|
Post by jdd2 on Feb 14, 2016 6:12:29 GMT -5
Recess appointments:
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 14, 2016 6:25:09 GMT -5
People have interests in corporations. People do. They have collected interests in corporations. It's how they make their living. It's how they fund their retirements. It's how they buy stuff and plan for their futures. It's how they send their kids to school and have discretionary money to buy guitars and pottery. And they are not only using those corporate interests legally -- they are using them honorably by funding them with their own earned income.
The government comes along and makes decisions that regulate and otherwise limit the effectiveness of corporations as investment tools for the above. They should. That's what the government does. It can and does make those kinds of decisions.
But those who are against the Citizens United ruling are essentially saying that those who have banded together in corporate structures for the above good, honest and honorable uses should have no similarly collective voice in how the power of government affects their corporations. They should have no voice in HOW those new government restrictions and regulation might adversely affect their corporations -- though they are, by virtue of experience and expertise, more capable of seeing such consequences -- intended and un.
And the anti-Citizens United folks made their argument by changing the discussion to an anthropomorphizing of the corporation -- as if the rationale for collective people being able to have a voice in government was one of groups being the same thing as individuals.
And the reality is that those very same people who are arguing that people in agreed aggregation should have no right to enter the political process to protect their rights are the very same people who insist that unions -- even public sector unions (wherein the public interest has no natural protection against the extortion of imbalanced bargaining) SHOULD have a corporate say in the election process. In fact, they make no objection, though unions are or have been the single biggest contributor to campaigns in our lifetime. In fact, they participate in that corporate political action.
|
|
|
Post by brucemacneill on Feb 14, 2016 6:28:15 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 14, 2016 8:43:26 GMT -5
Objection to Citizens United comes from those who would have government redistribute speech in the same way it redistributes wealth.
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 14, 2016 9:19:00 GMT -5
Most people I talked to (last night) believe the Republican Congress will not approve anyone until after the election.
|
|
Tamarack
Administrator
Ancient Citizen
Posts: 9,424
|
Post by Tamarack on Feb 14, 2016 9:22:55 GMT -5
My condolences to his friends and family.
Of all the Supreme Court justices, Scalia might hold the record for the most interesting interviews. I recall a NPR interview years ago where he succinctly stated the concept of "constitutional but stupid".
Every Supreme Court nomination and confirmation process I can recall has been contentious. It looks like the process for Scalia's replacement will be the pissing match to end all pissing matches, with an abundance of self-righteous posturing from all sides.
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 14, 2016 9:27:07 GMT -5
Most people I talked to (last night) believe the Republican Congress will not approve anyone until after the election. The one person (Senator Charles Grassley) who probably has the most to say on that point agrees.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 14, 2016 9:32:27 GMT -5
Most people I talked to (last night) believe the Republican Congress will not approve anyone until after the election. To the peril of the Republican presidential candidate.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 14, 2016 10:31:06 GMT -5
I think that’s it in a nutshell.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Feb 14, 2016 10:31:58 GMT -5
Does this ruin Facebook for the next year plus?
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Feb 14, 2016 10:37:31 GMT -5
Objection to Citizens United comes from those who would have government redistribute speech in the same way it redistributes wealth. Speech and wealth are the same thing.
