That is not rare at all. Thomas doesn't comment during the question and answer period with the lawyers when it is argued before the Court. He writes opinions all the time.
Just because they have a legal reasoning disagreement doesn't mean someone is bought and paid for.
Hey, Ginsburg supports abortion rights. She must be bought and paid for by the abortion lobby. Or she may just support that there is a legal right to have an abortion.
If you are going to condemn any society with even modest morals legislation (excluding major things like murder) as tantamount to slavery, there has never been a free people ever.
I thought that was weird too. Reading the dissents is often an interesting thing to do. Especially when it doesn't breakdown according to normal voting groupings.
What should be mentioned is that some states have prosecuted individuals for taping police, using wiretapping laws. This is a problem all over the country.
Police don't like being taped. Frankly, that's your best way of exonerating yourself during an altercation. And if you do... if you make the police look bad... that's when you have to worry about being prosecuted under wiretapping laws.
Thanks for the clarification about this particular case. I'm not granting them infallible powers. Nor am I saying they or anyone else is immune to bias. But commenters and analysts don't even bother to take their legal reasoning seriously.
You are looking for all decisions to be based on some underlying bias for or against a certain group. That's prevalent way of looking things. That's why people interpret decisions about being for or against corporations as opposed to following their stated legal reasoning.
I would look at the legal reasoning and take it at face value. Westboro Baptist cases are usually straight up protests which have less qualifications in terms of free speech rights than a student being in a public school and wearing a shirt.
If you think there should be a difference pass a Constitutional amendment. Again, the 1st amendment just mentions "speech" without any qualification as to whom is speaking.
Corporations, while a legal entity, are still collections of people. I fail to see how a collection of people should lack the free speech rights of a singular person.
The first amendment doesn't reference anything about personhood. It references "speech". So the question is whether speech is limited or not (it definitely was), not who is speaking (a collection of individuals or individuals).
They are supporting freedom of speech even when liberals don't like it.
The Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. There are no qualifications on "speech." Not "only speech by individuals not collection of individuals like corporations."
That was the basis of Citizens United and it was decided correctly. If you actually look at the text of the 1st Amendment, not if you are on some anti-corporate bent.
We had a harder time cleaning up the British mess known as slavery.
Also, after Wilberforce's reforms went through, the British Navy was employed to end the slave trade. In other words, the world's strongest navy (i.e. military force) was employed to end slavery.
"Software is a world where you learn something one day, flush it down the sink at the end of the day and start again from scratch the next day."
Of course. That's why it's "soft". That's a feature.
And, yes, I rest on the achievement of the physical sciences. And compiler writers. And OS writers etc. I have other problems to solve and I stand on their shoulders. I don't particularly feel like doing what has already been taken care of by others.
I understand your feelings. At the same time it sounds like someone learning chord progressions on the guitar and wondering how it was applicable to playing Led Zeppelin songs.
There was a depression in 1920, a much more severe than the drop in 1929.
If you take Friedman's analysis (and others) seriously, the Fed and other policy makers took a normal depression (all recessions were depressions back then) and made it much more severe.
A good question is whether depressions are due to all the previous manipulations. There is one example a depression where the U.S. did nothing and we got out of it relatively quickly. The Depression of 1920.
Slashdot Mirror
It's not racist because he's a conservative.
That is not rare at all. Thomas doesn't comment during the question and answer period with the lawyers when it is argued before the Court. He writes opinions all the time.
I'm sorry. I see this all the time on Slashdot.
Just because they have a legal reasoning disagreement doesn't mean someone is bought and paid for.
Hey, Ginsburg supports abortion rights. She must be bought and paid for by the abortion lobby. Or she may just support that there is a legal right to have an abortion.
If you are going to condemn any society with even modest morals legislation (excluding major things like murder) as tantamount to slavery, there has never been a free people ever.
Breyer dissented as well. Why did you leave that out of your analysis?
All rights get limited at some point. I'm not agreeing with Thomas, but you need to be fair.
I thought that was weird too. Reading the dissents is often an interesting thing to do. Especially when it doesn't breakdown according to normal voting groupings.
It's not like it's the Very Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Absolutely not true is correct. People would be freaking out if that was the case.
What should be mentioned is that some states have prosecuted individuals for taping police, using wiretapping laws. This is a problem all over the country.
Police don't like being taped. Frankly, that's your best way of exonerating yourself during an altercation. And if you do... if you make the police look bad... that's when you have to worry about being prosecuted under wiretapping laws.
So you are saying if Sierra Nevada wants to run an advertisement or publish a book, the government can ban that.
And if the government wants to censor the New York Times or shut it down, they can. Only individuals have freedom of the press, not corporations.
That is where your logic leads.
Thanks for the clarification about this particular case. I'm not granting them infallible powers. Nor am I saying they or anyone else is immune to bias. But commenters and analysts don't even bother to take their legal reasoning seriously.
You are looking for all decisions to be based on some underlying bias for or against a certain group. That's prevalent way of looking things. That's why people interpret decisions about being for or against corporations as opposed to following their stated legal reasoning.
I would look at the legal reasoning and take it at face value. Westboro Baptist cases are usually straight up protests which have less qualifications in terms of free speech rights than a student being in a public school and wearing a shirt.
It's not like anyone on the Court likes Westboro Baptist, so that example doesn't really show a bias.
If you think there should be a difference pass a Constitutional amendment. Again, the 1st amendment just mentions "speech" without any qualification as to whom is speaking.
Corporations, while a legal entity, are still collections of people. I fail to see how a collection of people should lack the free speech rights of a singular person.
The first amendment doesn't reference anything about personhood. It references "speech". So the question is whether speech is limited or not (it definitely was), not who is speaking (a collection of individuals or individuals).
Yes, Slashdotters are largely using double-standards in regards to Wikileaks.
They are supporting freedom of speech even when liberals don't like it.
The Constitution says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. There are no qualifications on "speech." Not "only speech by individuals not collection of individuals like corporations."
That was the basis of Citizens United and it was decided correctly. If you actually look at the text of the 1st Amendment, not if you are on some anti-corporate bent.
We had a harder time cleaning up the British mess known as slavery.
Also, after Wilberforce's reforms went through, the British Navy was employed to end the slave trade. In other words, the world's strongest navy (i.e. military force) was employed to end slavery.
Unfortunately, many can't distinguish between the two positions. My legal immigrant friends sure can.
"Software is a world where you learn something one day, flush it down the sink at the end of the day and start again from scratch the next day."
Of course. That's why it's "soft". That's a feature.
And, yes, I rest on the achievement of the physical sciences. And compiler writers. And OS writers etc. I have other problems to solve and I stand on their shoulders. I don't particularly feel like doing what has already been taken care of by others.
Should I feel bad about this?
There has to be a combination of some skill and interest. I would really like to be a major league ball player but I stunk in Little League.
I understand your feelings. At the same time it sounds like someone learning chord progressions on the guitar and wondering how it was applicable to playing Led Zeppelin songs.
There was a depression in 1920, a much more severe than the drop in 1929.
If you take Friedman's analysis (and others) seriously, the Fed and other policy makers took a normal depression (all recessions were depressions back then) and made it much more severe.
A good question is whether depressions are due to all the previous manipulations. There is one example a depression where the U.S. did nothing and we got out of it relatively quickly. The Depression of 1920.
Yeah, I thought when Slashdot announced that they were going to do a Q&A they were just taking questions. Who was actually expecting answers?