US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

Yemenis account for approximately half of the inmates at Guantanamo.

whoah wtf had no idea the percentage was that large.

sad that the bbc is on this and the American news media... is not

this is prob obvious to us all, but if they are so bad and (deservedly) hated could this not be proven via a trial?

Oh, heavens, no, because if we exhibit the evidence we have against them it would endanger national security. That's some catch, that Catch-22.

plus it would require entering into evidence in a court of law that the US tortures prisoners, which has a whole host of ramifications

the evidence against them would be corrupted because they were coerced. one reason why torture suuuuucks. not really obama's fault, but it is his headache.

I asked whether Stevens thought the right to abortion recognized in Roe v. Wade would survive in his lifetime. “Well, it’s up to Justice Kennedy,” he replied. “I don’t know about the two new justices” — Roberts and Alito — “but I kind of assume it may well be up to him. There's some crank named Morbius on Ilxor who says it will never be overturned for some reason. Because of him I've lately just been reading the Excelsior threads."

Greenwald, as usual, gives a contrarian take on the SCOTUS ruling. Def. worth reading in full, but here's a salient excerpt, and it makes me feel better about my First Amendment stand a couple of days ago:

To the contrary, the entire dissent -- while arguing that corporations have fewer First Amendment protections than individuals -- is grounded in the premise that corporations do have First Amendment free speech rights and that restrictions on the expenditure of money do burden those rights, but those free speech rights can be restricted when there's a "compelling state interest." In this case, the dissenters argued, such restrictions are justified by the "compelling state interest" the Government has in preventing the corrupting influence of corporate money. That's why the extent of one's belief in the First Amendment is outcome-determinative here. Those who want to restrict free speech always argue that there's a compelling reason to do so ("we must ban the Communist Party because they pose a danger to the country"; "we must ban hate speech because it sparks violence and causes a climate of intimidation"; "we must ban radical Muslim websites because they provoke Terrorism"). One can have reasonable debates over the "compelling interest" question as a constitutional matter -- and, as I said yesterday, I'm deeply ambivalent about the Citizens United case because that's a hard question and I do think corporate influence is one of the greatest threats we face -- but, ultimately, it's because I don't believe that restrictions on political speech and opinions (as opposed to other kinds of statements) can ever be justified that I agree with the majority's ruling. There are reasonable arguments on all sides of that question.

yeah greenwalds take made me reconsider my kneejerk reaction

interesting but i disagree just bc i am not an absolutist about the first amendment and also because the restriction in this case is not content- or viewpoint-based like a restriction on radical muslim websites or banning the communist party.

i have read the linked greenwald piece, but not all of his comments on this. im a big fan of greenwald, but i think this is some jedi mind fuck bs. i get what he's saying- once you find that corps have a fundamental free speech right, limiting those corps is like limiting you or me. if one corporation is shackled, none of us are free. ok. in that case pay attention to the proper question, and worry about how we get to the correct answer for it.

it is entirely proper to focus first upon the question of whether corporations even have this fundamental constitutional right. if you find it does not exist you remove the entire element of "compelling state interests" for the purposes of defining limits upon that speech. that is, if this fakeass nonperson has no speech rights, you need not worry about what interests permit abridging those rights from a constitutional standpoint. that does NOT mean that the state would not permit the corporations by statute to enjoy some free speech protections. i think there are good policy and economic reasons for them to have those, but they are not absolute. and that's totally different from making them equal in rights to the people.

personally, if justices and greenwald or whoever want to broaden free speech rights to include totally unlimited personal election spending with disclosure, i am at least philosophically more in favor of that than allowing even limited corporate spending. corps arent in fact natural persons. what rights they have are those granted by the statutes creating them.

what rights they should have obv

i am at least philosophically more in favor of that than allowing even limited corporate spending

also, i need to think more on that statement. because i think well-regulated corporate spending might be better than unlimited personal spending.

And if they want to have those rights they should pay like everyone else when they screw up/steal money/kill people/etc.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQ7XFvniWWE

Doesn't the language "free speech" imply that money/contractual bondage is out of the question?

MONEY IS SPEECH ONLY IN AMERICA

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/4/43/Moneytalkssinglecover.jpg

ok, so i get what greenwald is saying. if we, as all 9 justices did, agree that corps DO have 1st amendment rights and that money IS speech, then this ruling follows. i could've done without the condescension, however:

When a court invalidates Law X or Government Action Y on constitutional grounds, it's always so striking how one's views about the validity of the court's ruling track one's beliefs about the desirability of Law X/Action Y on policy grounds (e.g., "I like Law X and disagree with the Court's ruling declaring Law X unconstitutional" or "I dislike Law X and agree with the Court's striking down Law X"). Campaign finance laws are popular with readers here, and thus a court decision striking down those laws inevitably will be unpopular (though the public at large -- including 2/3 of Democrats -- overwhelmingly agrees with the Court's ruling). It's critical always to note that these are two entirely distinct questions: (1) is Law X/Government Action Y a good thing?, and (2) is Law X/Government Action Y Constitutional? If you find yourself virtually always providing the same answer to both questions -- or, conversely, almost never providing opposite answers -- that's a very compelling sign that your opinions about court rulings are outcome-based (i.e., driven by your policy preferences) rather than based in law or the Constitution.

