Well put. I'd be interested to see a similar study of the rich in general, especially in terms of C-suiters and specifically looking at those, such as Ford's Jim Farley, who gave Trump million-dollar election bribes.
Also the way out of the Balogun controversy is simple: The coach shouldn't play him tonight. When asked why, the coach should simply say that he's honoring the official's decision and playing by the rules.
In addition to all of the above, the corrupting influence of all these "shadow docket" decisions can't be overstated. "Decisions" handed down, unsigned, without justification, on cases that aren't actual emergencies, except to the corrupt "unitary executive".
Speaking of the unitary executive "theory", it's not only corrupt, but downright treasonous, because it's anti-constitutional.
The sort of institutional corruption you outline has been going on a long time. Pundits point to the SCOTUS Buckley decision defining money as "speech" and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment as the start of the ongoing Money-Go-Round. Go further back to the footnote in a decision that mentioned corporations as having "rights". There will always be tension in a capitalist system between the power of money and fhe rights of people, and the Republican party has made it as clear as they possibly can where they stand. The Democratic party is far, far away from blameless on this charge but they make some effort to regulate the power of money from time to time. But regulating money is anathema to a conservative mindset. Money deserves Freedom just like people just as corporations have rights just like people.
This was an excellent piece, well written. When the Citizen United decision defined money as speech, it basically duplicitously excluded many of us from using this freedom. I believe speech is not just speaking out, but also being heard. I don't believe the first amendment has a qualifier to it stating we have freedom of speech if we can afford it. Now those with more money to spend, have the ability to be heard while those of us in the excluded group do not.
Thanks for a very interesting essay. I'll leave the balance between bribery/influence peddling and what the constitution may or not compel to others--although I will add money certainly has corrupted our political process and we sure as heck need to do something about it.
But on to more urgent matters, the USA world cup match this evening. It turns out that the decision is not without precedent, even in this very World Cup. Not that this makes it "right" but seems to be the state of play here. Here's some evidence (from AI).
Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal): He received a red card in qualifiers (violent conduct/elbow). FIFA imposed a 3-match ban but suspended the final 2 matches for a 1-year probation period (he served the first one in qualifiers). This cleared him for the World Cup start.
Nicolás Otamendi (Argentina) & Moisés Caicedo (Ecuador): Both had 1-match bans from red cards in qualifiers. FIFA amended World Cup regulations beforehand so certain minor/qualifier suspensions (including these) did not carry over into the tournament.
Tarek Salman (Qatar): Similar to the above — his 2-match ban was handled so it didn't affect World Cup availability ("moved away from tournament").
Folarin Balogun (USA): He got a straight red in the Round of 32 (vs. Bosnia). FIFA's Disciplinary Committee recently suspended his automatic 1-match ban under Article 27 of the Disciplinary Code (probation/suspension of implementation). This cleared him for the US vs. Belgium game.
Thanks! With respect to an historical perspective of Scotus decisions I can only say that the damage to the concept of Democracy has been grave and Roberts and his band of originalists are culpable if the Republic fails
Well put. I'd be interested to see a similar study of the rich in general, especially in terms of C-suiters and specifically looking at those, such as Ford's Jim Farley, who gave Trump million-dollar election bribes.
Also the way out of the Balogun controversy is simple: The coach shouldn't play him tonight. When asked why, the coach should simply say that he's honoring the official's decision and playing by the rules.
In addition to all of the above, the corrupting influence of all these "shadow docket" decisions can't be overstated. "Decisions" handed down, unsigned, without justification, on cases that aren't actual emergencies, except to the corrupt "unitary executive".
Speaking of the unitary executive "theory", it's not only corrupt, but downright treasonous, because it's anti-constitutional.
The sort of institutional corruption you outline has been going on a long time. Pundits point to the SCOTUS Buckley decision defining money as "speech" and therefore protected by the 1st Amendment as the start of the ongoing Money-Go-Round. Go further back to the footnote in a decision that mentioned corporations as having "rights". There will always be tension in a capitalist system between the power of money and fhe rights of people, and the Republican party has made it as clear as they possibly can where they stand. The Democratic party is far, far away from blameless on this charge but they make some effort to regulate the power of money from time to time. But regulating money is anathema to a conservative mindset. Money deserves Freedom just like people just as corporations have rights just like people.
This was an excellent piece, well written. When the Citizen United decision defined money as speech, it basically duplicitously excluded many of us from using this freedom. I believe speech is not just speaking out, but also being heard. I don't believe the first amendment has a qualifier to it stating we have freedom of speech if we can afford it. Now those with more money to spend, have the ability to be heard while those of us in the excluded group do not.
Thanks for a very interesting essay. I'll leave the balance between bribery/influence peddling and what the constitution may or not compel to others--although I will add money certainly has corrupted our political process and we sure as heck need to do something about it.
But on to more urgent matters, the USA world cup match this evening. It turns out that the decision is not without precedent, even in this very World Cup. Not that this makes it "right" but seems to be the state of play here. Here's some evidence (from AI).
Cristiano Ronaldo (Portugal): He received a red card in qualifiers (violent conduct/elbow). FIFA imposed a 3-match ban but suspended the final 2 matches for a 1-year probation period (he served the first one in qualifiers). This cleared him for the World Cup start.
Nicolás Otamendi (Argentina) & Moisés Caicedo (Ecuador): Both had 1-match bans from red cards in qualifiers. FIFA amended World Cup regulations beforehand so certain minor/qualifier suspensions (including these) did not carry over into the tournament.
Tarek Salman (Qatar): Similar to the above — his 2-match ban was handled so it didn't affect World Cup availability ("moved away from tournament").
Folarin Balogun (USA): He got a straight red in the Round of 32 (vs. Bosnia). FIFA's Disciplinary Committee recently suspended his automatic 1-match ban under Article 27 of the Disciplinary Code (probation/suspension of implementation). This cleared him for the US vs. Belgium game.
Thanks! With respect to an historical perspective of Scotus decisions I can only say that the damage to the concept of Democracy has been grave and Roberts and his band of originalists are culpable if the Republic fails