- Joined
- Mar 21, 2005
- Messages
- 25,893
- Reaction score
- 12,484
- Location
- New York, NY
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Slightly Conservative
How is he an activist if his interpretation is closer to the original intent?
It blows me away that you hold this position when the damaging results of corporate money in the political process have been so transparent- and transparently evident in issues you seem to care about.
Top All-Time Donors, 1989-2010
1 AT&T Inc $44,027,485
2 American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees $41,751,311
3 National Assn of Realtors $35,438,725
4 Goldman Sachs $31,413,462
5 Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers $31,359,957
6 American Assn for Justice $31,319,029
7 National Education Assn $30,068,167
8 Laborers Union $28,814,400
9 Service Employees International Union $27,911,232
10 Carpenters & Joiners Union $27,769,683
11 Teamsters Union $27,684,624
12 Communications Workers of America $26,992,076
13 Citigroup Inc $26,983,588
14 American Federation of Teachers $26,282,491
15 American Medical Assn $26,280,223
16 United Auto Workers $25,767,002
17 Machinists & Aerospace Workers Union $25,105,777
18 National Auto Dealers Assn $24,253,708
19 United Food & Commercial Workers Union $24,088,333
20 United Parcel Service $24,064,929
The top 20 donors in all of politics over the past 20 years are:
1 - Corporation
2 - Union
3 - Association of workers in an industry
4 - Corporation
5 - Union
6 - Association of workers in an industry
7 - Union
8 - Union
9 - Union
10 - Union
11 - Union
12 - Union
13 - Corporation
14 - Union
15 - Association of workers in an industry
16 - Union
17 - Union
18 - Association of workers in an industry
19 - Union
20 - Corporation
If you look at the distribution of money, only 5 of those 20 give more to Republicans than Democrats, with the largest split being 67-31. In contrast, 15 give more to Democrats than Republicans, with 14 of them giving more than 90% of their donations to Democrats. 7 of the unions give less than 2% of their donations to Republicans.
Personally, I don't believe there really is such as thing as judicial activism. I think judges are people and they are influenced by their own experiences, and sometimes can be biased and wrong, just like any other human being. I don't think judges say "I am a judicial activist" especially since the exact same judge may agree with "judicial activism" in one case and be the exact opposite in another.
But, using the standard definition of it as a decision that freely overturns precedent and overturns legislation to make its own laws, this certainly applies. Even the opinion itself admits it overturns precedents.
See, here's the key: Almost every single opinion the Supreme Court issues does this. That's their job -- they overturn laws all the time when they believe they runs counter to the Constitution.
That's why I find the whole "judicial activism" meme silly.
Judge scalia met with pat robertson in a closed to the public and press at the christian coalation here in virginia , beach , virginia.
I have had experiences with crooked judges in portsmouth virginia where the lawyer for my opponent was a college friend of the judge and they were both freemasons. go figure.
I lost the case and the judge admonished me and said I needed to post a 10,000cash bail in order to appeal. It was conflict of interest. The whole court gasped out loud at his decision.
Don't worry, there are plenty of crooked judges
Not without infringing upon the individual's right to freely practice and express their religion and of association.
That's the argument we're making. Just substitute religion with free speech.
If we can't crack down on religious associations, then there's no way we can crack down on business associations. Honestly, that's the only difference here.
And where is the Enumerated authority of the Federal government to restrict the exercise of free speech, at all?
Think about why the Court would be relying on the 14th Amendment in order to invalidate a state law that restricted speech.
No right is absolute.
For example the supremes ruled that religious fanatics could not get in your face when you were on the street and bother people because the fanatics were trying to foist their opinions on others.
Also terrorists use free speech as part of their strategy on their pogrom upon our country.
Every right comes with the responsibility to not abuse that right to abuse the rights of others. Fire in a crowded theater.
You're right in that they certainly can. That doesn't however entitle them to any additional right.
They have the right to free speech, when they join up with a "group" they still have that right. You're claim would be that the "group" itself, not simply the individuals in the "group", now has the right to free speech.
No right is absolute. For example the supremes ruled that religious fanatics could not get in your face when you were on the street and bother people because the fanatics were trying to foist their opinions on others.
