RSN Fundraising Banner
FB Share
Email This Page
add comment

Lithwick writes: "The line between entertainment and the court blurred even further late last month when Colbert had former Justice John Paul Stevens on his show to discuss his dissent in Citizens United. When a 91-year-old former justice is patiently explaining to a comedian that corporations are not people, it's clear that everything about the majority opinion has been reduced to a punch line."

Artist Todd Lockwood's portrait of Stephen Colbert as a 'true American hero.' (photo: )
Artist Todd Lockwood's portrait of Stephen Colbert as a 'true American hero.' (photo: )

Colbert v. The Supreme Court

By Dahlia Lithwick, Slate

04 February 12


he Supreme Court has always had its critics.  Chief Justice John Marshall had to contend with the temper of President Andrew Jackson ("John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it!"). And Chief Justice Charles Evans Hughes went toe-to-toe with FDR, who wouldn't let up with the court-packing. But in the history of the Supreme Court, nothing has ever prepared the justices for the public opinion wrecking ball that is Stephen Colbert. The comedian/presidential candidate/super PAC founder has probably done more to undermine public confidence in the court's 2010 Citizens United opinion than anyone, including the dissenters. In this contest, the high court is supremely outmatched.

Citizens United, with an assist from a 1976 decision Buckley v. Valeo, has led to the farce of unlimited corporate election spending, "uncoordinated" super PACs that coordinate with candidates, and a noxious round of attack ads, all of which is protected in the name of free speech. Colbert has been educating Americans about the resulting insanity for months now. His broadside against the court raises important questions about satire and the court, about protecting the dignity of the institution, and the role of modern media in public discourse. Also: The fight between Colbert and the court is so full of ironies, it can make your molars hurt.

When President Obama criticized Citizens United two years ago in his State of the Union address, at least three justices came back at him with pitchforks and shovels. In the end, most court watchers scored it a draw. But when a comedian with a huge national platform started ridiculing the court last summer, the stakes changed completely. This is no pointy-headed deconstruction unspooling on the legal blogs. Colbert has spent the past few months making every part of Justice Anthony Kennedy's majority opinion in Citizen United look utterly ridiculous. And the court, which has no access to cameras (by its own choosing), no press arm, and no discernible comedic powers, has had to stand by and take it on the chin.

It all started when Colbert announced that, as permitted by Citizens United, he planned to form a super PAC ("Making a better tomorrow, tomorrow"). As he explained to his viewers, his hope was that "Colbert Nation could have a voice, in the form of my voice, shouted through a megaphone made of cash ... the American dream. And that dream is simple. That anyone, no matter who they are, if they are determined, if they are willing to work hard enough, someday they could grow up to create a legal entity which could then receive unlimited corporate funds, which could be used to influence our elections."

Then last June, like a winking, eyebrow-wagging Mr. Smith, Colbert went to Washington and testified before the FEC, which granted him permission to launch his super PAC (over the objections of his parent company Viacom) and accept unlimited contributions from his fans so he might sway elections. (He tweeted before his FEC appearance that PAC stands for "Plastic And/Or Cash.") In recent weeks, Colbert has run several truly insane attack ads (including one accusing Mitt Romney of being a serial killer). Then, with perfect comedic pitch, Colbert handed off control of his super PAC to Jon Stewart (lampooning the FEC rules about coordination between "independent PACS" and candidates with a one-page legal document and a Vulcan mind meld). Colbert then managed to throw his support to non-candidate Herman Cain in the South Carolina primary, placing higher on the ballot than Rick Perry, Jon Huntsman, and Michele Bachmann.

The line between entertainment and the court blurred even further late last month when Colbert had former Justice John Paul Stevens on his show to discuss his dissent in Citizens United. When a 91-year-old former justice is patiently explaining to a comedian that corporations are not people, it's clear that everything about the majority opinion has been reduced to a punch line.

Colbert took the mainstream by storm in interview after interview that schooled Americans about the insanity of Citizens United and garnered blowback from NBC White House correspondent Chuck Todd, who complained that Colbert is "making a mockery of the system" and questioned whether the real agenda was to "educate the public about the dangers of money and politics ... or simply to marginalize the Republican Party?" Then came the un-ironic defenses of the irony of Colbert and the obligatory navel-gazing about whether Colbert is in fact effecting real change or in peril of succumbing to "irony fatigue."

