Skip to main content

View Diary: How John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision (220 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  It's not about outcomes, but constitutionalism (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Rogneid, Geenius at Wrok, Adam B

    You can't make exceptions just because you believe that the outcome will be bad. That's what amendments are for, or limiting rational basis regulation. We happen to have a fairly liberal constitution by world standards, and for better or worse we're bound to uphold it or amend it, but not do end runs around it.

    I agree that the outcomes so far and likely future ones of CU are bad, but barring an amendment which has next to no chance of passing any time soon, we can only try to regulate it into something less dangerous and unfair. E.g. disclosure and transparency, and rigorous monitoring and enforcement of prohibitions on collaboration. Perhaps a law against being able to donate to a candidate AND promote them on your own because that would be de facto collaboration.

    "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

    by kovie on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:42:40 AM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  You can take a fundamentalist or... (9+ / 0-)

      ...expansionary view of every document, including the constitution.

      Frankly, this country is cursed with a founding document that is woefully out of date, which is why it has been expanded since its inception with reinterpretations of this or that clause.

      It's a political document. Nothing more.

      But, I know, the worship of the constitution from both the left and right makes that a realization most Americans don't want to face.

      "The disturbing footage depicts piglets being drop kicked and swung by their hind legs. Sows are seen being kicked and shoved as they resist leaving their piglets."

      by Bush Bites on Wed May 16, 2012 at 12:55:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Noteworthy parallel with bible fetishism (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        basquebob, burlydee

        "A fetish is an object believed to have supernatural powers, or in particular, a man-made object that has power over others. Essentially, fetishism is the etic attribution of inherent value or powers to an object."

      •  Founding father fetishism is alive and well on (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        wishingwell, wsexson, DampSquid

        both sides.  As if Jesus was at the constitutional convention, translating the unwritten books of the torah into the constitution.

      •  I would only say (0+ / 0-)

        that your view of constitutional "non-fundamentalism" could be and was used to justify BushCo's trampling of the constitution. You either adhere to a fairly strict interpretation or not. And once you don't, anything's open to reinterpretation.

        And the people who would do so don't always have the same beliefs we do.

        "Liberty without virtue would be no blessing to us" - Benjamin Rush, 1777

        by kovie on Wed May 16, 2012 at 08:22:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site