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.
Useless endeavor, if you think you can petition the courts to reverse a decision.
If the law was a bad law, and violated Constitutional rights, it needs to be struck down, regardless of the consequences that may result. The court can only look to whether the law is constitutional or not, that is all there is too it.
And yet, this court way overstepped and decided on law that wasn't before them to decide.
Are you even aware of that fact?
Plaintiffs stated outright during questioning that they were not looking to overturn either Austin or McConnell. The original issue was whether the FEC was justified in limiting Citizens United's capacity to broadcast a disparaging film about Hillary Clinton during the Democratic presidential primary, and whether or not they had the right to buy advertising to promote it. If an issue is not before the court, the court should not be ruling on it, plain and simple.
In addition, Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce and McConnell v. Federal Election Commission were established precedent that stare decisis dictates should not have been overturned by this ruling. As Justice Stevens pointed out in his dissent:
"[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."
If you are unfamiliar with the term, stare decisis is the legal principle by which judges (and in this case Supreme Court Justices) are obliged to obey the precedents established by prior decisions. And yet in this case they just shredded not one, but two precedents, Austin and McConnell, as if they were no different than toilet paper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yardener
I just read that the Supreme Court's decision went way beyond even the case they were deciding. The case was about airing that movie about Hillary Clinton, but the court decided to make a huge, general ruling about spending directly on campaigns, not just ads or movies.
I just do not ever want to hear a conservative who agrees with this ruling to EVER complain about "activist judges" again.
You read correctly. And you are absolutely right about the rightwing caterwauling about "activist judges" being a dead issue now.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
Why not read the Court's opinion itself, rather than what someone else says? They laid out their rationale quite succinctly.
I posted a link to it on page 1 or 2.
You posted a link to it, yet you still don't understand it, or why it's bad law.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Yardener
Not sure how 183 pages could be called succinct, but I, like 99.9% of the other people talking about this ruling, do not have the time, education nor knowledge to understand intricate Constitutional Law laid out in the actual ruling. Therefore, I read what other lawyers and experts have to say.
There is hardly an expert out there, even the ones who agree with this ruling, who deny that this court has fundamentally reversed many, many years of court precedent, hence all the reaction. They made a very broad ruling that fundamentally changes how elections are financed. They did not have to do that. That is why they are being called "activist judges."
A ruling on established precedents that plaintiffs weren't seeking any ruling on, no less! But that seems to be ignored in all this mess.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stillkit
In jurisprudence, for someone to address the court in relation to a case, they must have "standing."
Since you're too lazy to read the Court's opinion for yourself, you don't appear to have the requisite standing to comment on it because all you have to offer is someone elses' thoughts.
Shame on you.
No, shame on you for not understanding the difference between having "standing" on one issue and the court ruling on a completely separate issue, which is what they did here. You are nothing more than a lay person who has no more knowledge of the law than 99% of the rest of the posters here. But at least we know you're good at copy/paste!
But, they DO have the legal standing as persons, whether you or I like it or not. And, that's the way it should be. After all, they too are beholden to follow the laws Congress passes, aren't they? Why shouldn't they be able to voice their opinions on matters which are of interest to them? If they can be excluded from the political process, who else can be? Who else should be, in your opinion?
Our Constitution was written to preserve the rights given by God to all persons. Corporations are persons in the legal sense.
"Separate privso?" Is that the same as "separate but equal?"
All of these answers have already been provided throughout this thread and met unchallenged.
They do have legal standing as persons because that legal construct was written with a composition fallacy that went unchallenged far too long. Perhaps a lack of foresight about how this thing would manifest itself. You know, like credit default swaps.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are.
Fifty-seven percent of Americans consider campaign donations to be a protected form of free speech, and 55% say corporate and union donations should be treated the same way under the law as donations from individuals are.
Quote:
the majority think it is more important to limit campaign donations than to protect this free-speech right.
You were saying? Because this is what WE have been saying all along. Guess you were too busy trying to inject partisanship.
You're right about greed and corruption. "Power corrupts..........etc." There was a reason McCain/Feingold was passed with a bipartisan vote. It was a good start to campaign finance reform. Even the politicians knew it. Corporate interests already had a strong voice in the political arena, It's called lobbyists. They didn't need to buy the media to further influence the system. Now they can. The possibility of anyman getting elected will now be an american anachronism. You will need the imprimatur of a corporate entity to consider public office. Soon it will be "The South Carolina Textile Industry Senate Race."
McCain/Feingold could have been a good start, had it not been un-Constitutional. The problem with that bill wasn't that it disenfranchised corporations, but that it gave the FEC power to approve or disapprove political messages. That gave an instrument of government the power of prior restraint which, as the Court noted, had the effect of chilling public debate.
They'll try again and craft it more carefully this time.
All of these answers have already been provided throughout this thread and met unchallenged.
They do have legal standing as persons because that legal construct was written with a composition fallacy that went unchallenged far too long. Perhaps a lack of foresight about how this thing would manifest itself. You know, like credit default swaps.
What is there to challenge and why? The Court laid out its rationale in the majority opinion. I accept their findings and you don't. It's as simple as that and no amount of debating whether they were right or wrong will change it one iota. There is no higher court to appeal to, not even the "court" of public opinion.
And your assertion that corporations are deemed as Constitutional persons only because of a legal construct which has gone unchallenged seems to suggest you think the Court ought to review that and overturn more than 100 years of precedent. You're upset that they overthrew two precedents in this ruling, yet it would be OK if they overthrew dozens of them to achieve the desired end? It seems to me that your focus is on outcomes, not following the law and Constitution. If the Court were to do that, they'd become those hated "activist" judges who bend the law to meet some pre-conceived outcome.
You know, the law is sort of like algebra; the answer isn't nearly so important as arriving at it by the proper procedure and Court followed proper procedure in this case, at least to satisfaction of the majority, and that's all that counts, isn't it?
But, not to worry. Congress will craft a new bill to do the same thing and, hopefully, it'll pass Constitutional muster the next time. Thank God we have a Supreme Court to prevent Congress from playing fast and loose with the Constitution or that document would be worthless.
That is what has been nagging at me. Nobody was at risk for having their vote taken away, just keeping a lid on the dangers of the corporations running the show. Now these corrupted judges have rendered our vote inconsequential.
A "Massive Tilt in Our Democracy"
Michael Waldman, the executive director of the Brennan Center of Justice at New York University School of Law, which filed amicus briefs in the case, said the ruling means that "Exxon could spend Bloomberg-level money in every Congressional campaign around the country." Waldman was referring to New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg, who tapped into his vast wealth and spent more than $70 million of his own money on his first mayoral campaign.
Waldman added that the Supreme Court justices "chose to intervene in the political process in a way they didn't have to," which will now result in a "massive tilt in our democracy." He warned that the "impact of this case could dwarf the impact of this election."
Burt Neuborne, a law professor at NYU and a Supreme Court litigator, agreed.
"[The decision] gives a green light for a massive flow of corporate treasury money into our democracy," he said, adding that the decision "changes the ground rules [of] our democracy."
Heh....heh....I have to chuckle here because I had you on my ignore list - most likely as a result of frustration with your global warming or maybe gay marriage rants some time back. But something made me click on "view post" for this one. Seems we have found some common ground.
Not surprising, really, because it is sadly clear that most of my fellow conservatives have a blind spot when it comes to corporate influence in government. And the threat to personal freedom and well being that stems from that influence is the equal of threats to personal freedom deriving from the "progressive" policies of the left.
Maybe I'll take you off ignore for a trial period - most likely 'til we meet again on a "climate change" thread.
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.
