scotus you say?

asshats. i shake my head every time that they decide anything.

SCOTS. Almost.

To an amoral scumbag like me, this great news.

had to google SCOTUS

I think it's retarded, but whatever it's not news that this country is run by corporations.

this is the essence of corporate control of this democracy in my opinion.

now it's just out in the open and the dick sucking can take place in the light of day

don't know about you but i'm voting Apple/Starbucks in 2012

Its a bad decision from a public policy standpoint, but there are some legitimate free speech arguments in favor... Especially since earlier rulings established that giving money is speech. Const amendment time?

it's a living document, what the hell

I'd love that, but I think it's a generation (at least) away.

Blah blah blah blah blah corporataions blah blah blah blah blah blah blah influence blah blah blah blah blah blah blah it's okay for unions because they support the Dems blah blah blah blah blah blah money bad blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah when has an evil corporation ever swayed an election blah blah blah blah.

This decision also frees unions to make contributions, which could make the political process in the future more interesting. It also may have the effect of depolarizing the parties by dividing elections across labor lines.

Well, canard doesn't even begin to describe this reasoning. One percent of Exxon's average annual profits are much more than all sides spent on the last presidential election. Unions and their PACs have, proportionately, fewer resources year by year. 20% of all Americans belonged to unions in the 50's. Now, less than 7% of non-gov't workers belong to unions. The decline has incresed pace since Reagan's 1980s. The re-distribution of wealth from the middle class to the already-wealth correlates closely to this decline.

I worry about my country. I love my country. I see that large groups of my countrymen have been convinced to be angry about initiatives that would help them. They take the soma of materialism and stupefying media and fattening food. The asses broaden and the brains atrophy. I see the language of the public sphere (including jocular posts on bulletin boards) fall into gangster partisanship subsumed into the steering mechanisms of the dominant elite.

SCOTUS had absolutely no need to take this particular case to this decision. The principles argued could have decided for the anti-Hillary film without making the broad change that is in complete contradiction to decades of judicial decisions.

There is no clearer example of an "activist court." Never again let the American Taliban Right talk about the need to limit federal gov't and "rein in" the activist federal judiciary.

Well, that's the most cogent summary of my opinion on the subject as I could ever hope to give voice to. Thank you, Harry.

Wall-mart for 2012!!!!

Because anyone who disagrees with you is wrong, having been misled.

Too bad they're living in Cap'n's mansion.

Isn't that exactly your position, Billz?

I'm not justifying the policy reasons. I'm just noting the potential effects of the decision. And one of those may be a less of importance on political parties and more of a focus on the sides of labor. I agree the corps have a financial superiority in that dictomy.

This is middle-school smack talk that our national political discourse has been reduced to. Another way to respond might be, "what initiatives that would benefit people do those same people object to? Explain your position in 50 words." But instead we (as Radcliffe points to) reduce our thinking to..."oh yeah, you're wrong." and condemn our own discourse practices in others.

I am old enough to remember a day when actually debate about issues happened...

No, not really. Harry's post falls apart and is offensinve on many levels. The elitist prickery is only the most egregious.

If you wish to break his statement down to its lowest level, why is it a given that the proposed health care legislation will really help people? Increased employment costs, caps on private insurance company margins, an open door to federal control provider compensation, etc. can all be argued to "harm" everyone. But let's join Harry and just gloss over that.

If you want to elevate it a level, why must we assume that the moral solution is a governemnt provided social safety net? Why is a command economic solution necassarily superior to a free market solution? Hmm? Oh yeah, the dissenters have been convinced not to side with Harry, ostensibly because they're too dumb not to resist the corporate influence that has now been unleashed by the supreme court.

very well stated, harry. i agree wholeheartedly. i don't understand the lack of concern about corporate takeover of our government in an even more overt way.

This is your most pedantic statement, and reduces you to a sixties radical characiture -- there is more debate surrounding every single issue that effects every single aspect of your, my and everyone in the country's life than there ever has been. You can comment on news articles in almost every publication, you have access to entire libraries of publications like Time's history, and you can see detailed policy papers on issues from abortion/women's rights to the gay marriage/civil union debate.

Now, if you would like to argue that we don't really listen to each other, I would present this thread as exhibit A.