We're missing a golden opportunity here, people.

SCOTUS says corporations are people too, right? Well, the DSM-IV says that if a person acted in a manner similar to SOP at the average corporation, they would be labeled sociopathic. If they then engaged in behavior that proved to be a threat to themselves or others, they could be involuntarily committed, until such a time that they can 'prove' that they're sane.

And... well... I'd like to see them try.

>> ^alizarin:
This is major major major bad news... but maybe it'll be so bad it'll make people win the end of Corporate personhood that's been around for a few decades.


Yeah, keep asking yourself, what's finally going to put people into action, to effect political change.

laws are for the public welfare, so you ahve the SCOTUS twisting the laws that actually make corporations legal, to actually work against the public good, rather the corporate interests.

it's an insult to judges everywhere. I think.

next on the list of corporate america:

OWN THE INTERNET AND BE THE GATEKEEPER FOR INTERNET COMMUNICATION

>> ^Stormsinger:
I'll make a prediction: in 2020, the left-most candidate will be far to the right of Palin, funded by Murdock and the Walton family.
The sad part is, I'm actually afraid this semi-tongue-in-cheek prediction might come true.


Yes, and they'll recall with horror the memory of Ronald Reagan, the Marxist radical.

Next up: SCOTUS rules that Corporations, and wholly-owned subsidiary corporations can vote in elections, cutting out the need to bother with spending money on campaigns.

I wanted to see if I could find the real court finding, to see on what basis they decided in his favor.

I had some trouble with that. It would be an understatement to say that this man has spent a lot of time in court over the last decade. Here's a decent summary from Mother Jones; it's Lt. Col. Donald Sullivan.

So, I found the opinions of him being laughed out of court for claiming that his property taxes are unconstitutional pretty much every year for as far back as the court has records. He's tried to get cases up to the SCOTUS on illegal passage of the 16th amendment (that's the one that permits income taxes), he's trying to make a case that Barack Obama's birth certificate is fake. He also tried to sue that the Iraq and Afghanistan wars were illegal because they were undeclared.

All that said, I haven't found any record of him winning a court case about a "right to drive" except this Youtube video, and it's accompanying article on the local TV station (which is basically a transcript of this video), and a blog entry by Donald Sullivan telling a story about how his son got arrested for refusing to answer an officer's questions when pulled over. He did this because the officer first read him his Miranda rights and then asked for license and proof of insurance (at which point the son exercised his right to remain silent).

Regardless, I think all rights have limits. You are free to speak, but you may not incite people to violence. You are free to "bear arms" but I'm pretty sure land mines are not permissible. You are guaranteed the right to a trial, but you do not have the right to infinite appeal.

People should indeed be able to move about without restriction. This does not mean I may use a 3000 lbs. device to convey myself without limits on how that device is used and operated.

Personally, I think if you want to take a "right to free movement" to some sort of extreme, the real meaning would be that trespassing shouldn't be a crime, and things like locks and fences should be illegal since they restrict people's freedom of movement.

After all, if you cause no damage to the person's property, it's a victimless crime...

Huh. Well, then the intent of it is important. I'm allowed to burn a cross for the hell of it, but as a means for racial intimidation it's not constitutional... that's gotta be hard to differentiate.

What about burning flags, swastikas and stuff like that? I would think that as long as it is on her own property it would not be possible to interfere.

>> ^JiggaJonson:
Actually the supreme court has ruled on a ban that Virginia has on cross burning and found the ban to be uncconstitutional but only because it covered cross burning in general. Regulations could be only established to bar that specific act if the cross burning was done as a means of racial intimidation.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/
"We conclude that while a state consistent with the First Amendment may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional," the ruling said.
This seems to be a clear cut case of a person motivated by racial intimidation and while, again, I'm all for the rights of the individual, those rights should only extend as far as they dont infringe on the rights of others.

