# Supreme court, the big story of the day **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [September 9, 2009, 2:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427 "2009-09-09T14:48:47Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/21 "2009-09-09T16:42:28Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …it seems reasonable that they read some reasonable restriction into the First Amendment to permit this sort of regulation… Well, so long as its reasonable… ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 5:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/22 "2009-09-09T17:00:50Z")
> [@Hamlet](#): > > overturning of prior precedent. What other kind of precedent is there? 😉 ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 5:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/23 "2009-09-09T17:14:02Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, so long as its reasonable… And another thing: reasonable, reasonable, reasonable. I’m redundant. Sue me. ---
**Author:** ![Hirundo82](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/919ad9/32.png) [@Hirundo82](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hirundo82)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 5:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/24 "2009-09-09T17:24:18Z")
> [@gonzomax](#): > > Roberts has always sided with corporations over people and workers. I hope he doesn’t do it again. This looks like a push to get pro business decisions through before Obama can influence the court with new appointees. “Big Business” is hardly the only group that would benefit from a ruling overturning current law. It would also allow union funding of political advertising, and the AFL-CIO has filed an [amicus brief](http://www.cuvfec.com/documents/case-08-205/Supplemental_Amicus_Brief_of_AFL-CIO.pdf) in support of the appellant. Also, Sotamayor has a reputation as a First Amendment purist, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see her voting to overturn McCain-Feingold. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 6:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/25 "2009-09-09T18:23:17Z")
[http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/](http://www.scotusblog.com/wp/) It did not go well. Roberts appears to be leaning to overthrow recent rulings . He likely has Thomas and Scalia with him. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 6:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/26 "2009-09-09T18:31:31Z")
Thank you, **Bricker** and **Richard Parker**. The thing that gives me pause about calling it a campaign ad, rather than a documentary, is that it is being marketed as a movie. That is, they’re not showing it to everybody for free. Too simplistic? ---
**Author:** ![Bricker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/977dab/32.png) [@Bricker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bricker)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 7:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/27 "2009-09-09T19:22:22Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > Thank you, **Bricker** and **Richard Parker**. The thing that gives me pause about calling it a campaign ad, rather than a documentary, is that it is being marketed as a movie. That is, they’re not showing it to everybody for free. > > Too simplistic? I think so, simply because the movie (if reviews are to be believed) is one long stream of reasons that the viewer should not vote for Hilary Clinton, in much the same way that Farenheit 911 was a long string of reason to reject George W Bush. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 7:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/28 "2009-09-09T19:57:29Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > …I’m redundant. Sue me. And the Lord said to the Devil “If you don’t, I’ll sue you!” And the Devil laughed and said “Where are you gonna get a lawyer?” ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/29 "2009-09-09T20:50:21Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > I think so, simply because the movie (if reviews are to be believed) is one long stream of reasons that the viewer should not vote for Hilary Clinton, in much the same way that Farenheit 911 was a long string of reason to reject George W Bush. But, unless I missed something, _Fahrenheit 911_ was not suppressed as a campaign advertisement. Was it? If they were both bona fide commercial endeavors to release and distribute motion picture industry-type product and make a profit, they should both be treated the same by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 9:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/30 "2009-09-09T21:10:02Z")
> [@Does the first amendment really let corporations buy elections?](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/does-the-first-amendment-really-let-corporations-buy-elections/507690/63): > > For anyone actually interested, here is the [Timeline of Personhood Rights and Powers, by Jan Edwards et al](http://www.ratical.org/corporations/ToPRaP.html)"]timeline of the Supremes’ rulings on corporate personhood. Corporate “personhood” is entirely a creation of SCOTUS’s interpretation of what? Not [the US Constitution nor its 27 amendments](http://www.usconstitution.net/const.html) in which the word “corporation” does not appear once . Before the Civil War, southern agricultural capital gave counterweight to northern industrial and the South had a fair hand in composing the SC. The question of corporate personhood began to arise post-bellum after the USG was firmly in the hands of northern banks and industrial interests and in [1889](http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=129&invol=26) the SC finally ruled that corporations are people. Oh, the irony of it all. The corporation “lost” the suit but for the price of 3 hogs, ($24 … where has that number appeared before?) corporations were awarded personhood. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 9:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/31 "2009-09-09T21:28:50Z")