At one level, this is all just comedy, and it's hard to measure whether Colbert's sustained attacks on the court's campaign finance decisions are having any real impact, beyond making us laugh. On the other hand, when the New York Times declares that Colbert's project is deadly serious, and it's just the rest of politics that's preposterous, something more than just theater is happening. I spoke to Trevor Potter, former chairman of the FEC and adviser to John McCain, and the man Colbert has designated his "personal lawyer," about the consequences of Colbert's assault on the campaign finance regime. Potter is very careful not to ascribe an end game to Colbert's efforts but says that he has seen Colbert's campaign finance crusade as an "opportunity to open up to the rest of the world what we lawyers already know: that the whole area of campaign finance is a mess." He adds that Colbert's antics are "having a real effect in terms of public understanding about how the system works" and getting people to start to think about how to fix it.

Potter is also emphatic that the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision is not the sole cause of the problems he sees. (You can thank the media for its bang-up job of suggesting that the court singlehandedly designed super PACs with its decision in CU). Potter says Kennedy's majority opinion is not so much disconnected from reality but, rather, "assumed that the world would work in the way he thought it would." (In Kennedy's fantasy, there would be no chance of corruption, no coordination between PACs and candidates, and full disclosure of corporate contributions.) And had the FEC done its job, had Congress passed better disclosure rules, had shareholders been better able to control corporate activity, the Kennedy decision would have been less monumental. (Potter is quick to point out that the court needn't reverse itself completely for the country to fix the worst problems in the post-CU system.) Still he adds that Citizens United "epitomizes the problem of having a court where no justice has ever run for any office, including dogcatcher."

Of course that's precisely the problem: The institutional aloofness that allowed the Roberts court to pen such a politically naive decision is the same blind spot that precludes them from even understanding, much less responding to, the media criticism. And as professor Lyrissa Lidsky, who teaches law at the University of Florida College of Law, reminded me last weekend, there is amazing language in Justice Kennedy's majority in Citizens United about the need to elevate corporate speech to the same protected status as that enjoyed by the cable news shows. As Kennedy observed, "Speakers have become adept at presenting citizens with sound bites, talking points, and scripted messages that dominate the 24-hour news cycle. Corporations, like individuals, do not have monolithic views."

In other words, (if you can stand the irony) in Citizens United, the Supreme Court empowered Colbert to create a super PAC so he could answer back to, well, folks like Stephen Colbert. The opinion even notes that "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington may be fiction and caricature; but fiction and caricature can be a powerful force." Now, courtesy of Mr. Colbert, no one knows that better than the court itself. your social media marketing partner


A note of caution regarding our comment sections:

For months a stream of media reports have warned of coordinated propaganda efforts targeting political websites based in the U.S., particularly in the run-up to the 2016 presidential election.

We too were alarmed at the patterns we were, and still are, seeing. It is clear that the provocateurs are far more savvy, disciplined, and purposeful than anything we have ever experienced before.

It is also clear that we still have elements of the same activity in our article discussion forums at this time.

We have hosted and encouraged reader expression since the turn of the century. The comments of our readers are the most vibrant, best-used interactive feature at Reader Supported News. Accordingly, we are strongly resistant to interrupting those services.

It is, however, important to note that in all likelihood hardened operatives are attempting to shape the dialog our community seeks to engage in.

Adapt and overcome.

Marc Ash
Founder, Reader Supported News

+135 # gentle 2012-02-04 10:28
The real laughs are on Mittens & Knewt. Watching their SuperPacs cannibalizing each other is worth it. It's kind of like, two hungry sharks and a lawyer swimming in one tank. All this till august, loving every bit of it. BTW, I got 10,000 on the lawyer.
+114 # juliajayne 2012-02-04 10:51
Yes, it has been sort of amusing to watch the cannibalizing that's taken place. I hope they both go at it until the convention and spend an ungodly amount of grip bloodying each other to a pulp.

It's clear that even Republicans are now seeing the Frankenstein that's been created with this decision, although the irony is rich when Newt accuses Romney of spending too much super pac money when he's doing the same and has a rich sugar daddy/mama/daug hter funding his hit ads.
+112 # John Locke 2012-02-04 13:05
I believe the Roberts Court knew exactly what they were doing. They did not make that decision "assuming" that corporations and people would be forthright...Ro berts (Harvard Law School) and alito (Yale Law School, and against affirmative action) are very conservative, that was why Bush appointed them, and the democrats in congress as usual just went along, confirmed them, hoping to get along...
+7 # grandma lynn 2012-02-07 00:26
The rest of us (99%) should switch to a barter system and let them wallow in their cash. Make it so much Monopoly money.
+82 # BobbyLip 2012-02-04 10:54
Who makes more a mockery of the system, Colbert on the egregious MSM stenographer Chuck Todd? Todd makes Luke Russert look like Solomon.
+92 # juliajayne 2012-02-04 11:00
I'm voting Chuck Todd. What a putz! And a sell out.

