• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Do you fear Trump replacing RBG with a Judge off his list?

Do you fear Trump replacing RBG with a Judge off his list?

  • Yes, Trump cannot be allowed to do that.

    Votes: 9 11.5%
  • No, it doesn't scare me

    Votes: 59 75.6%
  • Other - Below

    Votes: 10 12.8%

  • Total voters
    78

So what you're saying is that "large organizations" should be denied First Amendment rights.

Do you understand that everything you say here would apply to large news organizations, to unions, to Planned Parenthood, etc.?
 
So what you're saying is that "large organizations" should be denied First Amendment rights.

Do you understand that everything you say here would apply to large news organizations, to unions, to Planned Parenthood, etc.?
Of course.

As it damn well should.
 

That does seem to be the trend.
The issue, in a way, is that the money is still on the side of the legacy systems.

One of the most difficult parts of this change I think necessary, should it come to pass, is applying it to media corporations.
For that matter, I think media corporation coverage of a specific politician over and above other politicians vying for the same elected position is in many ways (if not legally, yet) what is known as an in-kind contribution.
Since it benefits that politician by giving them free exposure to the public.
 
Of course.

As it damn well should.

So you're not much of a fan of the First Amendment in general.

That doesn't make judges wrong. It means you don't much believe in freedom of speech or of the press.
 
I personally think elections should be entirely publicly funded, with a flat ban on all funding or even in-kind contributions outside the equally distributed funding.

That includes the personal wealth of any candidate and the donations or in-kind contributions of any other person or organization.


The goal is to put every candidate in a given election race on an equal footing in terms of funding and in-kind support.
 
So you're not much of a fan of the First Amendment in general.

That doesn't make judges wrong. It means you don't much believe in freedom of speech or of the press.
I'm definitely a fan of the 1st Amendment.

I just don't think increased volume as a result of available funds should be considered part of said speech, and thus protected by the 1st Amendment
 
why shouldn't wealthy entities who do far more to fund the government than poor ones, have a right to use their wealth to influence the government that they fund?
Because representation should not be determined by how much you pay.
 
Could not answer your post as it reflects your personal bias.

Yes, I worry about ANY Trump decision, period, and certainly regarding SCOTUS.


However under the law of the land, he is entitled to make such nominations.
 
Could not answer your post as it reflects your personal bias.

Yes, I worry about ANY Trump decision, period, and certainly regarding SCOTUS.

However under the law of the land, he is entitled to make such nominations.

That has to be exhausting.
 
That has to be exhausting.

It does suck. And it sucks more to see my fears confirmed time after time.

Promises of preserving pre-existing conditions for health care...and current decisions to the contrary, come to mind immediately. We'll see.
 
I'm definitely a fan of the 1st Amendment.

I just don't think increased volume as a result of available funds should be considered part of said speech, and thus protected by the 1st Amendment

Fans of fundamental rights don't look for ways to limit those rights. If you think limiting someone's speech just because they have more means to speak is A-OK, then you're not much of a fan of the First Amendment at all.

Check my sig. It's been that way for a while. It's the Supreme Court's official line on it.
 
I'm not proposing limiting the speech, I'm proposing limiting the means.

As to your sig, I do not consider limits on the application of those means to be a restriction on speech, in the political arena.

Rather, it is a protection of the right to speak that we all have, preventing our being drowned out by those with more means to do so.
 

You would think that there was an agreed upon definition of limiting someone's freedom of speech. I think not. I.M.O. , it was a disgrace and a tragedy that the Reagan admin. scrapped the Fairness Doctrine, yet every attempt to reinstate it has been met w cries of "attack on free speech!" from Repubs. How did it limit free speech? The F.D. was meant to expand speech! It was meant to guard against the deplorable state we now find ourselves in- where most people only hear one side of a debate. The result: talk of revolution, violence and just plain horrible uncivil speech. The absence of intelligent debate between people who honestly disagree and are not motivated by money or ratings- well it has become rare as hen's teeth. People are going mad w misinformation.
 
I'm not proposing limiting the speech, I'm proposing limiting the means.

Ummm . . .

That IS limiting the speech. By design. It's the reason you WANT to "limit the means": to control the amount of speech someone's able to generate.

This is exactly the same as saying you're 100% for freedom of the press; you just want to make ink prohibitively expensive so newspapers can't publish so much.




And as such, the problem is with you, and not with the judges who consider freedom of speech to be exactly that, consistent with 800 years of English legal tradition. You're the one who's getting it wrong, not they.

So when you say:



Which is what this is about . . . you're wrong. You fundamentally misunderstand, and are hostile to, the First Amendment, in its original (and current!) sense.
 

You, too, should refer to my sig. The jurisprudence has already hashed all of this out.
 

How do you feel about the inverse of that situation?

https://youtu.be/dWet2SbU07c
 
Because representation should not be determined by how much you pay.

but if you have more money, the government shouldn't prevent you from spending it to advocate what you want. BTW I believe that representation should be tied to taxation.
 
I don't fear it, but I am concerned RBG will be forced to retire due to health concerns while Trump is still in office giving him 3 SC appointments during his presidency. If Kavanaugh's appointment didn't ensure a conservative SC for decades to come, Trump making a 3rd appointment to the bench most certainly will. Moreover, this appointment should it come to pass will remove any chance of having a swing vote on the bench. The hijacking of the highest court in the land will be complete.
 
What I fear is RBG living long enough until they figure out a way to transfer her consciousness to a new sleeve. Maybe before that happens they'll just transfer her to a box made by Dell or Apple that sits in a chair at the front of the court, along with eight other boxes, all voting on our collective fate. :doh Just give it time. It's all physics.

Altered Carbon
 
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…