2016 Postmortem

angrychair

(8,694 posts) Mon Jun 16, 2014, 10:38 PM Jun 2014

Supremes says that lying is "a-ok" with them

Whenever I think I can't be surprised by all this bullshit somehow they manage to leave me slack-jawwed. The USSC has agreed to take a case that would allow those running for office (in office?) and groups in organizations running political campaign ads to lie and cheat as much as they would like. USA USA USA

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/scotus-sba-list_n_5499404.html

15 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Supremes says that lying is "a-ok" with them (Original Post) angrychair Jun 2014 OP

This message was self-deleted by its author Adam051188 Jun 2014 #1

Premature angst. silverweb Jun 2014 #2

If they vote against lying then we can bring back the Fairness Doctrine. joshcryer Jun 2014 #7

If the USSC is imthevicar Jun 2014 #11

What else is new Pakid Jun 2014 #3

So Republicans can ban dem ads for "lying?" Cicada Jun 2014 #4

I think they only sent it back to the lower courts that blocked the suit proceeding. Fred Sanders Jun 2014 #5

If it wasn't for lying MurrayDelph Jun 2014 #6

^This.^ blkmusclmachine Jun 2014 #10

that is a complete misrepresentation of what the court did dsc Jun 2014 #8

Thanks for the voice of sanity. JayhawkSD Jun 2014 #9

+ 12 quadrillion "I do think that having a group of political appointees given power to force stevenleser Jun 2014 #14

I hope that law is struck down real quick. NYC Liberal Jun 2014 #12

They did not just decide to take the case: it was heard this term. The opinion was issued this past Princess Turandot Jun 2014 #13

Good thing there isn't a law against lying about what the USSC says. :) FBaggins Jun 2014 #15

Response to angrychair (Original post)

Adam051188 This message was self-deleted by its author.

silverweb

(16,402 posts)

2. Premature angst.

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:04 PM

Jun 2014

[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]They're going to hear the case. No ruling has been made yet.

Let's continue to hope they do the right thing before we get hysterical, okay?

joshcryer

(62,269 posts)

7. If they vote against lying then we can bring back the Fairness Doctrine.

Reply to silverweb (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:27 AM

Jun 2014

And there might even be a push for it (the FCC can implement it without new laws).

So they'll probably vote for lying.

imthevicar

(811 posts)

11. If the USSC is

Reply to silverweb (Reply #2)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 05:58 AM

Jun 2014

OK With police lying to us, than this will be a walk in the park. The Roberts court will go down in history as the Neo-Robbert's Baron court.

Pakid

(478 posts)

3. What else is new

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:16 PM

Jun 2014

Republicans have been lying at every turn for years and getting away with it. The so called news media in America is a joke it looks the other way every time a Republican lies

Cicada

(4,533 posts)

4. So Republicans can ban dem ads for "lying?"

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:17 PM

Jun 2014

If ads can be banned for "lying" then in red states many truthful democratic ads will be banned.

The decision in the court was unanimous - I think both sides see the problem.

Fred Sanders

(23,946 posts)

5. I think they only sent it back to the lower courts that blocked the suit proceeding.

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:32 PM

Jun 2014

MurrayDelph

(5,293 posts)

6. If it wasn't for lying

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Mon Jun 16, 2014, 11:55 PM

Jun 2014

Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia wouldn't be there today.

blkmusclmachine

(16,149 posts)

10. ^This.^

Reply to MurrayDelph (Reply #6)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 04:47 AM

Jun 2014

dsc

(52,155 posts)

8. that is a complete misrepresentation of what the court did

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:49 AM

Jun 2014

The case was about whether the group had the right to sue over the law. The group placed a bill board ad which they were forced to remove. They then sued but were denied standing on the grounds that they couldn't prove the law would be enforced against them in the future. This says they can sue. On the merits, I do think that having a group of political appointees given power to force campaigns not to run ads based on what that group determines is false is rife with potential for abuse.

JayhawkSD

(3,163 posts)

9. Thanks for the voice of sanity.

Reply to dsc (Reply #8)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 01:26 AM

Jun 2014

I knew when the court agreed to hear this case that the ruling was going to result in a mass outcry of "SCOTUS makes it legal to lie in political ads." Sigh.

stevenleser

(32,886 posts)

14. + 12 quadrillion "I do think that having a group of political appointees given power to force

Reply to dsc (Reply #8)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:12 AM

Jun 2014

... campaigns not to run ads based on what that group determines is false is rife with potential for abuse."

NYC Liberal

(20,135 posts)

12. I hope that law is struck down real quick.

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Tue Jun 17, 2014, 12:32 PM

Jun 2014

Princess Turandot

(4,787 posts)

13. They did not just decide to take the case: it was heard this term. The opinion was issued this past

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 05:50 AM

Jun 2014

Monday.

This was a standing case i.e. the plaintiff wanted the right to take the state of Ohio to court over the law in question, which the state would not grant them. It was not a validation of lying.

And it was a 9-0 vote. So unless Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan suddenly had ethics transplants, it is very likely that the decision was a correct one.

FBaggins

(26,727 posts)

15. Good thing there isn't a law against lying about what the USSC says. :)

Reply to angrychair (Original post)

Wed Jun 18, 2014, 10:31 AM

Jun 2014

Because they said nothing of the sort.

It's also useful to point out that this was a unanimous decision.

Reply to this discussion