Say, aren't pretty much the whole of the WH Press Corp stenographers for their corporate overlords?
+33 # AMLLLLL 2012-02-04 12:21
Chuck Todd asked the Prez before the 2010 elections how he felt about "the fact that these elections are a referendum on this administration."

The Prez failed to respond, "Wouldn't that be an opinion rather than a fact?"

Chuck can be good at stats, but a bit of a putz.
+42 # Mike Farrace 2012-02-04 14:52
Why would Chuck Todd think criticizing Citizen's United was the same as discrediting the Republican Party, and why would he care so much? Todd's likable and knowledgeable about Washington and the process, but deep principles are not his strong suit. Jeremy Scahill, who loves truth more than a dog loves a stinky bone, said Todd upbraided him one time for insisting on facts thereby making him look bad on a cable news panel.
+1 # Gogojoe 2012-02-05 14:40
Finally someone beside me said it!
I thought Tim Russert was great and obviously the network did as well.
That being said, I don't get Luke having this job.
+81 # shortonfaith 2012-02-04 11:05
Common Sense;

Adam Smith was author of The Wealth of Nation & great American. He is one of the hand full of names we associate with the creation of the United States.
In a discussion about common sense Smith said; "a common street porter was not intellectually inferior to a philosopher".

Common Sense was also a pamphlet written by Thomas Paine. It was first published anonymously on January 10, 1776, during the American Revolution. An still a very good & must read today.

And I think it was Voltaire, the man who most influenced Benjamin Franklin that said; "common sense is not so common".

Common sense is what Colbert & Stewart have over the rest of them. And the rest will never get more because, they believe their's is the only way. They are either past the point of learning or just weren't born with the right DNA?
+50 # nice2blucky 2012-02-04 12:07
Adam Smith was Scottish.

"Reality has a liberal bias." Stephen Colbert

Other Great Quotes:
+20 # shortonfaith 2012-02-04 12:23
You are right, my total mistake.
+25 # Lhol 2012-02-04 14:45
He was Scottish, yes, but in close communication with Benjamin Franklin while writing Wealth of Nations, published in 1776. It does seem they influenced each other during that critical phase in our history. So it's not far fetched to associate Smith with the creation of the U.S.
+62 # Standupcoyote 2012-02-04 11:36
O Chuck Todd - practicing mini-Tantrum Yoga,cast himself as a clueless, pompous, toadying twit, suffering from acute irony deficiency, and gaseous delusional self-importance . Bless his heart. He's huffy that Colbert will lessen his credibility. No need when he's doing a sufficient job of that himself.To Todd and his ilk, politics is superficial sports, on a 3rd grade level, batting averages, etc.So let's bless him: May he be moved to a place where he can no longer humiliate himself. In so many domains we have out-sourced influence to clever techie,emotiona lly infantile, over-bearing dunder-headed, glorified E-Trade baby-boy-shoute rs. Until Now! (Let's inhale back our complicity, from such humorless inflation,leavi ng him, and all servile brown-nose over-paid toadies of ruling class superficiality, all the boys pretending to be grown-ups, to deflate like a giant blodgy pale pudding. Onward to that which serves actual democracy: creative cultural High Jinx!
+33 # AMLLLLL 2012-02-04 12:29
Know the difference between a brown-nose and a kiss-a$$?

