Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

Yup, those extreme supreme ass rings struck down the law that pried the state of Montana from a couple of rich copper assholes that tried to own the entire state for their pin headed kids and more retarded and inbred downline.

A 100 year law was struck down by this political hack ring of corporational conscripts outlawing big money from corporations from taking over elections in this notoriously independent thinking state, yup this law was passed by the citizens of Montana a hundred years ago.

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politic ... -1.1102021

All you corporate blowing conks should be proud, of being such bung-rings.

I wipe my ass with this "supreme court" fuck them, and their minions.

That means you fuck-U and gannon fuck, you can stick this up your ass as well.

lol..

So they're RIGHT about Obamacare and the SB 1070, but wrong about this so now they're corporate blowing conks?

Wedgepuller, you're now indulging your trademark Rocky Mountain crankiness in lieu of reasoned discourse. The SCOTUS has always had the final say on the Constitutionality of state laws. Witness what just happened in Arizona. You just don't like the result and, in a fashion typical of the Donk posters on this board, you cuss out those who disagree with you.

You'll feel better if you take it out on some hapless bighorn, marmot, or whatever is in season these days.

Wedgie just being wedgie - no rational thought and a bunch of namecalling for people that think differently than him. Again, in the absense of intelligence there tends to be a lot of bluster, and Wedgie is making himself a name in the magnitude of his blustering.

Yuck it up funny boys, I don't think this is selling so well up there.

Wedgebuster wrote:Yuck it up funny boys, I don't think this is selling so well up there.

You live in Wyoming. Who gives a fuck?

andy7171 wrote:

Wedgebuster wrote:Yuck it up funny boys, I don't think this is selling so well up there.

You live in Wyoming. Who gives a fuck?

From another article:

Montana’s law had been upheld by the state Supreme Court after being challenged by a conservative group, American Tradition Partnership. But in a 5-4 ruling, the Supreme Court summarily reversed the lower court’s decision and invalidated the longstanding legislation.

The court determined in Citizens United that “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.” Montana’s attorney general claimed that the 1912 Corrupt Practices Act should stand as proof that the court’s argument had already been proven wrong over 100 years earlier, when the state’s mining billionaires blatantly bought off state legislators to further their interests. Most notoriously, copper king William Clark was appointed to the Senate by the state legislature, only to have his seating blocked by the Senate in Washington, D.C. over widespread evidence of bribery.

at the naiveté of the 5 conk judges.

“Even if I were to accept Citizens United, this Court’s legal conclusion should not bar the Montana Su­preme Court’s finding, made on the record before it, that independent expenditures by corporations did in fact lead to corruption or the appearance of corruption in Montana,” Breyer wrote. “Given the history and political landscape in Montana, that court concluded that the State had a compelling interest in limiting independent expenditures by corporations.”

“Montana’s experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court’s decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court’s supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so,” Breyer wrote.

Breyer gets it.

Money doesn't corrupt. It's speech!

kalm wrote:Money doesn't corrupt. It's speech!

Repeat this 500 times, kalm, and you might finally get it. By the way, if you want a dose of superficial constitutional theory, read Breyer's Active Liberty. It won't take long, and it reveals the lack of genuine intellectual support for the "living , breathing Constitution" types out there in Donkland.

Scalia, Thomas, Alito - ruining AMerica.


All three need to be impeached before they totally destroy this country.

Scalia is by far the worst justice ever, unable to rule on all, but using his political and religious views to issue rants instead of opinions.

-
If the socialists don't like this decision it must be good for the country

I don't recall any comments when the unions gave BHO 200 Million last election...must be different free speech

I'd be so pissed at this decision that I'd go sleep in a tent on the nearest courthouse lawn...and I'd bring a drum.

Bronco wrote:-
If the socialists don't like this decision it must be good for the country

I don't recall any comments when the unions gave BHO 200 Million last election...must be different free speech

I'd be so pissed at this decision that I'd go sleep in a tent on the nearest courthouse lawn...and I'd bring a drum.

1). Unions aren't people either and their campaign financing should be restricted too .

2). How do monied interests and entrenched power help democracy?

Again am saddened at the complete lack of appreciation of history and that we have always had large amounts of money in every election, and each election has more money thrown at than the one that came before it. Nothing's fundamentally changed, no matter how much you want to scream that it has (and screaming and angry denunciations of those who have different opinions seems to be the status quo now) and we've run this way for going on 225 years. It ain't perfect, but it's worked so far.

Ivytalk wrote:

kalm wrote:Money doesn't corrupt. It's speech!

Repeat this 500 times, kalm, and you might finally get it. By the way, if you want a dose of superficial constitutional theory, read Breyer's Active Liberty. It won't take long, and it reveals the lack of genuine intellectual support for the "living , breathing Constitution" types out there in Donkland.

Money is...well it's money Ive. I think the founders (not that they matter) felt the same way. You can say that money is something else 5,000,000 times but it won't change a common sense understanding. To say money is speech is plain and simply lawyering to fit a political agenda.

Thanks for the reading suggestion, but as you know, I'm a directionally educated arm chair watcher of the scotus.

kalm wrote:

Bronco wrote:-
If the socialists don't like this decision it must be good for the country

I don't recall any comments when the unions gave BHO 200 Million last election...must be different free speech

I'd be so pissed at this decision that I'd go sleep in a tent on the nearest courthouse lawn...and I'd bring a drum.

1). Unions aren't people either and their campaign financing should be restricted too .

2). How do monied interests and entrenched power help democracy?

1) Unions are made up of people, and if they want to advocate for something why should they be denied the power to do that? Is petitioning our government now not allowed? How do we decide the restriction? How much is too much? Who makes that decision? How does that amount change with time and place? We've failed plenty of times to come up with those answers so I don't see how we have a magic pen now that can find the right amount of money, and by whom, should be allowed in any election.

2) Monied interests are not evil, why should people with money not be allowed to freely spend it? Entrenched power obviously doesn't help democracy - but transparency of that entrenched power does help. I'm fine with people spending money to gain influence, especially when groups of citizens gather together to do so. That's democracy at it's finest. As long as we can see them, and transparency now versus the Teddy Roosevelt era that you love to fall back to, is immensely better.

You profess an admiration for democracy, but then strangely you resist when people actually want to practice it. You seem to like the book version of it and then get upset when actual people get involved.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:
Repeat this 500 times, kalm, and you might finally get it. By the way, if you want a dose of superficial constitutional theory, read Breyer's Active Liberty. It won't take long, and it reveals the lack of genuine intellectual support for the "living , breathing Constitution" types out there in Donkland.

Money is...well it's money Ive. I think the founders (not that they matter) felt the same way. You can say that money is something else 5,000,000 times but it won't change a common sense understanding. To say money is speech is plain and simply lawyering to fit a political agenda.

Thanks for the reading suggestion, but as you know, I'm a directionally educated arm chair watcher of the scotus.

Have it your way, kalm. No more political contributions of any kind by any entity, a lifetime limit of $100 for any natural person, and no voting rights for anyone making more than, oh, $30K a year. Let's see how that improves life, public information and governance in the Late Great United States.

dbackjon wrote:Scalia, Thomas, Alito - ruining AMerica.


All three need to be impeached before they totally destroy this country.

Scalia is by far the worst justice ever, unable to rule on all, but using his political and religious views to issue rants instead of opinions.

Yeah. The three who disagree with you are "ruining the country".

Jesus....feel free to have a dissenting thought occasionally.