Bad link.:smack: For SCOTUS’s timeline on corporate personhood, it’s [here](http://www.ratical.org/corporations/ToPRaP.html). ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 10:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/32 "2009-09-09T22:12:44Z")
Money talks, and I can live with that. Money votes, and that sorta gets on my nerves. Chaps my hide. Pisses me off, bigtime and downtown. I would very much like to move in the direction of minimizing such power. Quite soon, actually. If its not too much trouble. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 10:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/33 "2009-09-09T22:39:44Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Money talks, and I can live with that. Money votes, and that sorta gets on my nerves. Chaps my hide. Pisses me off, bigtime and downtown. > > I would very much like to move in the direction of minimizing such power. Quite soon, actually. If its not too much trouble. If passing the 28th amendment, Congress shall pass no law recognizing corporations as human beings, previous judicial rulings aside. is too much trouble, then we’re out of luck. ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/34 "2009-09-09T22:42:47Z")
Well, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, some are just more entertaining than others. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 10:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/35 "2009-09-09T22:44:43Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > Well, there’s more than one way to skin a cat, some are just more entertaining than others. Nuke DC? ---
**Author:** ![elucidator](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/8edcca/32.png) [@elucidator](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elucidator)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/36 "2009-09-09T22:48:28Z")
No, no, that’s too radical. A few carefully chosen trips to The Wall, perhaps. _Pour encourager les autres_. ---
**Author:** ![adhay](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/ecd19e/32.png) [@adhay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/adhay)\ **Post date:** [September 9, 2009, 10:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/37 "2009-09-09T22:59:51Z")
> [@elucidator](#): > > No, no, that’s too radical. A few carefully chosen trips to The Wall, perhaps. _Pour encourager les autres_. I’m much to old for this sort of thing and decry any illegality whatsoever. But, whatever it takes. ---
**Author:** ![gonzomax](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/e8c25b/32.png) [@gonzomax](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/gonzomax)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 2:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/38 "2009-09-10T02:25:02Z")
> [@Hirundo82](#): > > “Big Business” is hardly the only group that would benefit from a ruling overturning current law. It would also allow union funding of political advertising, and the AFL-CIO has filed an [amicus brief](http://www.cuvfec.com/documents/case-08-205/Supplemental_Amicus_Brief_of_AFL-CIO.pdf) in support of the appellant. > > Also, Sotamayor has a reputation as a First Amendment purist, so I wouldn’t be surprised to see her voting to overturn McCain-Feingold. She didn’t seem to lean that way in arguments. She had difficulty accepting that corporations are entitled to all the rights of people. McCain and Finegold were adamant that if corporations had these rights ,they could overpower the rights of people. . The reason they passed the legislation named after them was due to the corruption that they saw with corporations and politicians. this case could put us right back where started from. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 3:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/39 "2009-09-10T03:22:38Z")
In case anyone wants to listen to the arguments: [Link.](http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rss/media/2009/09/09/09092009_fullscotusarugment.mp3) ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [September 10, 2009, 5:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427/40 "2009-09-10T05:18:05Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > In this particular case, though, we’re not talking about a huge corporate treasury – it was a non-profit group that released the movie. The Court ordered re-arguments on the treasury issue – whether or not the constitution prohibits laws regulating how corporations spend their treasuries on elections. I hope the Court only decides the movie issue and doesn’t strike down the precedent allowing the government to regulate corporate spending on elections, but that doesn’t seem likely at this point. Kennedy, Scalia, and Thomas are all against such government regulations. If Roberts and Alito join them then the Court might just as well overrule its past decisions. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/supreme-court-the-big-story-of-the-day/509427.md?page=1)