Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We will now pack the Supreme Court with justices who have a high regard for individual rights and freedom. And who are most likely pro-business and pro-energy. That's what is good for America, not progressive nihilists. Their tenure will last for 30-60 years even if Democrats win the next 5 elections. That's what's important. Packing, packing, packing.
Cannot be done. A Democrat majority will simply increase the number of justices. And pack the court the other way. The filibuster was a rule that required minimally more than a bare majority. That is gone now. No one is going to hesitate to remove the legislative filibuster. Maybe if this gets bad enough and we end up with 57 USSC justices we will fix it by a Constitutional amendment. But it will be very difficult.
We got just the guy big business wanted. Gorsuch takes the business side every time. I was appalled by the story where he took the side of business over the poor truck driver who was freezing and the truck had no heat and the company fired him because he unhooked from a trailer with frozen brakes and the driver went to a convenience store to seek some heat and a hot drink. Gorsuch voted against the driver...typical of a guy who probably never had to be out in the cold in winter unless he was on a ski trip...
We got just the guy big business wanted. Gorsuch takes the business side every time. I was appalled by the story where he took the side of business over the poor truck driver who was freezing and the truck had no heat and the company fired him because he unhooked from a trailer with frozen brakes and the driver went to a convenience store to seek some heat and a hot drink. Gorsuch voted against the driver...typical of a guy who probably never had to be out in the cold in winter unless he was on a ski trip...
You really don't know what your talking about.
From his ruling.
It might be fair to ask whether TransAm’s decision was a wise or kind one. But it’s not our job to answer questions like that. Our only task is to decide whether the decision was an illegal one. The Department of Labor says that TransAm violated federal law, in particular 49 U.S.C. § 31105(a)(1)(B). But that statute only forbids employers from firing employees who “refuse[] to operate a vehicle” out of safety concerns. And, of course, nothing like that happened here. The trucker in this case wasn’t fired for refusing to operate his vehicle. Indeed, his employer gave him the very option the statute says it must: once he voiced safety concerns, TransAm expressly — and by everyone’s admission — permitted him to sit and remain where he was and wait for help. The trucker was fired only after he declined the statutorily protected option (refuse to operate) and chose instead to operate his vehicle in a manner he thought wise but his employer did not. And there’s simply no law anyone has pointed us to giving employees the right to operate their vehicles in ways their employers forbid. Maybe the Department would like such a law, maybe someday Congress will adorn our federal statute books with such a law. But it isn’t there yet. And it isn’t our job to write one — or to allow the Department to write one in Congress’s place.
Gorsuch is applying the law to make a determination. It isn't the judges job to make the law. Maybe one day progressives will realize this. If you don't like the law then change the law, not ignore it or pretend it doesn't exist or find an activist judge who goes against the law because of political beliefs.
What is common sense is CU was the correct decision. The 1st Amendment protects political speech most of all. It takes money to reach people with your message. The legislation should have been called the Incumbant Protection Act.
The 1st Amendment protects political speech, it does not make the false equivalency between money & speech.
The Supreme Court began applying this false equivalency inconsistently & unevenly with its ruling in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo & five years ago with CU.
Money is not speech. A common sense example of political speech is a demonstration or protest. Even with these, there are common sense restrictions on this form of political communication. Folks who use this form typically do not expect to be masked, or to secretly express their influence, they have the courage of their convictions, & so on.
It's no wonder the game has changed in the short five years since the SC ruling on CU. Folks like the Koch brothers want no restrictions & want to hide their lopsided influence on the legislative & election processes. They've ramped up the 'rent seeking' to ridiculous amounts, it's evidenced by the increased corruption & the lopsided gains of the 1% when compared to the 99%. Granted, theses folks have been attempting for 3 or 4 decades however the CU ruling has removed any & all restrictions - government sold to the highest bidder. Cui bono?
Quote:
...The Koch network unveiled the goal Monday at the brothers’ annual donor retreat in Palm Springs. The $889 million the network plans to expend far surpasses what either political party has hitherto spent in a single cycle; in 2012, the New York Times’ Nick Confessore notes, the Republican National Committee and the GOP’s two congressional committees spent a combined $657 million — some 35 percent less than the Kochs intend to spend next year.
...“The Supreme Court has carved up the laws that prevent using economic might to buy political power, and the Court’s left us with a democracy where a few billionaires and millionaires are active kingmakers and the size of a citizen’s wallet determines the strength of her voice,” Adam Lioz, counsel and senior advisor at Demos, told Salon. “This will be the critical legal fight of our time.”
The 1st Amendment protects political speech, it does not make the false equivalency between money & speech.
The Supreme Court began applying this false equivalency inconsistently & unevenly with its ruling in 1976 in Buckley v. Valeo & five years ago with CU.
Money is not speech. A common sense example of political speech is a demonstration or protest. Even with these, there are common sense restrictions on this form of political communication. Folks who use this form typically do not expect to be masked, or to secretly express their influence, they have the courage of their convictions, & so on.
It's no wonder the game has changed in the short five years since the SC ruling on CU. Folks like the Koch brothers want no restrictions & want to hide their lopsided influence on the legislative & election processes. They've ramped up the 'rent seeking' to ridiculous amounts, it's evidenced by the increased corruption & the lopsided gains of the 1% when compared to the 99%. Granted, theses folks have been attempting for 3 or 4 decades however the CU ruling has removed any & all restrictions - government sold to the highest bidder. Cui bono?
Did not Hitlery spend more than Donald? How come she did not win? Did she spend too much in California?
The fact is it takes money to get your voice heard.
Justice Roberts:
CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins, concurring.
Quote:
The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations--as the major ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.