Depth perception. May he soon acquire it.
+23 # Muffy787 2012-02-04 12:33
Coyote- great article on Chuck Todd, I cannot stand him. He is a pompous ass made uglier by the ugly facial hair. His grammar is worse than any third grader,do you notice how he says "git it"? Also he mispronounces all the time. I don't know who keeps him on there but there are so MANY others that MSNBC could use. The fact that they gave him the show and took off intelligent, beautiful, articulate Savannah who is an attorney. Griffin is not the brightest bulb in the room.
+13 # Standupcoyote 2012-02-04 14:35
Yes, his facial hair is kinda distractingly unattractively pubic. But has no friends - who will tell him. I worked with him back in 2000 NH primary, where he put on heavy tv make-up each morning, hoping for camera. Kinda like Monica Lewinsky - simple organisms - but focused-visuali zing one silly ambition - hers to give the Prez a hummer, his to look pubic in public (on camera).
+83 # ckosuda 2012-02-04 11:53
boy oh boy - you miss the point of Colbert - humor / wit / sarcasm / theatre is not an apropos medium for political discourse? since when?
Colbert is a smart fellow, fully entitled to his own form of discourse, as are we all.
+29 # motamanx 2012-02-04 12:21
What would Chuck Todd have done in the times of Benjamin Franklin, when Ben mocked "the system" every time it screwed up? Doesn't Todd allow that the system can be sometimes consummately mockable?
0 # 2012-02-07 11:50
An important point of the editorial!
+67 # MainStreetMentor 2012-02-04 11:56
When an individual State, within our union, elects to execute a corporation - then and ONLY then, will I acquiese and believe a corporation is a person.
+16 # Doctoretty 2012-02-04 12:14
I used to like Chuck Todd. What the heck happened to him in this?
+26 # Standupcoyote 2012-02-04 14:37
He was a good useful politics as sports numbers cruncher...but then he imagined he was a thinker, and was paid for that delusion.
+23 # Skeeziks 2012-02-04 12:15
Ahhh, the deep thought of our SCOTUS. They put forth their decision of money is free speech so that we, the people could see that it isn't and go up in arms to rebel and push for TV networks to give, and I do mean donate, equal time to lead contenders of the three, whoops, now maybe four, parties.

Near the end of President Obama's second term the three, maybe four parties could go head to head at debates as it takes to wheedle the pack down to exactly three, maybe four candidates, who would be the main contenders for another round of debates to wheedle the pack down to two contenders just in time for the general election. Which, of course, could keep President Obama in the BIG seat for another four years. Which, with him as President so far, is now showing signs of pretty good economic growth for the nation.

But maybe things would go a lot more smoothly if contenders would answer one hundred pertinent questions handed in by all citizens and swear to their answers as truth and be dumped if they break one sworn answer.
+48 # tswhiskers 2012-02-04 12:15
It makes one wonder just how long it's been since "we the people" have been the final authority of the U.S. government when a gifted comedian can make a serious joke about the mechanics of that government and catch the ear of the national media as well as of the public. Finally humor has accomplished what a few serious, thoughtful individuals in the media and outside of it have been unable to do. I wish that the media were half as serious about reporting the real news in this country as Stewart/Colbert are in lampooning it.
+40 # Night Raider 2012-02-04 12:25
Execute a corporation? No, no, no. When an individual within our nation can have SEX with a corporation, then I will fully believe a corporation is a person. As of today, it is unilateral. A corporation can have sex with YOU,and does so frequently, but you can't have sex with a corporation. Acid test!
+16 # video4315 2012-02-04 12:50
Well, AT&T is in the business of providing pornographic content to many of television systems for national hotel chains. Does that count?
+12 # Daisy 2012-02-04 17:05
Night Rider is just proposing that corporations can screw the people. Second thought... maybe a little Social Media blitzing can cause a corp to reverse a path, i.e., screwing them back. That does count.
+26 # Regina 2012-02-04 13:49
We don't need to get to sex with a corporation. Begin at the beginning: show me a corporation that bleeds when cut, vomits on exposure to a nauseating substance, and soils its pants (diaper?) when delayed en route to a lavatory, and then I will be able to consider it entitled to free speech, etc.
+16 # brianf 2012-02-04 21:08
No, when a corporation can go to the hospital, go into labor, and give birth to a human being, only then will I consider a corporation to be a human.
0 # 2012-02-07 12:34
+47 # dquandle 2012-02-04 12:38
Dissolve the court and impeach and prosecute the justices for corruption and subversion of the constitution and democracy .
+27 # Daisy 2012-02-04 17:01
Just those justices who decided "Yes" on Citizens United".
+5 # sebouhian 2012-02-04 12:39
first: Adam Smith was not an American, as was asserted in a previous comment; second: "MainStreetMent or" touches on a thoughtful issue, but surely the Court has already dealt with it in their deliberations; third: is it at all possible for the Court to hold a review of this decision, given the, as I see it, non-partisan crisis that has erupted?
+74 # jon 2012-02-04 12:47
Stewart/Colbert are doing the same job that Will Rogers did in his day - methinks.

I hope they get louder.
+21 # edwin_ 2012-02-04 16:30
yes , it seems that comedy works as a forum to express commonsense views as a counter to the right's hate machine.

as the right dominate talk radio with hate , you don't see many right wing comics . The only one that I can think of is Dennis Miller and he comes off as more mean sprited than funny.

