Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

America is going up in flames. The NYTimes fawns over MAGA celebrities. No longer a real newspaper.

Tide comes in. Tide goes out. You can’t explain that.

The low info voters probably won’t even notice or remember by their next lap around the goldfish bowl.

All hail the time of the bunny!

We can’t confuse what’s necessary to win elections with the policies that we want to implement when we do.

Accused of treason; bitches about the ratings. I am in awe.

We’re watching the self-immolation of the leading world power on a level unprecedented in human history.

If America since Jan 2025 hasn’t broken your heart, you haven’t loved her enough.

My right to basic bodily autonomy is not on the table. that’s the new deal.

When I was faster i was always behind.

One of our two political parties is a cult whose leader admires Vladimir Putin.

SCOTUS: It’s not “bribery” unless it comes from the Bribery region of France. Otherwise, it’s merely “sparkling malfeasance”.

Relentless negativity is not a sign that you are more realistic.

Usually wrong but never in doubt

Too often we confuse noise with substance. too often we confuse setbacks with defeat.

Republicans firmly believe having an abortion is a very personal, very private decision between a woman and J.D. Vance.

Technically true, but collectively nonsense

A thin legal pretext to veneer over their personal religious and political desires.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

Fear or fury? The choice is ours.

A norm that restrains only one side really is not a norm – it is a trap.

It’s a good piece. click on over. but then come back!!

Every decision we make has lots of baggage with it, known or unknown.

“But what about the lurkers?”

You are here: Home / Politics / Activist Judges! / Money Changes Everything

Reader Interactions

59Comments

  6. 6.

    Comrade Jake

    One does wonder how the ruling would have gone if the vast majority of PACs were liberal, backed by progressive billionaires. I assume that under those circumstances, Scalia would have ruled that money impinges on free speech.

  7. 7.

    balconesfault

    The Roberts Court … Ralph Nader’s ongoing gift to America.

    Because we all know there’s no different between Republicans and Democrats, right?

  8. 8.

    COB

    Ya gets the Court that ya pay for.

    In my fantasy world a meteor takes out the next Federalist meeting. That would help a lot.

  9. 9.

    JPL

    John, Because of the Citizen United ruling, the only fair thing to do is open up the spigots and let it flow. The constitution guarantees us the right of freedom to spend money to buy elections. It’s kinda like we have the best health care that money can buy.

    @ranchandsyrup: Saw that down below and commented.

  15. 15.

    Joey Giraud

    @Comrade Jake:

    I wonder who these so-called “progressive” billionaires are.

    Finding ways to grab huge piles of cash isn’t a progressive thing.

    George Soros doesn’t count, he’s not really progressive, more a man with an anti-communist mania.

  19. 19.

    Joey Giraud

    I’m of the belief that campaign finance laws are rather like chastity belts; ineffective attempts to rout the forces of nature.

    Money will always talk. We need to keep people from amassing such huge wealth in the first place.

    We have to stop thinking of great wealth as a reward for good behavior. It’s not.

    Hard work will only get you modest wealth, great wealth requires dirty tricks and sneaky laws.

  20. 20.

    balconesfault

    @PsiFighter37: Every time I have some fundraising e-mail or letter screaming about how some election is “THE MOST IMPORTANT IN OUR LIFETIME”, I think sorry – we already had that one in 2000 … and we f***ed it up

    Everything since has just been fighting over how best to clean up the mess.

  23. 23.

    ranchandsyrup

    saw this on the twitters re: Dollard:

    The booze and dope fueled many crazy antics, and in the spring of 2004, cops handcuffed Dollard and carted him off to the psych unit of an L.A. hospital.

    “Around this time he began his political conversion,” Wright notes. “Somewhere between the Roman orgy and the mental ward he became a staunch supporter of George W. Bush’s.”

    He showed his support for the war in Iraq by accessorizing his Hummer with a vanity plate that read US WINS.

  24. 24.

    Roger Moore

    @Joey Giraud:

    Money will always talk. We need to keep people from amassing such huge wealth in the first place.

    Which is why they’re so eager to buy up politicians: so laws separating them from their money won’t pass.

  27. 27.

    Joey Giraud

    @Roger Moore:

    Making that battle that must eventually happen worse.

    Sooner or later, we *will* roll this back. The only question is whether it happens with or without horrible carnage.

    Gotev Je? Let’s hope.

  30. 30.

    Raven Onthehill

    I’ve decided we have to do something about the Court; they will wreck us if we do not act. Part of the Judicial Oath says “I will […] do equal right to the poor and to the rich […]” I’m feeling like a conservative bird today; I’ve decided that keeping ones word is really important. Now can we start the impeachment proceedings?

  31. 31.

    Emerald

    @Joey Giraud:

    Hard work will only get you modest wealth, great wealth requires dirty tricks and sneaky laws.

    This.

    Hard work might make you into a millionaire, if you’re also extremely lucky and persistent.

    But if you’re a billionaire, one way or another, you’re a thief.

  32. 32.

    balconesfault

    @Raven Onthehill: Justice Roberts will no doubt point out that he’s eliminating the restrictions that keep the poor from contributing $6 million directly to candidates in any political cycle.

  33. 33.

    Captain C

    @Roger Moore:

    About as well as Eric Gregg

    I’m pretty sure I once saw Eric Gregg call a strike on a thigh high pickoff throw.

    And it was still better judgement than Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and (usually) Roberts ever show.

  34. 34.

    muricafukyea

    2 of those guys were appointed by the 1 guy you voted for twice.

