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.
You don't get it. They will flood their money to the politicians and parties who promise them most favors. Why do you think the laws were called 'anti-corruption' laws. Because without them, corruption will take over the elections.
They still can not make donations to candidates above the current legal limits. they can independently run ads for whoever they want. Both major players and even independents will get ads for them. free speech wins
They still can not make donations to candidates above the current legal limits. they can independently run ads for whoever they want. Both major players and even independents will get ads for them. free speech wins
That is what this is all about, the right to free speech, and poorly written laws that try to limit free speech.
People can wail and moan all they like, until a properly written law or an amendment to the US Constitution is made to address this issue.
That is what this is all about, the right to free speech, and poorly written laws that try to limit free speech.
People can wail and moan all they like, until a properly written law or an amendment to the US Constitution is made to address this issue.
It's not about free speech at all. It was a coup for corporations even those funded with foreign money. Kiss your democracy good bye or whatever was left of it.
Why would a conservative not back free speech. Why would a liberal not back free speech?
what scares the liberals is that 63 year old precedent can be over turned
Why would you consider this a victory for free speech?
If it was truly about free speech, they would be expected to disclose who their contributors are.
I would like to know if a candidate is being supported by GreenPeace or Exxon/Mobil.
Yes, they're free to support a candidate. I should be free to know who has donated more than "X" amount of monies.
It's not about free speech at all. It was a coup for corporations even those funded with foreign money. Kiss your democracy good bye or whatever was left of it.
So our democracy was nonexistent before McCain-Feingold??
They still can not make donations to candidates above the current legal limits. they can independently run ads for whoever they want. Both major players and even independents will get ads for them. free speech wins
They can spend as much as they want to campaign ads
Quote:
The Supreme Court's decision to loosen campaign finance restrictions on corporations means a tsunami of company cash is likely to flood through the political system, giving big firms and labor unions even more influence over candidates.
Thursday's 5-4 ruling allows companies and labor unions to spend whatever they want to get their political message out to voters, striking down limitations that prevented company profits from being diverted into political ads.
Of all people, I do not have a bloated sense of my own opinion. I do, however, have some understanding of the law, how the Court rules and why.
Oh, so that's why the post bemoaning the ignorance of the rest of us pea brains who are "myopic, . . . enchanted with [our] own opinions, . . . judgmental and . . .worse yet, [who] won't even get what [you're] saying." Got ya.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
You quote a dissenting opinion from Justice Stevens, but the fact remains that 5 of the 9 Justices ruled correctly in this case, irregardless of what anyone else thinks.
I ought to dismiss you out of hand for the use of the non-word 'irregardless', as someone so uneducated that they can't be taken seriously. But for those others still reading, I'll take the time to disabuse you of the notion that you are the only one who knows anything about the law or precedent.
The fact remains that if even so much as a single justice had read the precedents properly, as Stevens did, then they would have ruled "correctly."
Don't like that statement? Well go ahead and break out your argument against it and then direct it at your own contention.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
The Supreme Court does not make rulings based upon what they think of an issue. If they did, they'd be those very "activist" judges we all like to rail against. Had they done so in this case, there'd be a whole other group of posters here bemoaning that and being correct in doing so.
In this case, they focused on the underlying issue: free speech. That's what this case was about, not corporations per se. And, they backed up their opinion with a huge number of precedents, which you should know is a very important part of our law. I posted a partial list of the case law the majority considered on another thread and will post it again here, at the bottom.
You claim all this brilliance of the law and trot out all the precedents the majority relied upon, yet dismiss with a hand-wave the fact that Stevens' opinion was also based on precedence in the law. How about I let someone more knowledgeable than I am about law and precedence, tell you where the majority erred. And until you're confirmed as a Supreme Court Justice, I'll take for granted that he knows more than you about the law, as well.
"The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress has placed special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907, ch. 420, 34 Stat. 864. We have unanimously concluded that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process,” FEC v. National Right to Work Comm., 459 U. S. 197, 209 (1982) (NRWC), and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation,” id., at 209–210. The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981)."
"In his landmark concurrence in Ashwander v. TVA, 297 U. S. 288, 346 (1936), Justice Brandeis stressed the importance of adhering to rules the Court has “developed . . . for its own governance” when deciding constitutional questions. Because departures from those rules always enhance the risk of error, I shall review the background of this case in some detail before explaining why the Court’s analysis rests on a faulty understanding of Austin and McConnell and of our campaign finance jurisprudence more generally ."
So really, you can trot out a list of precedents a mile long, but so long as the use of those cases relies on INDIVIDUAL dissenting opinion from those cases, and rests on faulty understanding of the cases they cite, the mere fact of their reliance upon them doesn't necessarily make them correct.
But wait, there's more!
"It is all the more distressing that our colleagues have manufactured [as in, made up, fabricated, pulled out of their butts] a facial challenge, because the parties have advanced numerous ways to resolve the case that would facilitate electioneering by nonprofit advocacy corporations such as Citizens United, without toppling statutes and precedents. Which is to say, the majority has transgressed yet another “cardinal” principle of the judicial process: “[I ]f it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more,” PDK Labs., Inc. v. Drug Enforcement Admin., 362 F. 3d 786, 799 (CADC 2004) (Roberts, J., concurring in part and concurring in judgment).
And then there's this. . .
"The final principle of judicial process that the majority violates is the most transparent: stare decisis. I am not an absolutist when it comes to stare decisis, in the campaign finance area or in any other. No one is. But if this principle is to do any meaningful work in supporting the rule of law, it must at least demand a significant justification, beyond the preferences of five Justices, for overturning settled doctrine. “[A] decision to overrule should rest on some special reason over and above the belief that a prior case was wrongly decided.” Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pa. v. Casey, 505 U. S. 833, 864 (1992).No such justification exists in this case, and to the contrary there are powerful prudential reasons to keep faith with our precedents."
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
This thread is long on emotion and short on knowledge. Thank goodness the Court doesn't rule on emotion, but on law and, in this case, they are on solid legal ground, whether we all like it or not. Take the time to read the actual opinion, which I posted earlier, then come back and tell me where they erred. Don't bother telling me how much you don't like their ruling or how you may think it's the end of the world, show me the law. In our country, that's all that matters.
As I just showed you, they aren't at all on "solid legal ground", much as you'd like to proclaim. Why don't you take the time to read Stevens' dissent and then come back and tell us why he's wrong, and yet, according your your philosophy, had a single other Justice concurred with him, he'd be "right" just because he was in the majority.
We have a long history of the Supreme Court majority making bad or wrong findings. Quit pretending that "might makes right."
Well, since you don't see any problems, you can just go on living like nothing ever happend.
Just don't come back crying when you see the familily planning clinics throw in a couple of million to run ads to get your local pro-abortion candidate into Congress.
Well, since you don't see any problems, you can just go on living like nothing ever happend.
Just don't come back crying when you see the familily planning clinics throw in a couple of million to run ads to get your local pro-abortion candidate into Congress.
I think it is their right to do so. free speech means you have the right to say what you want while having to listen tot he other side say just the opposite. why do you think free speech is bad
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.
