- Joined
- Jul 21, 2005
- Messages
- 51,719
- Reaction score
- 35,498
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Conservative
The Supreme Court's ruling Thursday striking down limits on corporate and union spending in elections is "un-American," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said Thursday.
Schumer, a top Senate Democrat who formerly ran their campaign committee, said he would hold hearings on the decision in the coming weeks.
"I think it's an un-American decision," Schumer said at a press conference Thursday. "I think when the American people understand what this radical decision has meant they will be even more furious and concerned about special interest influence in politics than they are today."
job?
This is ridiculous.
Link here
Umm, what?
He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?
This is ridiculous.
"As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I'm announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next of couple of weeks," Schumer said.
Link here
Umm, what?
He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?
This is ridiculous.
Link here
Umm, what?
He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?
This is ridiculous.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wis.), the sponsor of that 2002 law, has called for new legislation to address the court's ruling. Schumer said Thursday he'd hold hearings as chairman of the Senate Rules Committee.
"As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I'm announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next of couple of weeks," Schumer said.
Democrats have been very transparent with their desire to change the government in any way possible to secure absolute power over every aspect of our lives. First Obama's tampering with the census, then the MA Secretary of State promising to delay seating Brown (after they had changed the rules for Senate succession several times to suit their own needs), forcing healthcare through by any secretive means necessary, and now hearings on the supreme court are just the next in what promises to be a long line of abuses of power by the party of big government.
OMG. Y o u h a v e g o t t o b e k i d d i n g m e.
Umm, he is holding hearing on the impact of the decision. I don't see how that is threatening SCOTUS, and in fact he has zero real ways to threaten them.
Gotcha. I read the first part and was figuring it was a protracted statement with him going on to say that later, but notice the original statement about having hearings "about" the case wasn't actually in quotes.
Having hearings about campaign finance is fine.
Having hearings about the "unamerican decision" is not.
Congress should be having hearings about new laws they want to pass, not about decisions the Surpreme Court has made. Further, his stance on the Rules committee is what made me lean to it examining the decision itself, not what can be done legislatively with it. I'm not quite sure how finance reform legislation would fit into the "rules" committee as its breeding ground for cnoversation.
Perhaps a wait and see approach is needed, however the notion that he's going to use the committee to spur talk of legislation that can be passed that falls in line with the courts ruling seems highly unlikely to me based on the language he used and the committee he's sitting on, unless I'm understanding something wrong.
OMG. Y o u h a v e g o t t o b e k i d d i n g m e.
Question for you: do you think some form of campaign finance regulation is needed and legal, and what form do you think it should take if so...and of course, why either way. You are one of the rational conservatives, so I am curious as to your thoughts.
Honestly not looked into it enough. It was clear mccain-fiengold wasn't going away until a SCOTUS decision caused it, which I was surprised to see happen already frankly. I think McCain-Fiengold didn't do much beyond causing it to simply be less transparent and more underhanded in the ways buisness gave money to government, while setting very bad precedent in regards to limitations on speech. I'd have to look into the situation a good bit more to give you any substantive answer on if something needs to be done to fix it or how to "fix" it.
The Idealistic part of me would want to say a limit total on how much a candidate can spend in an election, but even that I have no doubt would have hundreds of issues associated with it.
Sometimes it's just not worth feeding the trolls aps. For some of our posters, over the top rhetoric is the only way they know to post.
Pot meet kettle. LOL
If only they had conducted good hearings during the formulation of the orignal McCain/Feingold bill. :roll: Besides that Bush should have vetoed that bill.
Yeah, it seems clear to me that there have to be limits, and the concept of money as speech just does not work for me at all. I like to think that if all the major candidates had the same money to spend, then the quality of elections would go up. The obvious problem is figuring out how to limit things in a way SCOTUS would allow.
This is kind of weird. Isn't is supposed to be Republicans who play the "un-American" card?
And that still doesn't solve many of the other problems with campaign finance.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?