Founding Fathers rolling over in their graves

[William Thornton]

Keith sez: But I’m glad that William has rescinded his words (see his green words above )

Referring to my "end of discussion" comment on the question that corporate spending is indeed constitutional as a result of SCOTUS' decision. There can be no sensible discussion that such is not constitutional.

You are smarter than this.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

My thick headed engineer friend: It is constitutional cuz SCOTUS sez it is. If you toss out graphs until we all puke on our keyboards, it is still constitutional. If every hack constitutional xpoit sez it is unconstitutional, as long as five justices sez it is, it is.

We can have fun saying it ain't but that doesn't mean it ain't.

[KeithE]

[William Thornton]

[Ed Pettibone]

Keith writes "There certainly can be discussion about the constitutionality of corporate spending on elections. To say otherwise is saying the SCOTUS is infallible and the very definition of Constitutionality and Ultimate Best Election Practices.

No Keith, William is not saying that the SCOTUS is infallible, he is saying that they are the final arbitrator of what is constitutional at any point in history.

[William Thornton]

[KeithE]

[Sandy]

[William Thornton]

Keith, either a slow learner or a stubborn tweaker (I'll be gracious and take the latter) said: "William was trying to close off discussion"

William, if I may be Bob Doleish, absolutely shut off discussion on the question of the constitutionality of corporate campaign spending. SCOTUS said it wuz constitutional; therefore, it is. End of that discussion.

Campaign finance whiners may say that the justices are idiots, that they don't know the constitution from a right wing corporate rag, and that they are business lackeys. The leftist, perpetual, rock-in-shoe anti-capitalists may offer that in their lay, unofficial, and unenforceable opinion that such is UNconstitutional...but they cannot say that the black robed constitutional masters have not defined for our laws, gummit, and citizenry what is constitutional in this regard.

The discussion by the constitution opinion machines have, manifestly, not been ended, nor should or will they.

Prattle on, brethren.

[Dave Roberts]

SCOTUS has been proven wrong several times. For decades SCOTUS recognized "separate but equal" as being acceptable until 1954. Citizens United will unravel in the same way, I predict.

[KeithE]

[David Flick]

[Mrs Haruo]

Don't bring your pukey old keyboards to me to clean, no way, no how!

[Haruo]

[William Thornton]

I love leeks...such a biblical food item.