Actually the supreme court has ruled on a ban that Virginia has on cross burning and found the ban to be uncconstitutional but only because it covered cross burning in general. Regulations could be only established to bar that specific act if the cross burning was done as a means of racial intimidation.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/

"We conclude that while a state consistent with the First Amendment may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional," the ruling said.

This seems to be a clear cut case of a person motivated by racial intimidation and while, again, I'm all for the rights of the individual, those rights should only extend as far as they dont infringe on the rights of others.


In reply to this comment by gwiz665:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
I'm as liberal as it gets but I don't think this falls (or should fall) under first amendment protections. Would it be ok for her to have a burning cross in her front yard as well?
I'm currently racking my brain thinking about some of the negative implications of barring this woman from posting signs on her property.


Yes it would. Burning flag too.

Actually the supreme court has ruled on a ban that Virginia has on cross burning and found the ban to be uncconstitutional but only because it covered cross burning in general. Regulations could be only established to bar that specific act if the cross burning was done as a means of racial intimidation.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/

"We conclude that while a state consistent with the First Amendment may ban cross burning carried out with the intent to intimidate, the provision in the Virginia statute treating any cross burning as prima facie evidence of intent to intimidate renders the statute unconstitutional," the ruling said.

This seems to be a clear cut case of a person motivated by racial intimidation and while, again, I'm all for the rights of the individual, those rights should only extend as far as they dont infringe on the rights of others.

Well the supreme court has ruled on cross burning and other things where the intent is racial intimidation.
http://www.cnn.com/2003/LAW/04/07/scotus.cross.burning/
I am a very liberal person but the rights of the individual only extend as far as they dont infringe on the rights of others. In this case, the intent, even described by the woman herself, was to ward of a specific race of people.

In reply to this comment by rebuilder:
>> ^JiggaJonson:
I'm as liberal as it gets but I don't think this falls (or should fall) under first amendment protections.


Doesn't sound like you're all that liberal to me. Assholes, too, have the right to free speech.

^ I'd say what makes the debate phony is that Democrats don't really want to try to repeal the 2nd amendment anymore. I think there's a consensus in the Democratic party that the 2nd amendment provides for an individual right to bear arms (and we now have a SCOTUS decision affirming it).

Republicans try to make political hay of the fact that Democrats want laws to attempt to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and try to limit the level of firepower an individual can personally own, but there just isn't any grassroots interest in the topic, generally. We're pretty happy with how gun laws work now, and are pretty tolerant of shifts in either direction.

So essentially, these "pro-gun" people are spoiling for a fight with people who don't really care. Worse, they're making up bullshit about how Obama in particular wants to end the private ownership of guns entirely, which is not just distortion, it's fiction that flies directly in the face of facts.

This is really and truly the most phony of the phony Republican wedge issues, largely because my half of the wedge just says "meh" about the whole topic.

Abortion is generally a better wedge because people on both sides care, though why people can't seem to come together in agreement over contraceptives and real sex ed as tools to reduce them, I can't fathom.

Sorry, I suppose I should wait until one of our resident Colmses makes a mindless post about liberal babykillers before we get on that topic.

>> ^deedub81:
Does it make their actions unlawful because they were fooled?

The SCOTUS has already ruled on the use of IR cameras without a search warrant. It's unlawful because they violated the 4th ammendment. I don't care how many people they catch that are guilty using this illegal means. They broke the law and should be punished for it. If you don't agree with this then you don't deserve the protection that the constitution provides you.

>> ^campionidelmondo:
Why all the attention on this issue? He's either gonna pay 7% or 10% less taxes. Sounds like a complete non-issue to me. And he's not gonna be disenfranchised. Even if he was, it would be his own fault. As far as I know he noticed the misspelling of his name, but did not notify the proper authorities in order to fix it.
I hate to see how both candidates court this Joe guy as if he was their prom date. To me he represents part of the problem. Only concerned about his money, about politics that directly affect him now, not about any of the real issues that might possibly affect his children and his children's children. He doesn't care where his money goes either, he's only concerned that it isn't his money anymore.


