broadcasting books or films is de facto censorship. Why is this hard to understand? And how is it a bad thing especially given that the left benefits from this freedom of discourse every bit as much a s the right?
 
Corporations don't have to be people for the government to not be allowed to restrict movies they produce, ads they produce, books they publish etc. Do you really think the government should be allowed to censor the publication of a book critical to the government on the grounds that it was published by a corporation rather than self-published?

Have you ever thought of the ramifications of that case beyond your bumper sticker mantra?

Where is the general applicability of said law? where is the benefit to society said law would cause?

You are falsely trying to compare congress passing general applicability laws to the executive banning political dissent.
 
Where did I say this? The first amendment restricts the government from restricting speech, with no qualifiers. The government has successfully argued since then that there are certain limitations to this right, but they are always very narrowly defined. Pornography for example, is not illegal in the US, but there are narrow limitations to where and how it can be sold.

Speech paid for or published by a corporation is not a narrow scope of censorship. It covers pretty much every book and magazine published in the USA.

1.- At least you accept now that the 1st is not unlimited.

2.- Speech concerning elections is narrow enough.

3.- Child pornography is 100% illegal, so yes, even among individuals and in private the 1st is limited.
 
Where is the general applicability of said law? where is the benefit to society said law would cause?

You are falsely trying to compare congress passing general applicability laws to the executive banning political dissent.
The general applicability of what law?

Also, in practice, the FEC did try to ban the airing of a documentary that was politically critical of a Senator running for president. The US Supreme Court rightly found that the government had no such right.
 
That is literally exactly what happened in Citizens United. A group of individuals created a non-profit organization and created a silly film about H. Clinton. The government tried to fine the group and have the film taken off the air by claiming it violated the BCRA.

I thought Hillary: The Movie wasn't the greatest film, but the BCRA would've prohibited it from being aired within 30 days of an election because it was political speech. That's crazy and it was the correct call by the SCOTUS to rule those provisions of the BCRA unconstitutional.

Yeah, i dont have a problem with Citizens United, but the Court went to lenghts as to make these protections extend to for-profit organizations.
 
The general applicability of what law?

Also, in practice, the FEC did try to ban the airing of a documentary that was politically critical of a Senator running for president. The US Supreme Court rightly found that the government had no such right.

The FEC was citing an existing law, passed by congress, the judiciary didnt ruled that the documentary wasnt breaking the law, it struck down the law and even extended the destruction to other laws.
 
1.- At least you accept now that the 1st is not unlimited.

2.- Speech concerning elections is narrow enough.

3.- Child pornography is 100% illegal, so yes, even among individuals and in private the 1st is limited.

1. I've never disagreed.
2. No it isn't. The case has already been decided. And narrowness isn't the only test.
3. Irrelevant to the banning of political speech.
 
The FEC was citing an existing law, passed by congress, the judiciary didnt ruled that the documentary wasnt breaking the law, it struck down the law and even extended the destruction to other laws.
Yes, Congress from time to time passes laws that are unconstitutional. This was clearly the case in Citizens United and the court rightly struck down those laws.
 
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2017/mar/23/schumer-says-dems-will-filibuster-gorsuch/

1. What do you think will happen? Anyone want to make predictions how this will play out? Anyone thinks the Republicans go nuclear here and change the Senate rules to suspend the filibuster?

2. What do you think should happen? How do you want Supreme Court battles to play out over the next four to eight years? There will likely be some seats coming open soon, including the one held by the Notorious RBG.

rbg-meme-2.jpg

3. Any dream picks for a possible second Trump nominee or for an alternate if the Dems succeed in axing the Gorsuch nomination? Libertarians make good justices imo, so I wouldn't mind seeing Randy Barnett. Hell, I wouldn't even mind seeing Glenn Reynolds.
Might have to go nuclear but Goboy is my pick each and every time.
 
I know they do, that's where the underestimating the stupidity comes in. His policies will be a disaster for anyone making less than $100K annually. Agreed on the second part.
Seems to me like you are tilting right angry one.
 
Yeah, i dont have a problem with Citizens United, but the Court went to lenghts as to make these protections extend to for-profit organizations.

I really don't understand the distinction, in theory. That provision in the BCRA could have been used to prevent Fahrenheit 9/11 from having been shown 30 days before GWB's reelection in 04. I'm assuming Moore and his partners made money off it. Even though I think Moore is an obese windbag most of the time, I think he should be able to produce a political film and have it shown leading up to an election.
 
2. No it isn't. The case has already been decided. And narrowness isn't the only test.
3. Irrelevant to the banning of political speech.

2.- The case was barely decided and it can change in the future.

3.- How is it irrelevant, it establishes that a particular for of speech can be banned completely if the government proves that it benefits the State.
 
I really don't understand the distinction, in theory. That provision in the BCRA could have been used to prevent Fahrenheit 9/11 from having been shown 30 days before GWB's reelection in 04. I'm assuming Moore and his partners made money off it. Even though I think Moore is an obese windbag most of the time, I think he should be able to produce a political film and have it shown leading up to an election.

Fair enough, never thought about it this way.

I think legislation would need to be updated then.

Because unlimited money in politics is just insane.
 
2.- The case was barely decided and it can change in the future.

3.- How is it irrelevant, it establishes that a particular for of speech can be banned completely if the government proves that it benefits the State.

2. Given that Gorsuch will likely be added to the court soon, I'm not sure such a case will be overturned. Also, if it is overturned, then US citizens will have their rights abridged by the government. Only the left will celebrate.
 
2. Given that Gorsuch will likely be added to the court soon, I'm not sure such a case will be overturned. Also, if it is overturned, then US citizens will have their rights abridged by the government. Only the left will celebrate.

Probably not, which is the reason the US will drift more and more into a plutocracy.

As i said corporations are not citizens.
 
Fair enough, never thought about it this way.

I think legislation would need to be updated then.

Because unlimited money in politics is just insane.

Right, you never thought about how it could hurt the Left. Because the hypothetical he described is extremely close to what actually happened, it just was for the other side.

This is precisely why we need people like Gorsuch who decide law cases based on the text of the law and not just the particulars of each case.
 
His policies will be a disaster for anyone making less than $100K annually. Agreed on the second part.


Genuinely curious, how so? And what makes 100k the magic number here?

If his policies are bad for everyone under that number, I can't imagine they'd be completely harmless or just as bad for people not way above it too.
 
Last edited:

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,234,826
Messages
55,310,269
Members
174,732
Latest member
herrsackbauer
Back
Top