Also terrorists use free speech as part of their strategy on their pogrom upon our country.
Every right comes with the responsibility to not abuse that right to abuse the rights of others. Fire in a crowded theater.
Yes they are. That's why they're inalienable.
You've got that mixed up with the declaration of independence which is not law.
Could you cite the specific case along with some relevant excerpts?
Naw, I'm too lazy. Why don't you research it for me.
What?
You think yelling fire in a crowded theater is a right?
You've got that mixed up with the declaration of independence which is not law.
Naw, I'm too lazy. Why don't you research it for me.
But, isn't shouting anything free speech?
It's our nation's charter. The Declaration of Independence is arguably more significant than the Constitution. It is the philosophical justification for our right to self-determination and governance. Do you honestly think you can separate the philosophical precepts of the DoI from the BoR?Yes by using the rule of law which the declaration is not.
You see. This is blatant trolling. Please keep your childish basement tactics where they belong.jowol, mein fureur I love the sewer too.:2razz:
The term "free speech" could be more extensively referred to as "the right to free speech". A "right" implies that it is only a right when it does not infringe on the rights of others. Since creating a panic infringes upon the rights of others, it would stand to reason that it is not "free speech" as is meant by the Bill of Rights.
You are repeating what I said. Polly want a cracker, Poly want a cracker.:2razz:
Yes by using the rule of law which the declaration is not.
jowol, mein fureur I love the sewer too.
You are repeating what I said. Polly want a cracker, Poly want a cracker.
That's not the definition of judicial activism. Sorry.
Because I didn't understand the question.And where are you getting that from? What part of the language in the first amendment leads you to that conclusion?
I provided you with one of Jeffersons many quotes on the subject as a means of pointing out why that industry was the only industry constitutionally afforded protection explicitly.What does that have to do with anything? You said that the press and churches deserved special protections because they benefited society. I noted that corporations benefit society too. You responded by providing me with a Jefferson quote from 35 years after the drafting, talking about how nice the free press is. I'm not denying that the press is good - I'm saying that corporations are good too.
Because you can leave a union without effecting your livelyhood if you disagree with it. You can't do the same with a job.Which is relevant because...? This isn't about the leverage an organization has on its workers/voters, because the organization is not forcing the workers/voters to do anything. If an organization feels that its workers/voters would be best served by supporting a particular candidate, then they are advancing those interests by doing so.
You aren't reading all of the opinions on it.Think about why the Court would be relying on the 14th Amendment in order to invalidate a state law that restricted speech.
They are granted protection based on the provision, the purpose etc of theat amendment. In some cases free speach may be covered, illegal search and seizure is always covered etc.from yourself said:Whether or not a particular guarantee is "purely personal" or is unavailable to corporations for some other reason depends on the nature, history, and purpose of the particular constitutional provision.
So, you think the Rights in the US Declaration of Independence are different from the Rights in the US Constitution?
How did you arrive at this conclusion?
Okay. We'll just mark this down as yet another assertion you've failed or refused to substantiate.
I'm not repeating what you said. I'm correcting your logical shortcomings.
You said rights are not absolute and cited "shouting fire in a crowded theater" as an example, but this would imply somehow that shouting fire in a crowded theater is a right that's being restricted in the interest of other individual's rights, otherwise why would you have used it an as example that rights are not absolute?
Try to remember the arguments you've made. That would help the conversation proceed much more smoothly.
And it blows me away that you continue to miss the fact that a decision the other way would have done nothing to address that.
If you've got a problem with corporate donations, why don't you express that to the groups who are making the donations and to the people who are accepting them? Could it be because the vast majority of them are going to Democrats, and you're not opposed to that?
http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...ng-political-campaigns-13.html#post1058508983
Advice for the Left...snuggle up with your own corporate interests cuz...thanks to the Supreme Court, we Repubs are gonna launch cash everywhere in an attempt to defeat the Dems in 2010 and Obama in 2012.
Show them Libs what the Republican version of "green technology" is.
Advice for the Left...snuggle up with your own corporate interests cuz...thanks to the Supreme Court, we Repubs are gonna launch cash everywhere in an attempt to defeat the Dems in 2010 and Obama in 2012.
Show them Libs what the Republican version of "green technology" is.
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?