The Court properly rejects that theory, and I join its opinion in full. The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer
But, hey, who needs that pesky 1st Amendment anyways?
Did not Hitlery spend more than Donald? How come she did not win? Did she spend too much in California.
The fact is it takes money to get your voice heard.
Apparently, in the American system, it takes money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, & the President of the United States.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
They lost.
They weren't running for office.
David Koch ran for government offce back in 1980. They've learned it's not necessary to buy a seat, they can get more 'bang for their buck' by buying influence & through economic 'rent seeking' behavior:
Quote:
What Do the Koch Brothers Want?
As a result of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, billionaires and large corporations can now spend an unlimited amount of money to influence the political process.
Perhaps, the biggest winners of Citizens United are Charles and David Koch, owners of the second-largest privately run business in America Koch Industries.
Among other things, the Koch brothers own oil refineries in Texas, Alaska, and Minnesota and control some 4,000 miles of pipeline.
According to Forbes Magazine, the Koch brothers are now worth $80 billion, and have increased their wealth by $12 billion since last year alone.
For the Koch brothers, $80 billion in wealth, apparently, is not good enough. Owning the second largest private company in America is, apparently, not good enough. It doesn’t appear that they will be satisfied until they are able to control the entire political process.
It is well known that the Koch brothers have provided the major source of funding to the Tea Party and want to repeal the Affordable Care Act.
In 1980, David Koch ran as the Libertarian Party’s vice-presidential candidate in 1980.
Let’s take a look at the 1980 Libertarian Party platform.
Here are just a few excerpts of the Libertarian Party platform that David Koch ran on in 1980:
“We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission.”
“We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs.”
“We oppose any compulsory insurance or tax-supported plan to provide health services, including those which finance abortion services.”
“We also favor the deregulation of the medical insurance industry.”
“We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary.”
“We propose the abolition of the governmental Postal Service. The present system, in addition to being inefficient, encourages governmental surveillance of private correspondence. Pending abolition, we call for an end to the monopoly system and for allowing free competition in all aspects of postal service.”
“We oppose all personal and corporate income taxation, including capital gains taxes.”
“We support the eventual repeal of all taxation.”
“As an interim measure, all criminal and civil sanctions against tax evasion should be terminated immediately.”
“We support repeal of all law which impede the ability of any person to find employment, such as minimum wage laws.”
“We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.”
“We condemn compulsory education laws … and we call for the immediate repeal of such laws.”
“We support the repeal of all taxes on the income or property of private schools, whether profit or non-profit.”
“We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency.”
“We support abolition of the Department of Energy.”
“We call for the dissolution of all government agencies concerned with transportation, including the Department of Transportation.”
“We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system.”
“We specifically oppose laws requiring an individual to buy or use so-called "self-protection" equipment such as safety belts, air bags, or crash helmets.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Federal Aviation Administration.”
“We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration.”
“We support an end to all subsidies for child-bearing built into our present laws, including all welfare plans and the provision of tax-supported services for children.”
“We oppose all government welfare, relief projects, and ‘aid to the poor’ programs. All these government programs are privacy-invading, paternalistic, demeaning, and inefficient. The proper source of help for such persons is the voluntary efforts of private groups and individuals.”
“We call for the privatization of the inland waterways, and of the distribution system that brings water to industry, agriculture and households.”
“We call for the repeal of the Occupational Safety and Health Act.”
“We call for the abolition of the Consumer Product Safety Commission.”
“We support the repeal of all state usury laws.”
In other words, the agenda of the Koch brothers is not only to defund Obamacare. The agenda of the Koch brothers is to repeal every major piece of legislation that has been signed into law over the past 80 years that has protected the middle class, the elderly, the children, the sick, and the most vulnerable in this country.
It is clear that the Koch brothers and other right wing billionaires are calling the shots and are pulling the strings of the Republican Party.
And because of the disastrous Citizens United Supreme Court decision, they now have the power to spend an unlimited amount of money to buy the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the next President of the United States.
If they are allowed to hijack the American political process to defund Obamacare they will be back for more.
Tomorrow it will be Social Security, ending Medicare as we know it, repealing the minimum wage. It seems to me that the Koch brothers will not be content until they get everything they believe they are entitled to. ...
The goal of the left is to shut down all voices but their own. The Constitution is seen as an obstacle to that goal.
You can see the absurd obsession with the Koch brothers. How dare rich people not have a leftist agenda!
When the argument begins with a faulty main premise, that is, that 'money is equivalent to speech', what follows will be faulty as well.
Most folks would not consider Mr. Scalia to be a 'leftist' nor would they consider him to be one who saw the US Constitution as an 'obstacle'. Personally, I did not always see 'eye to eye' with his opinions however respected his skills at making a rationally persuasive argument, & I'm quite certain I'm not alone in this. I also admired he had the courage of his convictions, he did not seek to hide behind his opinions, he was forthright in speaking & in standing behind his assertions.
The following demonstrates:
Quote:
Clearly, Scalia’s faith in political accountability as the way to address money in politics only makes sense “so long as adequate campaign-expenditure disclosure rules exist.” He feared that too much anonymity in public debate would threaten democracy itself. In a 2010 case about the disclosure of petition signatures, he wrote:
Quote:
Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously . . . hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.
The nation is careening into an election in which voters will be bombarded by unprecedented levels of secret spending. Congress and the president have the power to improve disclosure but they have failed to act, leaving the door open for hundreds of millions of dollars to flow through dark money groups. It is likely that Scalia would be disgusted by these secret donors’ lack of courage. And we should all share his concern that the democracy he held so dear may be doomed if voters don’t have the information they need to hold the powerful accountable.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