    As far as I’m concerned you lost most of your rights to piss and moan about those 5 guys because of that as well as all the other cluster fucks that G. Dubya the Texas sized dummy created when you voted for that moron twice.

    Also, you often do everything you can to disenfranchise voters with a lot of your constant complaints about Obama and Democrats. Either directly or projected through your gated Brazilian community hero Griftwald. Also your “we should just give up” posts don’t help. Fair to say this one falls into that category as well. You’re just another hyprocrit. In other words you are part of the problem.

  35. 35.

    GregB

    In regards to Dollard’s fascist fantasy Tweets.

    This is the 20 year mark for the Rwandan genocide.

    The talk of killing ones political enemies is poison that can lead to the collapse of societies.

  36. 36.

    Comrade Jake

    @Joey Giraud: that’s kind of my point. There really isn’t an analog to the Kochs on the left. Were that the case, I suspect we might have had a very different ruling.

  37. 37.

    Roger Moore

    @GregB:

    The talk of killing ones political enemies is poison that can lead to the collapse of societies.

    Thatcher said there is no such thing as society, so why should they be afraid of killing it?

  38. 38.

    Disco

    You can blame Nader, but really what did it was the gay marriage ban in Ohio in 2004.

  40. 40.

    dedc79

    Got on a flight today to Hartford from DC and who did I see sitting in first class, but Justice Scalia. I was tempted to ask who paid for his ticket.

  41. 41.

    kindness

    For all the outrageous shit that Republicans/Teahaddists/those 5 Supreme Court members have bandied about since Obama took over I am shocked no one has done something really stupid like go after them. I mean, I know how it would be poetic/karmic justice but it would just fan the flames of those people. I don’t want another civil war here. Sadly some of my opponents do it seems to me.

    The French were right when they had their revolution I’m beginning to believe.

  44. 44.

    dedc79

    @ruemara: I also thought about throwing my loose change at him and telling him i was exercising my right to free speech, now that it’s clear that money and speech are the same thing.

  47. 47.

    danielx

    Remember the good old days when it was considered gauche to point out that the Supreme Court is a political entity and that the current five right-wingers will find any justification to do whatever fits their ideology.

    Yeah, that would have been prior to December 12th, 2000 – the day the Supremes handed down the Bush v. Gore decision.

  48. 48.

    coin operated

    I remember visiting Versailles and the guide telling me “this was the hunting lodge of the French elite”. I fully understood the French revolution at that point.

    Historically speaking, revolutions occur when the haves are obviously fucking over the have-nots. We’re not quite there yet, but I see this ruling as one more step towards our own Bolshevik uprising.

  49. 49.

    Omnes Omnibus

    @coin operated: Versailles didn’t to that for me. OTOH, being in a small church in Bruges and seeing the vast wealth in that little place just because some cloth that supposedly had some of Jesus’s blood on it was stored there made me appreciate the Reformation.

  50. 50.

    StringOnAStick

    @Omnes Omnibus: Going to the Hapsburg’s summer palace (Vienna) did it for me. As soon as we exited the tour I turned to my husband and said I totally understood why people anywhere revolt against such egregious excess, and they damned well should.

  53. 53.

    gian

    @coin operated:

    it was the textbook anecdotes of the running people over with horse and carriage (children) and then tossing the equivalent of a couple bucks to the family before taking off again, that shocked me.

    our inheriting class is so fucking ignorant that they just do not have a clue. and our courts are not giving them one. The Dupont heir who is a convicted baby raper gets no jail because it would be too hard for him.
    so much for the three year old daughter he raped. too bad she didn’t have a judge to stop it from happening ’cause it was too hard on her.

  54. 54.

    burnspbesq

    There is a natural human tendency to hate what you don’t understand.

    In Cole’s case, that extends to the First Amendment.

  56. 56.

    Steve

    Oh come on! That idea of judicial neutrality died and was buried when they stole the 2000 presidential election in broad daylight. I have no patience for lawyers who say that Bush vs Gore was a terrible decision but that the legal system works and life goes on. No! It was an abomination and an utter abrogation of the principles of our democracy and society. Shame on us all for “getting over it” so quickly!

  57. 57.

    Johannes

    I understand the First Amendment, burnspbesq, and this decision is an abomination for two reasons: (1) while paying lip service to the notion that donations to campaigns are not pure speech, the plurality opinion nonetheless treats them as such; and (2) the opinion reiterates the artificially narrow definition in CU of corruption Congress can act to prevent to specific quid pro quo transactions; paying for access and gratitude, even if it leads to favorable treatment is not corruption unless such favorable treatment was previously planned and agreed.

    And just in case you don’t think I understand the First Amendment, I’ve taught it, litigated it before courts including the Supremes, and published a book on it, as well as eight law review articles. Cole is right on this one, you’re wrong.

  58. 58.

    burnspbesq

    @Johannes:

    My view of the scope of First Amendment protection for core political speech does a much better job than yours of predicting outcomes. So who understands what?

  59. 59.

    Johannes

    I predicted the outcome, burns. As a piece of political hack work, and continuing the corporatist tilt begun by Buckley, made worse by CU, and exacerbated now.

    It’s the legitimacy of the ruling I’m assailing, not claiming it’s a surprise.

    My point is that in your comment to Cole, you intimated that to hate this outcome is to not understand, and indeed to hate, the First Amendment. I think that’s an absurd view, and a way of using your professional qualifications to shout John down. So I pointed out that one can understand and love free speech, and find this line of decisions abhorrent, and that, having spent a goodly part of my career litigating and writing about the First Amendment, I’m pretty sure that reaction is an informed one.

Comments are closed.