3418
Comments (107)
sorted by:
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
1
Wreckastow 1 point ago +15 / -14

Yeah, I hate that guy.

He was the one that backed Citizens United.. The worst ruling in modern times.

The ruling basically allows companies to donate ANY AMOUNT of money to candidates under the guise of freedom of speech.

19
americafirst05 19 points ago +21 / -2

Citizens United wasn’t just about money. During oral arguments, Alito asked if the government could ban books with regards to elections. And the government lawyer said yes, which is insanely alarming. https://www.ifs.org/blog/citizens-united-its-all-about-the-book-banning/

9
Wreckastow 9 points ago +13 / -4

Ya know, I am of a mind that unlimited dark money pouring into elections is a bit more problematic than theoretical book bans.

-1
KonyHawk_ProSlaver -1 points ago +1 / -2

And I'm glad you're not a judge.

16
Jon888 16 points ago +16 / -0

It's a principled position and he was right. If I want to buy an ad for trump I have the right to do that under freedom of speech, if 100,000,000 of us get together and want to buy trump ads we each still have that right. It takes and should take a constitutional amendment to change that.

3
Wreckastow 3 points ago +10 / -7

We are talking about reality and in reality, whoever spends the most money wins an election over 90% of the time.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2014/04/04/think-money-doesnt-matter-in-elections-this-chart-says-youre-wrong/

You gotta decide, do you just want rich people to be able to buy whatever candidate they want? Cause that is what this ruling allows.

100 million of us STILL cannot outspend just a few uber rich people.

16
Jon888 16 points ago +16 / -0

No but he isn't an ideologue, he ruled based on what the constitution says. And it says if I want to yell trump is great on tv, I can do that. If 100,000 people get together and want to yell trump is great, they can do that. And doing just that is protected free speech. Scalia was right, and if you want to change it then just amend the constitution.

0
Necrovoter 0 points ago +2 / -2

He did try to rule based on the Constitution. It says NOTHING about companies having any free speech rights. NADA. ZIP. SCOTUS was 100% wrong in pulling that fabrication out of their ass.

Rights are given to citizens (NOT Foreigners in the US either!) and to the states. The Federal government has a very limited set of rights directly related to duties they must carry out.

The Constitution should be paramount. NOT prior rulings of federal judges or even SCOTUS. Yes, it takes more effort to decide when a precedent was faulty and does not follow the Constitution, but it must be done.

An obvious example would be a US District Court judge ruling that SCOTUS does not have the authority to review any cases. Then an appeals court upholds the District Court judge, and lastly SCOTUS itself upholds the appeals court, based on precedent.

Yes, they really are that stupid and stubborn at times.

8
deleted 8 points ago +8 / -0
3
UpTrump 3 points ago +3 / -0

And Dems always far outraise GOP in national races

2
RedditIs4Retards 2 points ago +3 / -1

Well we live in a reality in which when Globalists own our entire government they can just rig the election and win it, and then call PATRIOTS the domestic terrorists when they stand inside a building after being let inside.

1
Wreckastow 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is a restricted building, can we be honest without ourselves for second?

We keep acting like all those patriots were angels, that shit aint the case.

1
redbeard 1 point ago +1 / -0

Only because we aren't organized.

2
AnonymousFrog 2 points ago +2 / -0

I think part of the problem is corporate personhood, which lets people shift all kinds of liabilities and rights to a legal entity.

3
Jon888 3 points ago +3 / -0

I agree, that's the main problem.

1
PresidentErectHunter 1 point ago +1 / -0

Why is there a restriction on individual contributions ($5000 or whatever it is) But a corporation can contribute unlimited?

1
libman 1 point ago +1 / -0

That is freedom of speech. Who are you to dictate how much I can spend on the instruments through which my speech is conveyed?

1
Wreckastow 1 point ago +1 / -0

Im not on the SCOTUS, I didn't make a ruling.

If you are in favor of unlimited dark money in politics, you are in great shape.

1
libman 1 point ago +1 / -0

If you are in favor of unlimited dark money in politics, you are in great shape.

Whether there's disclosure & transparency laws for political donations is a separate question - I could agree with that.

But, yes, "unlimited" (although, obviously, you have to earn the money before you can donate it).

Socialists have UNLIMITED political capital to spread their propaganda, brainwashing everybody from birth. Private interests fail to keep up - that's why government keeps growing...

1
Wreckastow 1 point ago +1 / -0

I somehow don't think Bezos or Musk or Soros have to worry about earning more money.

The GA senate runoff didn't even come to a Bil.

Democrats raised more money, democrats won. This is the reality of Citizens United. If Dems have more money and are willing to spend it, GOP better be ready to lose almost every election.

Who needs a hacker, just buy the election.