5 ms·

Supreme Court Backs Ted Cruz in Striking Down Campaign Finance Limit

28 points by heavyset_go 5y ago

suture 5y ago
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  That would still maintain the illusion that citizens are choosing who represents them, though. With gerrymandering, and SCOTUS thinking money is speech, it would be more honest to let corporations have voting power proportional to their market cap.
  - DamnYuppie 5y ago
    Would that apply to individuals as well?
    - bjoli 5y ago
      People with a lot of money already have a much bigger political influence than poor people. So to some extent it already does.
      - cyanydeez 5y ago
        Well if we're going down this dystopia, letting corporations vote would dilute billionaires and would provide a cheaper alternative to making corporations get lobbiests.
  - dqpb 5y ago
    > it would be more honest to let corporations have voting power proportional to their market cap That would just be a market. Instead of voting, people would bid, and whoever (collectively) wins the bid pays the money. Then at least you could use the money pay off debts or burn the money to offset inflation. Honestly, that might be better than our existing system.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
eunos 5y ago
How good the decision aside, I am uncomfortable that the "unelected" Supreme Court starts taking more responsibility that should be done by elected officials. It disincentivize the population to take responsibility in electing officials.
monkaiju 5y ago
Damn, from an accelerationist standpoint the supreme court just seems to be trying to catalyze social upheaval. Pretty unreal
- olliej 5y ago
  The conservative justices have already made it clear that they are primarily answering to the GOP, and that have no concern about the rule of law. The GOP already demonstrated a willingness to completely freeze the government in order to prevent democrats appointing any justices.
  - throwaway69123 4y ago
    If it’s as clear as you claim it would be easy to back up the extraordinary claim that the top court in the entire country is not concerned with the rule of law.
    - olliej 4y ago
      You mean them throwing out 50 years of established law to service the outcome a specific section of a specific political party wants? A ruling that throws out the basis of anti-lgbt discrimination being illegal, that removes bodily autonomy of women, that ruling? It seems pretty clear that they needed new conservatives to have this happen, and it very obvious that the new judges were selected primarily on the basis of there ruling here, and on no other basis. It is very clear that the court was corrupted - the GOP did not allow the Obama nomination because they wanted the SC to be overwhelwming conservative.

28 points by heavyset_go 5y ago

dane-pgp 5y ago
That would still maintain the illusion that citizens are choosing who represents them, though. With gerrymandering, and SCOTUS thinking money is speech, it would be more honest to let corporations have voting power proportional to their market cap.
- DamnYuppie 5y ago
  Would that apply to individuals as well?
  - bjoli 5y ago
    People with a lot of money already have a much bigger political influence than poor people. So to some extent it already does.
    - cyanydeez 5y ago
      Well if we're going down this dystopia, letting corporations vote would dilute billionaires and would provide a cheaper alternative to making corporations get lobbiests.
- dqpb 5y ago
  > it would be more honest to let corporations have voting power proportional to their market cap That would just be a market. Instead of voting, people would bid, and whoever (collectively) wins the bid pays the money. Then at least you could use the money pay off debts or burn the money to offset inflation. Honestly, that might be better than our existing system.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

How good the decision aside, I am uncomfortable that the "unelected" Supreme Court starts taking more responsibility that should be done by elected officials. It disincentivize the population to take responsibility in electing officials.

monkaiju 5y ago

Damn, from an accelerationist standpoint the supreme court just seems to be trying to catalyze social upheaval. Pretty unreal

olliej 5y ago
The conservative justices have already made it clear that they are primarily answering to the GOP, and that have no concern about the rule of law. The GOP already demonstrated a willingness to completely freeze the government in order to prevent democrats appointing any justices.
- throwaway69123 4y ago
  If it’s as clear as you claim it would be easy to back up the extraordinary claim that the top court in the entire country is not concerned with the rule of law.
  - olliej 4y ago
    You mean them throwing out 50 years of established law to service the outcome a specific section of a specific political party wants? A ruling that throws out the basis of anti-lgbt discrimination being illegal, that removes bodily autonomy of women, that ruling? It seems pretty clear that they needed new conservatives to have this happen, and it very obvious that the new judges were selected primarily on the basis of there ruling here, and on no other basis. It is very clear that the court was corrupted - the GOP did not allow the Obama nomination because they wanted the SC to be overwhelwming conservative.