Does Citizens United rank as one of the worst decisions of any SCOTUS?

[T. A. Gardner]

that seems like a poor take.

should we repeal it then if has no impact?

you good with that?

There's nothing to repeal. It was a court decision. It could be reversed in the future, but likely won't be. I see it as largely irrelevant.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

There's nothing to repeal. It was a court decision. It could be reversed in the future, but likely won't be. I see it as largely irrelevant.

so you would be fine with it being reversed in whatever the fuck capacity (details nerd)?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

FDR did not pack the Court, threatening to, but did not

Yes, he did. He did it the old fashioned way, by attrition. FDR eventually chose 9 supreme court justices that when appointed rubber stamped whatever he did.

Money in politics did always exists, but there were some controls, for example, foreign nations could never contribute, and amounts given by individuals were regulated, with Citizens United, it is a free for all, you really don’t think a person gives a candidate $240 million because he likes the candidate’s policies did you

And Citizens United currently ranks anywhere from ninth to twelfth on the list of SCOTUS worst decisions in US History, and keep in mind there have been thousands of decisions in two hundred years of history

Do you really think that putting a limit on contributions works? Do you really think that people handing over globs of cash to politicians can't find a way around whatever law(s) you come up with?

I think Beck v. Communications Workers of America was more important than Citizens United. That's because the most onerous, vile, thing in political contributions is you having to give, directly or indirectly, money to a politician you despise and having no choice about it.

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Yes, he did. He did it the old fashioned way, by attrition. FDR eventually chose 9 supreme court justices that when appointed rubber stamped whatever he did.

Do you really think that putting a limit on contributions works? Do you really think that people handing over globs of cash to politicians can't find a way around whatever law(s) you come up with?

I think Beck v. Communications Workers of America was more important than Citizens United. That's because the most onerous, vile, thing in political contributions is you having to give, directly or indirectly, money to a politician you despise and having no choice about it.

should we give up on all laws and society in general?

 

[T. A. Gardner]

should we give up on all laws and society in general?

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

 

[archives]

Yes, he did. He did it the old fashioned way, by attrition. FDR eventually chose 9 supreme court justices that when appointed rubber stamped whatever he did.

Do you really think that putting a limit on contributions works? Do you really think that people handing over globs of cash to politicians can't find a way around whatever law(s) you come up with?

I think Beck v. Communications Workers of America was more important than Citizens United. That's because the most onerous, vile, thing in political contributions is you having to give, directly or indirectly, money to a politician you despise and having no choice about it.

That is not packing the Court, rather natural occurrences, Justices don’t live for ever

Knowing who contributes what and to who does matter, and should be controlled, as I said, billionaires don’t fork over millions because they like the candidate’s policies

And I have already dismissed the Union whataboutism, it is irrelevant, not a partisan issue

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

Reductio ad absurdum fallacy.

just answer the question.

no law completely "works".

it doesn't mean we abandon civilization.


seriously just answer it then.

should we abandon all laws and society in general?

 

[Truck Fump / h1b]

look at him incensed at being beaten.

being forced to lie but him always thinking he can win straghit up.

he can't.

none of you globalist eugenicists can win straight up.

because evil never fucking wins.

 

[cawacko]

That is not packing the Court, rather natural occurrences, Justices don’t live for ever

Knowing who contributes what and to who does matter, and should be controlled, as I said, billionaires don’t fork over millions because they like the candidate’s policies

And I have already dismissed the Union whataboutism, it is irrelevant, not a partisan issue

You single out billionaires. Do you think people with 8 or 9 figure net worth's donate for different reasons than billionaires?

On this board you have many people who are strong partisans and ideologues. We are ride or die for our party. People who are wealthy can have that same attitude (think Koch Brothers or George Soros) but there are other wealthy folks who make a business decisions when they donate. It's why you see some some folks give to both parties (Musk has a long history of it).

 

[tigerred59]

 

[archives]

You single out billionaires. Do you think people with 8 or 9 figure net worth's donate for different reasons than billionaires?

On this board you have many people who are strong partisans and ideologues. We are ride or die for our party. People who are wealthy can have that same attitude (think Koch Brothers or George Soros) but there are other wealthy folks who make a business decisions when they donate. It's why you see some some folks give to both parties (Musk has a long history of it).

Exactly, they are practicing material politics, striving to buy a politician for their own self interest, which has always existed, but not on the level of the Presidency. Lacking any control it is not good, keep in mind this includes dark money coming from foreign nations

As a side note, yes Musk has contributed to both parties, but nowhere near the $240 million he handed over to Trump, and again, I’m not signaling put Trump, it existed everywhere

 

[cawacko]

Exactly, they are practicing material politics, striving to buy a politician for their own self interest, which has always existed, but not on the level of the Presidency. Lacking any control it is not good, keep in mind this includes dark money coming from foreign nations

As a side note, yes Musk has contributed to both parties, but nowhere near the $240 million he handed over to Trump, and again, I’m not signaling put Trump, it existed everywhere

We're never going to have a world where money doesn't exist in politics. That's just not reality. And people donating to both parties isn't some new phenomenon.

If we're talking just the Presidential level, people vote for many different reasons of course but the state of the economy is often a big one. To the extent the President has any control over the economy if they are going to tank it so to speak to try and benefit a large donor well they're either likely not going to get re-elected or going to ruin their legacy.

I'm not suggesting money doesn't motive certain decisions they make but on the whole you still have to perform.

 

[archives]

We're never going to have a world where money doesn't exist in politics. That's just not reality. And people donating to both parties isn't some new phenomenon.

If we're talking just the Presidential level, people vote for many different reasons of course but the state of the economy is often a big one. To the extent the President has any control over the economy if they are going to tank it so to speak to try and benefit a large donor well they're either likely not going to get re-elected or going to ruin their legacy.

I'm not suggesting money doesn't motive certain decisions they make but on the whole you still have to perform.

I don’t understand where you are trying to go here

To recap, Citizens United is one of the worst decisions in history because it is directly responsible for the inordinate amounts of money that is given in US elections. Not trying to beat a dead horse, but I keep bringing up foreign money because it is the easiest example. Today, via anonymous donors, which include foreign entities, any amount of dark money can be contributed to a PAC, there is no accountability. And that is due to the Citizens United decision

 

[BartenderElite]

We're never going to have a world where money doesn't exist in politics. That's just not reality. And people donating to both parties isn't some new phenomenon.

If we're talking just the Presidential level, people vote for many different reasons of course but the state of the economy is often a big one. To the extent the President has any control over the economy if they are going to tank it so to speak to try and benefit a large donor well they're either likely not going to get re-elected or going to ruin their legacy.

I'm not suggesting money doesn't motive certain decisions they make but on the whole you still have to perform.

I think you're oversimplifying that.

The vast sums of money we're seeing now are not in the interests of regular Americans. There is an expectation when individual & corporations spend so much on something.