Link: Well! How now, Tucker?

TIDE-HSV said:

Then we need to repeal Citizens United and go back to one man - one vote...

Click to expand...

TIDE-HSV said:

Then we need to repeal Citizens United and go back to one man - one vote...

Click to expand...

Bazza said:

That would be fine with me.

Don't think it's possible though.

Click to expand...

Citizens simply has not had the seismic legal impact that many think. Since Buckley protected money as speech, the only question was whether corporations were legitimate speakers. It may surprise some to hear, but the Court had already answered this question in 1978. In First National Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, the Supreme Court recognized a corporate right to free speech, concluding that the value of speech in the course of political debate does not depend on the identity of the speaker. Citizens simply followed the precedent of these two cases.

So when liberals intone that “corporations aren’t people,” thinking they are making a knock-down argument against Citizens, they miss the point. Citizens did not make corporations persons. And corporations do not need to be persons to receive First Amendment protections. Citizens upheld the liberty, provided by Bellotti, of corporations to speak, and they speak under the rules provided by Buckley.

Click to expand...

4Q Basket Case said:

Careful what you wish for.

It's not much of a step from there to abolition of the Senate. Because, after all, if Wyoming has the same number of Senate votes as, say, New York or California, doesn't that mean that the vote of a citizen of Wyoming counts (literally) about 70x that of a citizen of CA?

If the Senate goes away, so does the Electoral College, which means that CA, NY, TX, and FL determine the national elections. Those states are the main sources of undocumented / illegal (take your pick) immigration. Two of them are heavy blue. The other two are razor-thin one way or the other.

So is there any wonder that the blues want unrestrained immigration? It would ensure their political power for several generations or until the economy collapses, whichever comes first.

And the delicious irony is that the Senate was created precisely to prevent minorities -- in this case, residents of less populous states -- from being steamrolled by the unbridled majority -- in this case, the residents of more populous states. Without it, the Constitution would never have been ratified.

So, today, the very party that purports to protect minority interests is actually fighting tooth and nail to create a minority for the specific purpose of milking it dry.

How sweet is that?

Click to expand...

4Q Basket Case said:

OK....so what is the truth of the blue position on immigration?

If it is not to create a cadre of voters big enough to swing the vote in Texas and Florida (no need in NY or CA...you're already far ahead there), what is it?

What distinguishes sanctuary cities and extending both the vote and citizens' benefits to non-citizens, as a practical matter, from Roosevelt trying to pack SCOTUS?

For that matter, what is the definition of citizen, beyond being someone who really, really wants to be here?

Click to expand...