Colbert and Jon Stewart are great at showing the hyprocrites on both sides
+1 # 2012-02-07 11:52
Right on,Jon!
+23 # reiverpacific 2012-02-04 12:48
Colbert's main thrust surely, beyond "Citizens United" is that politics in the "Fragmented States" is infotainment stuffing between commercials, like almost everything else of any significance.
Truly the "Opiate of the Masses"!
Lawd ha' mercy on us and the "Alternative" media.
+1 # 2012-02-07 11:53
Good post, reiverpacific!
+54 # allie 2012-02-04 12:55
Chuck Todd is a bumbling birdbrain. Constantly scowling over anything to do with President Obama and the Democratic Party. NBC scrapped the bottom of the barrel with this guy. Don't care for David Gregory either. And Chuck, David, Brian et al stop referring to the president as Obama or Mr. Obama; it's President Obama. While I’m at it, the repugnant term Obamacare is right wing spin, you can stop using that, too.
+45 # Psyche 2012-02-04 14:05
In my opinion, the right wing Justices' knew exactly what they were doing. No naivete whatsoever. The two that attended the Koch brother's closed to the public meetings might just be carrying out their marching orders. After all, the Kochs' are huge contributors to the "American Legislative Exchange Counsel" (A.L.E.C.) who push canned right wing legislation like Photo IDs for voting and union busting in a coordinated manner in many republican controlled states. I believe ii is interrelated. In my opinion, the Roberts court has at least three right wing hacks sitting there behind the bench whom are very politically inclined.
+4 # moby doug 2012-02-06 07:29
You are so right, Psyche. The Roberts Crt is anything but "politically naive." On the contrary, they constantly politicize their "Constitutional " decisions and make a mockery of the alleged integrity of the Supreme Crt. Roberts went out of his activist way to use Citizens United as an opportunity to give Big Money an even better chance to buy government with super PACs.
+2 # grandma lynn 2012-02-07 00:31
Some time Gore Vidal said, "America has one political party with two right wings."
+8 # infohiway 2012-02-04 14:19
Brilliant and scathing: wit and ridicule!
A hero indeed.
Now turn him loose on these porcine weirdos and weirdettes!
America's own, 'Let them eat crème brûlée' lot.

0 # infohiway 2012-02-04 18:37

+16 # grouchy 2012-02-04 14:56
I still want Citizens United to carry on, that is, until I can marry a corporation. That way I can follow up by divorcing it and thus collect all the benefits from that divorce! So hang in there Citizens United--that is, until I complete my quest!
+10 # grouchy 2012-02-04 14:58
And I wish someone would go back and do some counting of the number of times previous presidents have been called "Mister" instead of "Mr. President" or "President __________".
+11 # allie 2012-02-04 15:16
Romney is constantly being referred to as Gov. Romney......I suppose to show respect. Shoot, he hasn't been governor, for how many years is it now?!!
+20 # angelfish 2012-02-04 16:27
Pardon my ignorance, but, WHERE did they come up with the name, "Citizens United"? NO citizen that I know of has had ANYTHING to do with this Travesty other than those who proposed it and the Cretins on the Court that validated it! If anything, most Citizens ARE United AGAINST this ignominious piece of trash and can't wait till it's Repealed or Abolished! Bravo to Robert Colbert and Jon Stewart for exposing the absolute inanity, not to mention, INSANITY, of it all!
+8 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 09:19
It was the proper name of one of the parties involved in the original case. I forget the details.

It's an EXTREMELY ironic name though, isn't it?
+6 # ozken 2012-02-04 20:49
Crikey - what America does the world follows. Please I don't want a Fox News in Oz. Check this out to see just how the rich think of the 99%.
+17 # Billy Bob 2012-02-04 22:07
Colbert, Stewart, Bill Maher, Roy Zimmerman, and Lewis Black are current inheritors of a comedic/oratori cal tradition that dates back through the likes of George Carlin, Tom Lehrer, Mort Sahl, Will Rogers, Mark Twain, Oscar Wilde, and Johnnathan Swift.

Without someone to point out the absurdities for us, the majority of us will harbor the delusion that we're alone and maybe crazier than we really are.

