Pleasant surprise

[Hallelujah]

It's ridiculous that this is going on. A private citizen makes a film with his own opinion of Mrs. Clinton's political views and the Supreme Court is now going to decide if it was free speech or not?

Here's what will happen. The vote will be 5-4. Same justices that always vote together will do so again. Not based on law but on liberal/conservative agenda. The Supreme Court has become not so supreme. A nation ruled by judges. Where have I heard that one before?

[Hallelujah]

It's not a free speech issue. It's a campaigning issue. When Michael Moore releases his little movies two weeks before an election, he also should be bound by regulations governing campaign material.

Holy freaking cow! I agree with NS.

[Non Sequitur]

I only consider it campaign propaganda if it's endorsed by a particular candidate or political party. I don't think the guy who made the film about Mrs. Clinton had any such endorsements, nor am I aware of any with any of Moore's films.

That's a pretty big loophole. All you have to do is not endorse it and it can go forth unregulated. That's like telling your bishop, "...while it is true that I did receive a hand-job, it was not solicited and I did not acknowledge it later."

[il Padrino Ute]

That's a pretty big loophole. All you have to do is not endorse it and it can go forth unregulated. That's like telling your bishop, "...while it is true that I did receive a hand-job, it was not solicited and I did not acknowledge it later."

So, citizens should only be allowed to comment on politicians when it's not an election year?

[Non Sequitur]

So, citizens should only be allowed to comment on politicians when it's not an election year?

Hey, I didn't make the election laws. But if the existing laws say that campaign literature should be regulated during an election period, it seems reasonable to determine whether a bipartisan movie that comes during an election period falls within the realm of campaign propaganda. It's a fair proposition.

[il Padrino Ute]

Hey, I didn't make the election laws. But if the existing laws say that campaign literature should be regulated during an election period, it seems reasonable to determine whether a bipartisan movie that comes during an election period falls within the realm of campaign propaganda. It's a fair proposition.

I understand what you're saying, but unless a candidate endorses something, I just don't see it as campaign propaganda.

We'll have to agree to disagree about this.

[Non Sequitur]

We'll have to agree to disagree about this.

I never agree to disagree. I much prefer to disagree about agreeing.

[il Padrino Ute]

I never agree to disagree. I much prefer to disagree about agreeing.

I can agree to that.

[BlueHair]

Here's what will happen. The vote will be 5-4. Same justices that always vote together will do so again. Not based on law but on liberal/conservative agenda. The Supreme Court has become not so supreme. A nation ruled by judges. Where have I heard that one before?

Balance is a good thing. Do you really expect every vote to be 9-0? Any vote that ends up 9-0 is a gigantic waste of the court's time.

[Hallelujah]

Balance is a good thing. Do you really expect every vote to be 9-0? Any vote that ends up 9-0 is a gigantic waste of the court's time.

You missed the point. SAme justices vote as a block on 90% of the cases based on their ideology, not the law.

[il Padrino Ute]

Balance is a good thing. Do you really expect every vote to be 9-0? Any vote that ends up 9-0 is a gigantic waste of the court's time.

I don't know if 4 votes supporting discrimination is a good thing.