3fer: Pub owner defies gunNutters, Shrub's tyranny of surveillance, & SCALIA's next elections ruin
The owner of a bar stood up to the GunNutters, but for his pains got swamped with bad reviews (false ones) plus the usual swarm of gunNutters protesting his business and making threats, which will probably run him out of business. Oh, that’s the GOOD news. Then, it is now official (what we already knew) that Shrub’s dictatorial power alone was the basis for surveillance without court orders. O.k., so now it gets worse: Mob Boss SCALIA is poised to rule that campaign contribution limits are banned, like the previous equalizing of CASH with FREE SPEECH and corporations as persons, such that elections will be totally SOLD to the One Percenters.
*********QUOTE*******
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/plum-line/wp/2014/03/18/morning-plum-what-the-obamacare-enrollment-numbers-mean/
http://www.politico.com/blogs/under-the-radar/2014/03/feds-confirm-bushera-email-surveillance-185283.html
[font size=5]HE WAS THE DECIDER, AFTER ALL: In new court filings, the federal government has acknowledged that for [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]years before it was approved by a judge[/FONT], the government collected information on millions of Americans’ phone and Internet activity, on [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]no authority other than George W. Bush’s say-so[/FONT]. [/font]
http://gawker.com/pub-gets-crap-for-banning-guns-calling-pistol-packers-1546550250
[font size=5]Pub Gets Crap For Banning Guns, Calling Pistol-Packers "Douchebags"[/font]
.... Before this morning, Backstreets had three Yelp reviews that averaged three out of five stars. Today, it got nearly 300 reviews from pro-gun nuts who either ventured cross-country to try the wings in Clemson, vomited, found the place unsafe and were driven to comment on Yelp for the very first time... or simply made some shit up to justify driving the joint's rating down to one star.
"Sorry, but I'm not sorry," the presumed owner posted today. "If you feel the need to bring a gun into a college bar you are a douche bag. And if you're drinking than you are violating the law." He later added that he himself is a gun owner fed up with "irrational...gun nuts" and said the sign was temporary... ....
Beyond the single bar in a college town, a major confrontation of this sort was made inevitable last month, when South Carolina passed a law letting licensed pistol-packers carry their concealed weapons into drinking establishments—a degree of lassitude that's not even legal in states with Dodge City reputations like Florida... ....
http://www.salon.com/2014/03/18/scalias_looming_fiasco_obscure_new_scotus_case_may_be_worse_than_citizens_united/
[font size=5]Scalia’s looming fiasco: Obscure new SCOTUS case may be worse than Citizens United[/font]
[FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]McCutcheon v. FEC[/FONT] could eradicate donor limits, pose "direct threat" to "the legitimacy of the laws," expert warns
Sometime in the next three months – perhaps as early as next week – the Supreme Court will issue its [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]next big campaign finance decision[/FONT], a ruling that reformers worry will further open floodgates of one-percenter campaign cash. The case, McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission, concerns [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]a challenge[/FONT] by the RNC and conservative CEO Shaun McCutcheon [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]to the federal laws restricting how much one person can donate[/FONT] to candidates and party committees each cycle. ....
The worst-case scenario would be that the Court not only strikes down the aggregate limits, but does so in a way that [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]calls into question contribution limits[/FONT] more generally, and puts them in the crosshairs…
The Court [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]for decades has viewed spending limits under[/FONT] a standard known as [FONT style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: yellow"]strict scrutiny…but has been more deferential…with regard to contribution[/FONT] limits…
If the Court were to change the legal standard that they use to review contribution limits…it could also engage the courts in a very sticky game of judging the levels of different contribution limits, and sort of trying to take a scalpel to the work of the legislative branch…
We have a Supreme Court who no longer contains any members that have had political experience, getting involved in substituting its own judgment for those who actually have experience running for office, and know how these laws operate in practice… ....
*********UNQUOTE******
= new reply since forum marked as read