You're right, though I don't really think Obama or McCain are trying to cater to Joe Wurzelbacher the actual person, but to Joe the Plubmer^TM the archtypical everyman that such a name implies.

Since the media is foolishly lapping this up, thinking the archtypical everyman will make for good infotainment, I was just suggesting that we give the media a useful shiny object to segue to, since their everyman was going to get his vote challenged by the very party he's registered with.

But...my dreams of being a master media manipulator are for naught, Jennifer Brunner and the Ohio SCOTUS already did their jobs and corrected the issue.

Now the newly registered can vote, even if their names are misspelled.

>> ^blankfist:
You tire me out, NetRunner. I cannot imagine even trying to honor your ridiulous claims. Obama and McCain are terrible choices, so I refuse to argue that one should act one way or another because it's befitting of their party to gain a win. That's what you do. Not me.


>> ^blankfist:
Actually, rereading that comment it sounds harsh. When I say you tire me out, I don't mean I tire of our debates. I actually do enjoy debating you, NR. In fact, our PM debates have been some of the most fun I've had on here. You're a great debater and passionate about your party's politics. So, there. I said something nice. Don't tell anyone.


Schizophrenia gets you everywhere. A big Fuck You and a big kiss for you.

My evil plans to help protect voter's rights are too late: the Ohio SCOTUS just did that for me.

To try to pander to your lunatic 3rd party aspirations, I'll repeat some advice I've given previously: if another 3rd party or party outcast (like Paul or Kucinich) gets a money bomb like Paul did, they need to take that money and try to run a campaign that includes TV ads, on-the-ground organization, and a TV-media-interview strategy for having them legitimize you.

Part of why Democrats lost in 2000 and 2004 is because they were up against people who knew how to manipulate the media narrative to their benefit, and the Democrats didn't think that was something they either could or should do (I'm not sure which).

Times have changed. I think the Campaign for Liberty is a possible sign that Paul is realizing that too, I'll be sure if he starts working on getting a libertarian AM radio talk show running.

I also think 3rd parties should try to win some seats in the House, rather than taking futile cracks at the Presidency.

I guess the cynical lesson that's finally been driven into me through this process is that too few people care enough, or are educated enough to even have a glimpse of what policies might be beneficial or harmful -- they mostly go based on the beliefs reinforced by the media they consume.

I know you're a true believer in conservative/libertarian philosophy, but how many people out there voting for Republicans really know what that even is? Joe the Plumber^TM sure as shit doesn't. I don't even think Caribou Barbie Sarah Palin does either, and if she does she probably learned it at an Alaska Independence Party meeting.

You guys need another William F. Buckley, who's smart, and charming, and entertaining, who gets on TV and puts the right face on your philosophy. Until that happens, 3rd parties are just going to be a curiosity.

I'm cautiously optimistic that the Republican party as we've known it is about to get shattered. Lots of people are going to be looking at how to reassemble it for 2012. Now might be a good time to get organized to be ready, and get that party back to its roots. I hope Ron Paul wins, but if I had to guess right now we'll be seeing the Mike Huckabee party rise in 2012, and that won't bear any resemblance to a paleo-conservative party at all.

That "...materially and substantially interfer[ing] with the requirements of appropriate discipline in the operation of the school..." is in the interpretation of the courts, not the school administrators. The student can sue and win if the administrators restrict speech that isn't really interfering with the school's operations in the interpretation of the courts. But if you sue the school for suspending you for yelling "George Bush is a two-cent transvestite hooker" during the principal's speech at an assembly, you're gonna lose.

The Tinker case allowed students to wear black armbands opposing the Viatnam War despite the objections of the school administrators. More recently, SCOTUS ruled 5-4 to allow a principal to suspend a student for displaying a 14-foot "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" banner right outside a school event. If one of those 5 dies and Obama replaces him, that could be reversed.