5 ms·

Yes. The Supreme Court has two very memorable recent decisions that cause us to question the viability of our (2 party) democracy. 1) Bush v. Gore 2000: only t

Yes. The Supreme Court has two very memorable recent decisions that cause us to question the viability of our (2 party) democracy. 1) Bush v. Gore 2000: only time the court ever issued a decision, knowing that it was totally vaporous, and said this should not be used as future precedent. The entire point of the court is to set precedent. 2) Citizens United: continuing the notion that companies deserve as much protection as people. Pair those together and it becomes hard to claim that the US is a democracy at all. The court has some other notoriously bad decisions, but I hope they eventually come down on the side of democracy in regards to gerrymandering, despite the recent rulings.

rayiner 7y ago
You understand that a contrary ruling on Citizens United would also allow the government to shut down numerous organizations advocating for addressing climate change? If the government can ban a political movie about Hilary Clinton (which is what was at issue in Citizens United), it can ban a political movie about Trump’s effect on climate change.
- bluejekyll 7y ago
  You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. You’re being disingenuous to say the least. Edit: btw I am not a lawyer, and so this is of course my lay persons opinion.
  - tzs 7y ago
    > You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. It was. > But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. It wasn't. The law in question in CU banned corporations (including non-profit corporations) and unions from paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary. A non-profit wanted to air a film critical of a candidate. They were prohibited by that law from buying air time to show to their film, or even from buying ads advertising the availability of the film. They sued to overturn the law. The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance.
    - bluejekyll 7y ago
      > paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary. > The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance. You’re right. And I was inaccurate. What we’re discussing is the rise and unregulated use of PACs and Super PACs to influence elections. This is an issue for fair elections and democracy.
- specialist 7y ago
  The slippery slope? Totally unimpressed. Ultamist positions (NRA, ACLU, BBV) are useful thought experiments, defining the boundaries. To better understand the problem domain. And utterly impractical. Any idea taken to its logical extreme becomes its own opposite, highlighting the absurdity. Freedom Speeches™, like Freedom Markets™, reject compromise, deny the existence of other concerns, eschew balance. They're terrible policies for actual governance. Toxic. As we now see.
- specialist 7y ago
  I must apologize. I somehow forgot that Citizens United was about corporate personhood. I can kinda understand how someone lacking any sense of balance, nuance, history could support Freedom Speeches™. That money is speech, and more money means more freedom, booyah. Some people are just wired to believe that might makes right. But believing that corporations have the same rights, but none of the pesky responsibilities & obligations, as natural persons really is just misanthropic.

rayiner 7y ago

You understand that a contrary ruling on Citizens United would also allow the government to shut down numerous organizations advocating for addressing climate change? If the government can ban a political movie about Hilary Clinton (which is what was at issue in Citizens United), it can ban a political movie about Trump’s effect on climate change.

bluejekyll 7y ago
You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. You’re being disingenuous to say the least. Edit: btw I am not a lawyer, and so this is of course my lay persons opinion.
- tzs 7y ago
  > You’re using ban like this was something about the government silencing someone, definitely a free speech issue. It was. > But that case was about campaign finance and the ability to control how much money, spending, etc., could be used in an election. It wasn't. The law in question in CU banned corporations (including non-profit corporations) and unions from paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary. A non-profit wanted to air a film critical of a candidate. They were prohibited by that law from buying air time to show to their film, or even from buying ads advertising the availability of the film. They sued to overturn the law. The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance.
  - bluejekyll 7y ago
    > paying for any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication that mentions a candidate within 60 days of a general election of 30 days of a primary. > The case did not involve nor did the ruling change the law on campaign finance. You’re right. And I was inaccurate. What we’re discussing is the rise and unregulated use of PACs and Super PACs to influence elections. This is an issue for fair elections and democracy.
specialist 7y ago
The slippery slope? Totally unimpressed. Ultamist positions (NRA, ACLU, BBV) are useful thought experiments, defining the boundaries. To better understand the problem domain. And utterly impractical. Any idea taken to its logical extreme becomes its own opposite, highlighting the absurdity. Freedom Speeches™, like Freedom Markets™, reject compromise, deny the existence of other concerns, eschew balance. They're terrible policies for actual governance. Toxic. As we now see.
specialist 7y ago
I must apologize. I somehow forgot that Citizens United was about corporate personhood. I can kinda understand how someone lacking any sense of balance, nuance, history could support Freedom Speeches™. That money is speech, and more money means more freedom, booyah. Some people are just wired to believe that might makes right. But believing that corporations have the same rights, but none of the pesky responsibilities & obligations, as natural persons really is just misanthropic.