I notice that the average informed Progressive continues to misunderstand what Citizens United is about, when put into the historical context of U.S. Constitutional law and jurisprudence, and specifically as a derivative of Buckley v Valeo, which is a case that most informed Progressives aren't informed about/on and really couldn't be bothered about because, let's face it, that was then and this is now, and right now, we want Citizens United overturned because everyone at The Nation and The Progressive and Mother Jones and Huffington Post and ESCHATON and Hullaballoo! and shakesville and Salon and Slate and even over at Utne Reader everyone agrees that Citizens United is what has destroyed all our hopes for a fully and completely progressive United States of America.
No, no, look it's way bigger than that. No see since Citizens United all corporations basically own our lives completely and there's no way around it and no way out of it and no way past it, they own us thanks to Citizens United. It's an unConstitutional decision because, let's face it, corporations. Which are way worse than people, right? I mean who can argue with that? Sheesh. I mean seriously.
What? No I've never read the opinion in Citizens United. What does that have to do with whether the Supreme Court should pay attention when a majority of Americans want to see the Supreme Court get rid of, or whatever it is they call it when they zap it out of existence and make it disappear as if it was vaporized by an alien laser weapon. Whenever a majority wants that to happen to Citizens United, the Supreme Court should notice and take action. Just like they did with Roe v Wade.
No, I think you got confused. Roe v Wade is where the Supreme Court noticed that most everyone in America approves of abortions and, so, they're legal under the Constitution since most Americans agree that everyone should be able to get an abortion. That's what Roe v Wade is about. That's what I mean. The Supreme Court should listen to Americans again, just like it did in Roe v Wade, and this time they should destroy that Citizens United decision. Because most Americans want it gone.
Yeah of course. The Supreme Court should pay attention to what Americans want. They are supposed to be the highest judges in the land, who put into laws the opinions and views of the majority. Whatever the majority wants, the Supreme Court should be granting that. Or giving it. Or declaring it, whatever, y'know?
Right, it's the Congress that are the people's representatives. But it's also divided into Senators and Rep... Rep... Republicans? Reprehensibles? Representatives? Yeah. And since almost anyone can be a Representative then they're the people's representatives right? Yeah.
Of course the system has to have checks and balances. Otherwise the government runs over the people because it got too powerful and the people didn't have any checks and balances any more.
Well isn't it usually the Supreme Court who tells us when the checks and balances are needed and whether they are there? I mean isn't that why we put those guys --those people I mean-- up there in those robes and on that tall bench in DC? Because they're the ones who know what all this means, this checks and balances stuff, on a day to day basis I mean.
I'm not sure. What do you mean? I mean, the Democrats balance out the Republicans. If you're a Democrat you have to have Republicans to be your opposite, the guys in the black hat, the rival. Don'tcha? Same if you're a Republican, those Democrats are your rival. It's like having the NFL on Thanksgiving and the game is the Cowboys and the Redskins. That's what it's all about right there. That's checks and balances right there.
So then you're trying to tell me that it's the Congress that is supposed to listen to what people like me and you say about Citizens United, and do something about it? I don't understand. How could the Congress possibly do that? It's a Supreme Court decision.
I thought all 3 branches were supposed to be listening to the majority at all times. You know. Majority.
Well I guess using polls. Who would you choose? See who the majority chooses. Or what they want. Ask the majority about Citizens United. That's what I'd do.
What? Why would I ask them if they've read the opinion? That's the media's job, to know what it says. That's what people like those legal expert journalists on TV are supposed to do. You think the average American has time to sit around and read Supreme Court decisions all day? Nobody's payin' me to read that stuff.
So you're trying to tell me that having an opinion on Citizens United doesn't mean anything? You're saying the Supreme Court shouldn't be listening to people like me and making rulings based on how I feel about a Supreme Court decision?
My job? What does that matter?
So you're gonna draw some parallel between my work and a Supreme Court judge's work? Okay, I'm a software programmer. A coder.
No that means I work with the language of a particular software. Symbols, letters, numbers, spaces.
Well so far I have helped design an iPhone app that basically adds an additional app to help you open an app that already is on the iPhone. It helps you find the files stored on your phone, like YouTube downloads or photos you've taken.
What do you mean, "bullshit job"? My app helps people find things. By downloading my app, they now can easily find their stored files. Where maybe before they wouldn't have bothered to try to find them, not without my app being there first.
Why would I have to know the full hardware and software architecture of the iPhone in order to write a small app that basically shows you where your storage is? Do you think brain surgeons have to know all about how your toenail grows? I don't think so!
I don't really think the Supreme Court knew what they were doing in Citizens United. I think they opened a Pandora's Box with that one. And apparently a lot of people agree with me, based on the number of google hits I get when I look for Citizens United references and count the ones that want to see the opinion gone from our history books.
Well maybe I'm not a lawyer but maybe you're not a coder so you telling me I should know all about how an iPhone works in order to write good apps for it, that's bullshit if you ask me. Writing an app for an iPhone is an easy task, the code comes in templates available everywhere on the web and in the cloud. It's a lot like what my grandpa once described for me: painting by numbers. I think you're just jealous that we have so much great technology now, when back when you were my age none of this stuff existed and wasn't really even in sci-fi during that time. You're not as lucky as me to be young right now. There's a lot of opportunity for people like me with my background and my social media profile. Maybe that's why you are trying to tell me I'm wrong about Citizens United.