- Joined
- Sep 22, 2005
- Messages
- 11,430
- Reaction score
- 2,282
- Location
- Los Angeles
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
It's also a huge victory for unions. They're now free to spend even more money backing their candidates. How many of those candidates do you think will be Republicans?
Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits - WSJ.com
Can you tell me which "the good guys" were having their rights repressed prior to this decision?
Can you tell me which "the good guys" were having their rights repressed prior to this decision?
Its called freedom of speech my left wing friend..You leftys are all he time quoting the first amendment......What is the matter????:rofl
It's also a huge victory for unions. They're now free to spend even more money backing their candidates. How many of those candidates do you think will be Republicans?
Court Rolls Back Campaign Spending Limits - WSJ.com
There will no longer be the Senator from Kansas or the congressperson from Wyoming or the Governor of New York. We will have the Senator from EXXON and the representative from Bank of America and the Governor of Pfizer.
In 1907 congress banned corporations from donating to campaigns. The 5 conservative judges overthrew these laws without precedent.
Comparing the money the unions have to spend on campaigns to the money corporations have to spend on campaigns is like comparing one penny to ten thousand dollars.
But that would mean they used judicial activism, and we all know that judges only use judicial activism when they make decisions that liberals agree with!!!
They voted today and gave corporations the right to give unlimited $$$$$ to political campaigns.
There will no longer be the Senator from Kansas or the congressperson from Wyoming or the Governor of New York. We will have the Senator from EXXON and the representative from Bank of America and the Governor of Pfizer.
In 1907 congress banned corporations from donating to campaigns. The 5 conservative judges overthrew these laws without precedent.
You think our government is corrupt now?
The only hope is if this congress can pass laws to stop this corporate interference and control of our government. Florida Democratic Representative Alan Grayson has 5 bills in congress right now. Let's hope they get passed. Obama is against this ruling.
Iowa Democratic Rep. Leonard Boswell has an amendment to the constitution to negate this ruling.
Sen. Russ Feingold (D-Wisc.) is also promising legislation.
If this congress doesn't do it, the next one will have more bought and paid for politicians and it will get worse every election year until the whole government is completely bought and paid for.
Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) said he's going to hold hearings on the impact off this ruling.
Dissenters included Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
President Obama called it “a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
This is very scary. Can the Democrats fight this off? They have been pretty wimpy so far.
Wrong, they used the constitution.........We could have never got this done without President Bush putting 2 conservatiive justices on the SCOTUS........
Ooh, snap! You got me! (By completely ignoring what "judicial activism" means of course.)
I'll try again.
When the court ignores 100 years of precedent and makes a decision based on the exact same Constitution that existed back then, they are MAKING LAW, not interpreting the Constitution. They are using JUDICIAL ACTIVISM, not judicial restraint. They are throwing out the will of the people (through the laws passed by the people) and replacing it with their own personal opinions.
I thought you conservatives hated that.
But, as we can clearly see, you only hate it when they do that and come up with a decision you don't like.
"Judicial activism"...OH! You mean like how Brown vs Board of Edumacation overturned existing laws passed by Congress and reasserted the supremacy of the Constitution.
Since the First Amendment dominates any law passed by Congress, explain how it was "activist" for the Court to say the law violated the First Amendment and hence was not allowed.
You're not tyring to argue that because a law was passed in 1907 that the Constitution is nullified, are you?
The people who wanted to use their money to help their candidate.
You know, it's that First Amendment thingy. Some people like it.
The good guys like it, for example.
Read the decision and you might find out...........That is what I did.......
Thank you for proving my point! I appreciate it!
Really? People?
You think this ruling had anything to do with people?
Really? People?
You think this ruling had anything to do with people?
That's the key right there.
The Constitution protects people. That's the exact word that is used in the 14th amendment.
Corporations are NOT people. They have certain rights based on previous decisions (such as the right to due process if sued) but never never have they been given ALL of the rights in the Constitution.
That's what makes this decision judicial activism. It goes against the intent of the framers (who certainly did NOT make corporations "people"). It goes against 100 years of law made by the people. And it replaces the will of the people with 5 justices' opinion.
Corporations are not people. They can't vote. They can't run for office. And many of them are not even American.
If your point was that the decision invalidating McCain-Feingold was not judicial activism, then you're welcome.
If you point was something else, then you're wrong.
I would like for you to answer the question, in your own words.
There will no longer be the Senator from Kansas or the congressperson from Wyoming or the Governor of New York. We will have the Senator from EXXON and the representative from Bank of America and the Governor of Pfizer.
Yes, amazingly, there no corporations anywhere owned and run by either dolphins or robots.
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?