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.
Right. I was among the many who learned from the SCOTUS that corporations are people.
Knowing what I know about corporations, when the SCOTUS decided they can use their money to influence politics, I thought I felt the Earth shake a bit from all our founding fathers rolling over in their graves at once.
Not everyone agrees with the SCOTUS. "While corporations on paper have the same rights as individuals, corporations are not really people. General Electric is not a real general."
Personally, I think the SCOTUS probably got it right from a strict Constitutional law standpoint, also to suggest it was up to Congress to address the related concerns regarding the influence on our political progress.
Yet, we've got Obama, Sanders, even Trump pointing at the problem of monied interests having too much influence in our political process, loud and clear, and what happens? Nothing...
We have people literally "up in arms" debating gun control (pun intended), but nothing but a big yawn when it comes to campaign finance reform?
Why is that exactly?
Quote:
Holdings: The Supreme Court, Justice Kennedy, held that:
3 disclaimer and disclosure provisions of Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 did not violate First Amendment, as applied to nonprofit corporation's film and three advertisements for the film.
My real issue w/ this ruling is look how many cases and statutes were overturned. Yet look at this patchwork of affirmation, concurrences and dissent by the justices
Quote:
Justice Thomas joined as to all of Justice Kennedy's opinion except for Part IV.
Chief Justice Roberts filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Alito joined.
Justice Scalia filed a concurring opinion, in which Justice Alito joined and Justice Thomas joined in part.
Justice Stevens filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part, in which Justices Ginsburg, Breyer, and Sotomayor, joined.
Justice Thomas filed an opinion concurring in part and dissenting in part.
So we overturned 1 Statute and 2 Holdings in order to arrive at this poor policy result not just on any basis but on a Constitutional basis (it makes overturning and legislation more difficult subsequent to it.) And being done so, but a patchwork of justices who only agreed w/ specific parts.
I used to be a Democrat until they started having unchristian practices in their platform and booing Christian values in their convention. It is one thing to have a couple of candidates state unchristian ideas but when it becomes part of the platform you cannot ignore it anymore. If you are a member of that party, you are agreeing with the platform. I cannot be associated with and agree with anything against God.
Ever try some free-range thinking?
What are these "unchristian practices" and Christian values that are booed by Democrats?
I admire those practices and values that are well accepted to be taught by Jesus, with regard to respecting others, helping the poor, preaching tolerance and all the rest. I am not aware of any part of the Democratic platform that is critical or not accepting of any of that. In fact, most Democrats as far as I can tell, certainly most of the elected leadership, are among the faithful.
What is not so well tolerated, however, is bigotry and intolerance of the LGBT community. If that is what might be considered "unchristian practice," and if that offends you, then yes, no doubt you will be warmly welcomed by the GOP, the party of "no."
When the book of good is thrown out, and replaced with the book of lies, deception, and corruption, you know the nation is in trouble, morally.
Secularism, and if want to better finger when in our history it was decided to throw out "the book of good," I think that's when our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
My real issue w/ this ruling is look how many cases and statutes were overturned. Yet look at this patchwork of affirmation, concurrences and dissent by the justices
So we overturned 1 Statute and 2 Holdings in order to arrive at this poor policy result not just on any basis but on a Constitutional basis (it makes overturning and legislation more difficult subsequent to it.) And being done so, but a patchwork of justices who only agreed w/ specific parts.
"Don't look back. We're not going there."
Campaign finance reform legislation anyone?
Would love to continue more free-range thinking, but I've got to shove off for work, to keep the dream alive...
I'm not trying to change your mind. I'm trying to call you a big stupid poopyhead who doesn't listen...sort of what I would do with a husband if I was still married.
Show me the person who speaks like this, insulting, thinking this is truth, and we see the true sign of no brains.
Yes it is hard to reason with the truth, when you have noting intelligent to argue with.
Winston Churchill for 1000, Alex. Why would you say Churchill had no brains.
LOL!!!
The man fought back Socialism and Fascism, with firsthand experience.
It was proved Churchill knew what he was talking about.
So, who in this back and forth, has proven and shown everyone here, they have no brains... Look in the Mirror, pal!
Secularism, and if want to better finger when in our history it was decided to throw out "the book of good," I think that's when our Founding Fathers wrote the Constitution.
LOL! That is why there is a Mosque on every corner in America and not Churches!!
This nation was founded and established by Freemasons, with the Constitution composed by freemasons... The descendants of the Knight's Templar.(Crusades for 1000, Alex) No, it was not founded upon Mohammad, or Allah.
"Or maybe your cement theory is somewhat valid...although think how easily cement can become cracked, shipped, or broken."
Most people have a real hard time breaking cement, but it is not impossible. I agree, just rare. Like I wrote before, there are always exceptions to every rule, but they are exceptions...
PS: is it "easy" to crack, ship or break cement? Having just done a bit in my back yard, I found the cracking of cement to be no easy task whatsoever...
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.
God first...