|
|
|
Post by Cosmic Wonder on Feb 14, 2016 10:50:17 GMT -5
Does this ruin Facebook for the next year plus? No more, no less, than it already is. Is FB a glass half empty, or half full? Mike
|
|
|
Post by Doug on Feb 14, 2016 10:57:53 GMT -5
I think it's right for Obama to nominate someone for the SC. It's also right for the Senate to take as long as they see fit to deal with the advise and consent.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 14, 2016 11:59:23 GMT -5
People have interests in corporations. People do. They have collected interests in corporations. It's how they make their living. It's how they fund their retirements. It's how they buy stuff and plan for their futures. It's how they send their kids to school and have discretionary money to buy guitars and pottery. And they are not only using those corporate interests legally -- they are using them honorably by funding them with their own earned income. The government comes along and makes decisions that regulate and otherwise limit the effectiveness of corporations as investment tools for the above. They should. That's what the government does. It can and does make those kinds of decisions. But those who are against the Citizens United ruling are essentially saying that those who have banded together in corporate structures for the above good, honest and honorable uses should have no similarly collective voice in how the power of government affects their corporations. They should have no voice in HOW those new government restrictions and regulation might adversely affect their corporations -- though they are, by virtue of experience and expertise, more capable of seeing such consequences -- intended and un. And the anti-Citizens United folks made their argument by changing the discussion to an anthropomorphizing of the corporation -- as if the rationale for collective people being able to have a voice in government was one of groups being the same thing as individuals. And the reality is that those very same people who are arguing that people in agreed aggregation should have no right to enter the political process to protect their rights are the very same people who insist that unions -- even public sector unions (wherein the public interest has no natural protection against the extortion of imbalanced bargaining) SHOULD have a corporate say in the election process. In fact, they make no objection, though unions are or have been the single biggest contributor to campaigns in our lifetime. In fact, they participate in that corporate political action. And since Jeff’s comment is along the same lines . . . I have to say I’m a little disappointed that no one commented on my optical illusion, money vs. free speech post. I was expecting congratulations from some of you for finally being unstupid, charges of being a traitor by others, or, at the very least, of being out of my fucking mind. But no. (Maybe everyone’s thinking the last but are being too polite to say so. I think I’ll go with that one for now.) Even though your post is not in response to mine, I’m going to treat it that way for argument’s sake, since arguing is what Marty, Todd and Don pay me to do. (It’s okay to say that, right? I signed a form for direct deposit, but never a nondisclosure agreement.) I didn’t expect to open anyone’s eyes with my earlier post. I don’t know that I even did a good job of explaining how my eyes were opened in that post. After a good night’s sleep I wish I could say that I can do a better job of it now, but I don’t think I can. If I look at it from the money and undue influence angle, Citizens United is an unjust and illogical ruling. If I look at it from a free speech angle, it becomes the only correct ruling. Those who favor the ruling are correct. And those who disagree with the ruling are correct. If both sides, pro and con, stay within their (what’s the word? I may have to come back to this part) logical territories, they are absolutely correct. However, in trying to claim too much ground for moral or ideological superiority, if one side venture’s into the other’s strength, then they become wrong and the other is right. Geez, this isn’t making any more sense than my earlier post. Oh well, onward... Yes, people have interests in corporations. Of course they do. And the government does regulate corporations which places limitations upon them. But you make it sound like it’s some sort of cross they have to bear. You’ve got it backward. Corporations exist to protect the owners. Starting a business used to be a truly risky endeavor, one that could land you in jail if the business failed and you couldn’t meet your obligations. The whole concept of corporations is to limit the owner’s liabilities. It’s the government protecting owners, pure and simple. To achieve that, to protect those who want to start a business and grant them all the benefits of success while severely limiting the potential risks in the event of failure, which is what usually happens, we created the artificial construct of the corporation as a “person.” This artificial person is the one who bears all the financial risks. If things go poorly, the artificial person absorbs the financial penalties while the owner or owners lose nothing more than the cash they put into the business. If things go well, the owner or owners walk away with it all. It is a lopsided but necessary arrangement. It is what has allowed businesses, job growth and economies to flourish. It is a good thing. But it is essentially a way for government to protect owners, not restrict or burden them. Every one of those people, every single