@shinobinoz Said 
Hey- I posted my link. Did you forget to knock yourself out?
It seems that lately, each time I read one of you postings, it is you who knocks me out, with your overwhelmingly lopsided view of things. That's 'lopsided,' at least, in my view.... and perhaps due to my inability to understand your reasoning. You must realize, I'm sure, that if an idea is not expressed in a manner which is persuasive, both emotionally and logically, to whom it is directed, the idea is as good as a beam of light being projected onto a rock, worthy of a moments glance....
I read the linked item in Tino's post. I read the link you posted to freespeechforpeople.org. I confess, I have gotten more from FSP than I have gotten from your own postings. Now, you wouldn't want me to shoot the messenger, would you?
@shinobinoz Said
I agreed with El Tino's post. No one has countered that. So I was waiting for some educated posting. NONE have been forthcoming from the wrong Right! ... Are you relying soley on your link to do your talking or do you have an opinion based on some facts?
The NYT article seems, to me, to portray a factual accounting of what has transpired, and has seen fit to lace that article with it's own suppositions, reasoning and conclusions as well.
@The New York Times]
When the case was first argued last March, it seemed a curiosity likely to be decided on narrow grounds. The court could have ruled that Citizens United was not the sort of group to which the McCain-Feingold law was meant to apply, or that the law did not mean to address 90-minute documentaries, or that video-on-demand technologies were not regulated by the law.Thursday?s decision rejected those alternatives. Instead, it addressed the questions it proposed to the parties in June when it set down the case for an unusual second argument in September, those of whether Austin and McConnell should be overruled. The answer, the court ruled Thursday, was yes.
The act of formulating a decision on the case is the responsibility of the Supreme Court, not the NYT or yours truly. As I've said elsewhere in this thread, we have to thank the multitudes of self-interested lawyers, on both sides of the political spectrum, for selling our freedoms and our rights down the tubes of this now mock-justice. They've done it with their skillful plays on words, saying one thing, while meaning something else -- ever since the end of WWII (that's as far back as I can remember!) -- and the actions, press releases, and statements of our current administration are just more of the same deceit being perpetrated on 'we, the people.' But, I digress.... With all the word-twisting that has gone before us, the Supreme Court -- right or wrong -- has taken those twisted words, and used them to justify their conclusion, which -- if you would care to read the link that I had posted -- was arrived at, in a fair and democratically judicious manner. You won't know that, though, until you get through the entire 183 pages of the decision.
@As Justice Kennedy Said
When government seeks to use its full power, including the criminal law, to command where a person may get his or her information or what distrusted source he or she may not hear, it uses censorship to control thought. This is unlawful. The First Amendment confirms the freedom to think for ourselves.
Now, the Free Speech For People organization, unlike yourself, have gone out of their way, attmpting to present a collection of facts and logical arguments that one can pursue, to understand what has happened and what can be done to counteract the decision. I think I agree with them, that the decision does not seem to be in harmony with the intentions of our Founding Fathers. I also agree that the only way to counteract it, now, would be to make a 'special' amendment to the constitution. Until that time, however, I am in the same damned boat with Obama, ...I have to accept the Supreme Court ruling.
[QUOTE=shinobinoz Said
I also agree with Stevens:
"The novelty of the Court?s procedural dereliction and its approach to stare decisis is matched by the novelty of its ruling on the merits. The ruling rests on several premises. First, the Court claims that Austin and McConnell have ?banned? corporate speech. Second, it claims that the First Amendment precludes regulatory distinctions based on speaker identity, including the speaker?s identity as a corporation. Third, it claims that Austin and McConnell were radical outliers in our First Amendment tradition and our campaign finance jurisprudence. Each of these claims is wrong."
This is not the fault of the' wrong Right' as you put it, but due to the fact that the members of the Supreme Court are, in the end, individuals just like our members of Congress and the Senate. The numbers of any particular political persuasion change, over time, as does their mindsets. (For example: until last Tuesday, I had no hope of being saved from Obamacare....)
The only reason I have given any effort to this response, I'll have you know, is that I have a respect for the opinion of Spinkiegirl, very much despite our own sincerely opposed political views, and she seems, more often than not, to find something about you to be worthy of praise. Don't let her down. Post responsibly, and with clarity, and you should be able to reap praise from everyone.
Jan 24, 2010 @ 06:32:38
Egg-sackly! And their particular differentiated status, when compared to us regular individuals, is all due to the mystical gyrations of the word-weavers....