Not that we aren't a little crazy.
+10 # angelfish 2012-02-04 23:02
Here, here, Billy Bob. Well said! I, for one, sometimes think I stand in the Majority anyway!
+4 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 09:18
That's because you're sane enough to not have the wool pulled over your eyes. Sometimes, I'm more easily fooled (i.e. nOt sAnE).
0 # 2012-02-07 11:57
High Five, Billy Bob!
+2 # infohiway 2012-02-05 04:11
As sick as it is, in the 'perfect consumerist society' (American Dream or fascism with a smiley face nightmare), the sheeple will buy what they are told to buy.
From poisonous: fluoride pills/toothpast e/mouthwash to slimeburgers to Bu$h 43's 2nd term to NWO Mittens and Knewts - that's the brave new world order as evolved.

The way Stephen roasted BU$H 43 at the Press Club bash was divine and he's got 9 months to PAC Obama too.

We ain't seen nuthin' yet.
0 # infohiway 2012-02-05 04:32
+2 # infohiway 2012-02-05 04:56
The future? Dumber than a bag of rusty hammers...
+2 # barbaratodish 2012-02-05 07:17
When corporations do stand-up comedy like Colbert, Stewart and Maher,(and let's have female comics representin', too,) then I will buy stock!lol Maybe people, even the funniest, ARE kind of like corporations, because they all are focussed and "live" just for performance! Consider, for instance,how
corporations might be similar to peoples' bodies: in addition to "corp" meaning body, the Dow Jones Average can be viewed as how the corporations "body" construct, etc., is doing. The Dow Jones Average is an indicator of the corporations symbolic "blood", "health", etc. Maybe SCOTUS SHOULD reclassify humans by DOWNGRADING us all, and themselves to viruses rather than being persons, and maybe ONLY corporations SHOULD remain UPGRADED to person status! After all we are all, even the 1%, slaves to life PERFORMANCE(per formance that is social and/or cultural instead of being free to be ourselves. We are all slaves to our PERFORMANCE identity even more than we are slaves to any other identity, be that race, gender, ethnicity, religion, class! The only TRUE universally human identity any of us have is when we spontaneously and limitlessly laugh,and/or spontaneously, and limitlessly love. Maybe corporations can be our MATRIX robot masters, which is what the 1% may as well be now, anyway. Let's start looking for a write in candidate for POTUS: someone, anyone, who can transcend performance and performance humor and help us all to at least laugh, if we are unable to love!
+13 # Billy Bob 2012-02-05 09:16
"and let's have female comics representin', too"

Janeane Garofalo

I should have mentioned her in my list earlier. She's one of my favorite comedic political commentators.
+10 # wleming 2012-02-05 15:03
the supreme court now stands revealed as a pro corporate entity-- overseen by lawyers like scalia and thomas who have a long history of promoting corporate interests. let money dominate.... the american people have a choice a corporate money drive autocracy... or democracy..... easy folks.
0 # cynnibunny 2012-02-05 19:19
For Colbert's satire to work, he must presume that the Supreme Court ruled on Citizen's United as a politically naive entity. That way, he can poke fun at their naivete.

For many Liberals, there is a belief that the people behind these convoluted laws are simply stupid. If the stupid ones are shown the illogic of their ways - so their belief goes - they will either wake up and fix it themselves (do they expect gratitude from the GOP?), or they might become embarrassed, and out of embarrassment, reverse their stupidity (the extension of benefits battle fit that frame).

To think otherwise is definitely uncomfortable. It shows cynicism. It shows a lack of faith in the intentions of public figures. It shows that maybe the holder of that opinion is a 'conspiracy theorist'. The Supreme Court knows what they are doing. Let's not fool ourselves. You don't need a conspiracy in order to have everyone in on a joke. Especially if that joke is to the monetary benefit of all the 'non-conspirato rs'.
+10 # Andrew Hansen 2012-02-06 07:57
Go Stephen. If this country is to right itself without widespread violence, comedy is one of the few paths. This is particularly true in a society so hooked on entertainment.

This country already owes a significant debt to Colbert (and Stewart for that matter).
+4 # 2012-02-07 11:59
Well said!
+4 # 2012-02-07 12:18
Jon Stewart did a fantastic satire on Newt Gingrich's "grandiosity charges" last night showing Newt negate and demonstrate his meglomania at the same time. The satire had him telling the public he intends to send America to the moon during his third term as POTUS.

"Why limit it to three?", Jon replied
+3 # Hexalpa 2012-02-07 12:33
"...humor / wit / sarcasm / theatre is not an apropos medium for political discourse"? Someone must have forgotten to inform Mark Twain !!

THE NEW STREAMLINED RSN LOGIN PROCESS: Register once, then login and you are ready to comment. All you need is a Username and a Password of your choosing and you are free to comment whenever you like! Welcome to the Reader Supported News community.