one, from the owners and stockholders, the board of directors, middle management, right down to the janitor have a say. They have the right to vote. Each of them gets one vote. Each of them has a vested interest in the company. The janitor may have very different views on the company than the CEO does, but they all get to voice their opinion on election day. They are all equal on election day. You seem to be saying that they should not only be able to cast their individual votes on election day, but because they are honorable, those at the very top (let’s face it, no one gives a shit what the janitor or middle manager has to say) should be able to influence tens of millions of votes while those in the middle and the bottom of the food chain have no say other than their relatively insignificant singular vote. The law did that for the reason already stated above, not the anti Citizens United folks. The anti CU group might have exploited that angle in their arguments, but they didn’t create it. It was already there for the protection of the owners, the people who seem to think they are entitled to extra votes. And it’s not just the anti CU group. Let’s not forget that Mitt Romney thinks corporations are people too. I believe you’re wrong on two counts but don’t care enough to look into it right now. Speaking for myself, not the whole anti-CU, I agree that unions shouldn’t be part of the elective process. I oppose their contributions just as much as I oppose corporations’ involvement. What’s wrong doesn’t become right just because one agrees with your views and the other doesn’t. Throw them all out. The other is that I don’t believe Unions have been the biggest contributors. I may be wrong. While I don’t claim to have an objective view, one above reproach, I can tell you with absolute certainty that your view is one-sided. Our government is mainly designed to protect property holders. We couldn’t have large scale “free markets” without government protections and interventions. We couldn’t have credit, one of the main drivers of our economy, without government protections and interventions. Without the government, “business” as we know it would not exist. Ever notice how the right never calls it “redistribution” when the government regulates the interest rate? I’m not saying that the right agrees with the Fed all the time, just that their interventions are not branded as redistribution. The same goes for bankruptcy. And lower corporate tax rates. And corporate tax loop holes. And lower tax rates for hedge fund managers. All those things are “redistribution,” as is a progressive income tax that charges a higher rate for higher incomes. Any government intervention at all, necessary though it may be, causes “redistribution." Yet the right only protests the progressive taxes. It’s nothing more than marketing, branding, deception, or maybe a few other things, but it is not a straightforward assessment of the whole picture. In short, free speech, the angle that John and Jeff skipped over, has me pro-CU. The money angle has me very definitely anti-CU.
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 14, 2016 12:09:46 GMT -5
Here's my prediction (and it's free and worth the price):
After watching the Sunday talk shows I think the cards are already on the table. McConnell did the Democrats a favor by showing his hand first. Because of that President Obama doesn't need to appoint a candidate and the Democrats will have won by that inaction. He now has nothing to gain by showing his hold cards. He has nothing to gain by showing America what kind of justice he -- and the next (Democrat) president would have/will appoint. All that would do is scare the Republican base into actually caring about the election.
The Sunday talk shows demonstrated that the Democratic tactic of demonizing the Republican congress is a more effective election tactic than risking appointing a replacement.
So I predict that President Obama will not appoint a replacement.
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Feb 14, 2016 12:11:29 GMT -5
Boy, Plucked. You sure take a lot of words to get to your point. I hope the Senate isn't so round about in making its advice and consent.
And, Mill, nah...
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Feb 14, 2016 12:20:49 GMT -5
To those who think a corporation is a democracy that collects and considers the opinions of it employees to determine its political leanings has never spent time in one. Corporations are dictatorships with only the top tier of management having any say in whatever political position it would take. They represent the voices of the elite leaders who also have corporate revenue at their disposal to affect elections. When the day come when a CEO gives each employee $200 of corporate cah to donate the political cause of their choice, that is the day I would support citzens united.
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 14, 2016 12:20:48 GMT -5
Doc, I’m filibustering!
Not to nitpick, but shouldn’t it be called “fillerblustering?"
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 14, 2016 12:54:42 GMT -5
To those who think a union is a democracy that collects and considers the opinions of it members to determine its political leanings has never spent time in one. Unions are dictatorships with only the top tier of management having any say in whatever political position it would take. They represent the voices of the elite leaders who also have corporate revenue at their disposal to affect elections. .
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 14, 2016 12:58:57 GMT -5
|
|