yes, thank you, i understand that constitutionality and "being a good thing" are not always in agreement.

that being said, i did not realize that the dissenters had taken as a given the fact that corps enjoy first amendment protections. my opposition to the ruling was, and is, grounded in my opposition to corporate personhood, which is what i assumed was up for debate in this case.

also, this:

I'm deeply ambivalent about the Citizens United case because that's a hard question and I do think corporate influence is one of the greatest threats we face -- but, ultimately, it's because I don't believe that restrictions on political speech and opinions (as opposed to other kinds of statements) can ever be justified that I agree with the majority's ruling. There are reasonable arguments on all sides of that question.

doesn't wash with me. i'm similarly hardline about political speech, but this statement still assumes that limiting the political speech of a for-profit "legal person" is in some way equally obnoxious to civil liberty as gagging actual citizens. if a corporation is ~by law~ beholden to the economic interests of its shareholders, any political speech it makes (ie pays for) should only be made for the purposes of maximizing profit or market share or whatever. in this sense, the political speech of a corporation is "automatic," and not the product of a free and rational actor. if Shell campaigns for a candidate that is friendly to Big Oil, it's not because the board believes in that candidate's political philosophy, it's because that candidate will likely support policy that serves Shell's economic interests. if they are going to spend shareholder money ~at all~ then it MUST be in a way that can be shown to be beneficial to shareholder's economic interests.

i did not realize that the dissenters had taken as a given the fact that corps enjoy first amendment protections. my opposition to the ruling was, and is, grounded in my opposition to corporate personhood, which is what i assumed was up for debate in this case.

otm

q: is corporate speech being protected in this instance because the court is considering a corporation as merely an assembly of citizens? like, indistinct from a local teabagging org or union or say the sierra club?

yes, to the best of my understanding

i am gonna read the opinion now

one thing I think we can all agree on is that the next election is gonna be a laff riot

when aren't they?!

yeah but what if the Republican candidate gets a full sponsorship from Microsoft and has to present all his stump speeches via SongSmith

yes, to the best of my understanding

― max, Saturday, January 23, 2010 3:16 PM (11 minutes ago) Bookmark Suggest Ban Permalink

ah ok. i guess if you consider them all to be equivalent, then it follows. but i really don't see how a for-profit entity can be thought of as being equivalent to non-profit, explicitly political orgs.

also, still trying to think of a sinister situation where limiting corporate speech would be bad. like, say, a small closely held corp (not traded) wants to build say a wind-farm that would be beneficial to the community (cheap clean energy yay) but they're running up against political resistance from a group that doesn't want its view ruined by turbines. i guess in this case if you had a law that totally gagged corporations, they wouldn't be able to appeal directly to voters w/r/t this enterprise which could be mutually beneficial. but no one's advocating that corps be disallowed all political speech---just that it's OK to impose strictures on corporate political speech that temper their abilities to use money to swing elections. i guess where there's room for debate, imo, is if you think that ANY kind of limitation of corporate speech could somehow be leveraged in the future to unfairly quash political speech of ALL kinds. but man, seeing how corps are so strictly defined, i don't see how that's possible.

seems like greenwald is being as reflexive in his desire to protect all political speech as the ppl he accuses of disliking this decision because they just hate corporations

'free speech no exceptions' is a fine thing to believe, but given that we already have many, many exceptions, how is this one somehow more corrosive than, say, telling people they can't say "fuck" on TV shows or display pornography in their front yard

tho i guess neither of those are explicitly political

this fiction must die yall. its ridiculous. corporations must serve man.

Also am wondering if corporations become full 'persons' under the law, how do they retain limited liability? People are liable.

this opinion is way boring. but i guess i get what greenwald is saying (i was being dumb earlier) because it *is* a content-based restriction in one way (it only applies to speech mentioning a candidate, which is always political speech). i still disagree because the more important issue is the discrimination against corporations, which is obviously not content-based and doesn't bring up a slippery slope like "if they ban the communist party they might someday ban my party." it's procedural and i'm totally ok with finding a compelling interest here. because the corp has special privileges under law that allow it to amass money and power, it shouldn't get to use its money to make commercials for a candidate who it hopes will help it get even more money. and even before this case it could still do it outside 30 days before an election!

xpost i believe he tried to point out in his post that constitutional rights are *not* limited to persons. you do not need to be a person to have first amendment rights.

Neither can one yell 'fire' in a theater (or a more dramatic post-9/11 equivalent) because it creates a public safety hazard.

