My feelings on this decision -
1 - I believe the Court's decision, while fundamentally regrettable and far too literal, was the correct decision and the only one they could make within the confines of their duties.
2 - I believe Obama's call to action is also appropriate -- while the Supreme Court cannot legislate preemptively, Congress can and should enforce spending limits on our real-life corporations.
3 - The Supreme Court (or some other appropriate legal entity - I am out of my depth here) should facilitate the conversation pending with the Legislative branch by defining a business corporation for the specific purposes of regulation.
A corporation to my mind is an entity with the PRIMARY goal of exchanging goods, services, or information for profit, and not at all the same thing as an association.
Transparency and enforcement of transparency are the only rules that can allow progressives to win this game.
WTF last comment!!!! I guess you're right and all but we are trying to talk about RELATIONSHIPS here.
Holla, jib, re: first letter. there's something sleazerific about that dude. But personally, I just assume it got "too real" ... and quite quickly. moving from a flirtation to scheduling a fuck isn't any red-blooded american lady's cuppa tea.
that second letter really weirded me out for some reason.
I'd be interested in knowing the type of evidence that was introduced by the Innocence Project. If it is hearsay, what is criteria for submitting that information as evidence?
the advice to ANUS was tepid, Dan, fake letter or not. If the letter writer specifically says, "I can't do this" then it's lame to say, "You should just do that thing you just said you can't do." He CAN'T. He just SAID SO. Veggies -- more helpful.
um, thanks for the press release, Ian. as you can see, the blog post summarizes that information. anyway, I went to NU and embarrassed to say I've never laid eyes on this publication.
All Comments »