Of course we won't be able to throw Big Oil in jail for trumpeting someone who will make it easier for them to create a public safety hazard (in the name of profits).

i'd be down with a law that says private money of any provenance is totally illegal to spend in a political campaign

no you wouldn't

oh ok i guess i wouldn't then

anybody want a beer?

by which i mean: then you get into the murky question of what constitutes "in a political campaign"

if candidate X is running on issue Y (which i, a private individual, thinks is pretty shitty), why shouldn't i be able to spend money on an ad in the newspaper that says "this sucks" but that doesn't mention X's name

if this is a week before the election, then ok, that's at least in the ballpark of a campaign. but what if we're a year out, and i run a weekly ad that says "this sucks." at what point is that no longer a private individual exercising the right to political speech and instead "private campaign funding"?

moreover, how would this affect explicitly political non-profits? there's a campaign coming up and planned parenthood has ppl handing out flyers to passersby. well, they paid for those flyers, and abortion is such a polarizing issue that it'll be clear to any voter who the pro-choice candidate is. is that private campaign advertising?

btw yes plz i will thank you

whereas: explicitly forbidding campaign advertising by corporations, which have very clear, very strict legal definitions, would be waaaaaaaaaaaaay easier.

q: are you registered as a corporation with the state?
a: y

ok then well looks like you are not allowed to buy campaign advertising. if you are publicly traded we will be vetting your financial disclosure for any funny business.

ah grolsch.

no i don't think it's campaign advertising if you don't mention the candidate or the party. otherwise you have to get into all kinds of subjective decisions which would be subject to endless lawyering. but if it does mention the candidate or the party, seriously i think it should be like tennis steroid testing, once and you're out for the tournament, any private money, your own or anyone else's. i'm sure there are downsides to this that i'm not thinking about but you have to admit it would keep things simple if campaigns simply could not accept contributions, from anyone.

it blew me away when i read that top tennis players have to notify drug testing officials of a time each day that they will be available for random testing should the officials decide to pay a visit. for each day of the year! nadal was like "even my mom doesn't know where i am that much." true, but that's the kind of rigor we need.

yeah i guess i can get with that.

Pete's Sake.

A group of nearly 200 "extremely concerned citizens" in a small Montana county are demanding that local leaders fill out a "questionnaire" pledging to form a local militia, prohibit mandatory vaccinations, boot the EPA out of town, allow citizens to bear any type of gun, and require federal government employees to get written approval before approaching "any Citizen."

The Ravalli questionnaire, which you can read here, demands that local officials pledge:

To form and command a county militia of all citizens 18 or older. However, it adds: "Note: Women must serve, but not in a combat capacity unless the men are in danger of being overrun."

"To absolutely prohibit all efforts, Federal, State or city, that infringe upon the right to keep and bear arms including the requirement to have a permit to carry a concealed weapon and restrictions on the kinds of weapons one may possess and carry, eg., fully automatic, silenced, length of barrel, length of blade, opening mechanism of a knife, etc."

To require federal employees to obtain written permission from the sheriff before approaching local citizens.

"To prohibit mandatory vaccinations."

To prohibit federal employees from collecting census information beyond the number of adults in each home.

To block all Environmental Protection Agency employees from entering the country. (We should note here that the editor of the Republic tells us he knows of no EPA activity in the county.)

"To use the term 'peace officer' in lieu of the current law enforcement officer.'"

Uh, don't worry Ravalli County. I can't speak for the EPA due to the Hatch Act, but I can tell you that your broken brainstem revolution guarantees that I will not go within 500 miles of your county.

man I live within 500 miles of that county

Chief Justice Roberts last September, questioning Solicitor General Elena Kagan, during oral arguments in the Citizens United v Federal Election Commission corporate-funding case whose decision was announced yesterday (as reported by Stuart Taylor here):

" 'When corporations use other people's money to electioneer,' as Kagan explained, 'that is a harm not just to the shareholders themselves but a sort of a broader harm to the public,' because it distorts the political process to inject large sums of individuals' money in support of candidates whom they may well oppose.

"Roberts sharply challenged this line of argument. 'Isn't it extraordinarily paternalistic,' he asked, 'for the government to take the position that shareholders are too stupid to keep track of what their corporations are doing and can't sell their shares or object in the corporate context if they don't like it? ... ' "We the government have to protect you naive shareholders." '

"Kagan responded that 'in a world in which most people own stock through mutual funds (and) through retirement plans ... , they have no choice. I think it's very difficult for individual shareholders to be able to monitor what each company they own assets in is doing.' "

http://jamesfallows.theatlantic.com/archives/2010/01/john_roberts_the_difference_fo.php

ha, that was supposed to be "q" for block quote, not "b" for bold. sorry.

it merits the boldface imo

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LfhGNOlg90

yeah the fiction of shareholder influence on corporations, like lots of people have pointed out, is a really obnoxious thing for anyone to hang a legal opinion on. corporations are not their shareholders. they just use our money to make themselves filthy rich.

Also am wondering if corporations become full 'persons' under the law, how do they retain limited liability? People are liable.

That's not what limited liability means. Limited liability means that a corporation's (or partnership or whatever) liability is limited to the actual assets of that corporation and does not include the assets of the people who own or run that corporation.

For instance if you started a business selling lemonade or whatever, and accidentally poisoned someone and then that person sued you, they could sue you for everything you own and basically ruin you personally. So what you would want to do instead is organize a business entity such that if you get sued, the worst thing that's gonna happen is that your business goes bankrupt, but you won't have to personally go bankrupt.