Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 23

Thread: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

  1. #11
    Banned
    Join Date
    May 2009
    Last Seen
    01-05-10 @ 06:26 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    2,629

    Re: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Hello hyperbole.
    Why you think our Founding Father were in favor of the two party system??? If we are going to get rid of McCain-Feingold then lets go all the way and declare the Two Party System a Monopoly that should be broken up just like Ma Bell and US Steel were.

  2. #12
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,511

    Re: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits - Yahoo! News

    Any one else predict a ruling saying that the movie should have been able to be promoted, but without ruling McCain Fiengold unconstitutional?
    Who wants to bet that if this movie were about Sarah Palin, the Liberals in the justice system wouldn't have barred anyone from promoting it?
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  3. #13
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Devil505 View Post
    I see.....in other words a distinction without a difference!
    Well, no. I have contributed to a couple campaigns. I got nothing for my donation except to pleasure of seeing my guy win. It was not a bribe.

  4. #14
    Liberal Fascist For Life!


    Redress's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:37 PM
    Lean
    Very Liberal
    Posts
    93,331
    Blog Entries
    2

    Re: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Who wants to bet that if this movie were about Sarah Palin, the Liberals in the justice system wouldn't have barred anyone from promoting it?
    Is it possible to not have hyper-partisan crap brought into every thread?

  5. #15
    Sage
    apdst's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Location
    Bagdad, La.
    Last Seen
    Today @ 02:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Very Conservative
    Posts
    76,511

    Re: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Is it possible to not have hyper-partisan crap brought into every thread?
    This is a debate forum. If you want a, "let's all get along and be happy forum", perhaps you should look elsewhere.
    Quote Originally Posted by Top Cat View Post
    At least Bill saved his transgressions for grown women. Not suggesting what he did was OK. But he didn't chase 14 year olds.

  6. #16
    Girthless
    RightinNYC's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    New York, NY
    Last Seen
    01-23-11 @ 11:56 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Slightly Conservative
    Posts
    25,894

    Re: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

    Best analysis I've found so far:

    Analysis: Two precedents in jeopardy | SCOTUSblog

    If supporters of federal curbs on political campaign spending by corporations were counting on Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., and Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr., to hesitate to strike down such restrictions, they could take no comfort from the Supreme Court’s 93-minute hearing Wednesday on that historic question. Despite the best efforts of four other Justices to argue for ruling only very narrowly, the strongest impression was that they had not convinced the two members of the Court thought to be still open to that approach. At least the immediate prospect was for a sweeping declaration of independence in politics for companies and advocacy groups formed as corporations.

    The Court probed deeply into Congress’ reasoning in its decades-long attempt to restrict corporate influence in campaigns for the Presidency and Congress, in a special sitting to hear a second time the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205). At issue was whether the Court was ready to overturn two of its precedents — one from 1990, the other from 2003 — upholding such limitations.

    From all appearances, not one of the nine Justices — including the newest Justice, Sonia Sotomayor — appeared to move away from what their positions had been expected in advance to be. In her first argument, Sotomayor fervently joined in the effort to keep any resulting decision narrow — seemingly, the minority position but one she had been assumed to hold.

    Three Justices — Anthony M. Kennedy, Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas — have explicitly urged the Court to overturn the two precedents that sustained congressional limits on campaign financing by corporations and labor unions. Kennedy and Thomas only seemed to reinforce that position on Wednesday; Thomas remained silent, but had given no indication earlier of a change of mind.

    That lineup has always put the focus, as the Court volunteered to take on new constitutional questions in the Citizens United case, on the Chief Justice and Justice Alito. While both have been skeptical in the past about campaign finance laws, supporters of such laws had fashioned an array of arguments they hoped would lead Roberts and Alito to shy away from casting their votes to create a majority to free corporations to spend their own treasury money to influence federal elections. None of those arguments seemed to appeal to either Roberts or Alito.

    ...
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  7. #17
    Enemy Combatant
    Kandahar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Washington, DC
    Last Seen
    10-15-13 @ 08:47 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Liberal
    Posts
    20,688

    Re: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Who wants to bet that if this movie were about Sarah Palin, the Liberals in the justice system wouldn't have barred anyone from promoting it?
    I would predict exactly the same split, with exactly the same justices on the same sides, regardless of who the candidate was. Since neither Sarah Palin nor Hillary Clinton are running for anything, why would that POSSIBLY affect their decision?
    Are you coming to bed?
    I can't. This is important.
    What?
    Someone is WRONG on the internet! -XKCD

  8. #18
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by apdst View Post
    Who wants to bet that if this movie were about Sarah Palin, the Liberals in the justice system wouldn't have barred anyone from promoting it?
    Wasn't there a movie about killing President Bush?
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  9. #19
    Tavern Bartender
    Constitutionalist
    American's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    Yesterday @ 10:49 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Conservative
    Posts
    76,323

    Re: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Is it possible to not have hyper-partisan crap brought into every thread?
    Pointing out liberal hypocracy is not hyper-partisan.
    "He who does not think himself worth saving from poverty and ignorance by his own efforts, will hardly be thought worth the efforts of anybody else." -- Frederick Douglass, Self-Made Men (1872)
    "Fly-over" country voted, and The Donald is now POTUS.

  10. #20
    Banned
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Masschusetts
    Last Seen
    03-01-14 @ 10:44 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Moderate
    Posts
    3,512

    Re: Supreme Court questions company campaign spending limits

    Quote Originally Posted by Redress View Post
    Well, no. I have contributed to a couple campaigns. I got nothing for my donation except to pleasure of seeing my guy win. It was not a bribe.
    Would you believe the same is true of Exxon-Mobil or UnitedHealth Group or WellPoint when they donate to politicians?
    (I don't...I think the "Pleasure" their "donations" bring them is simply reflected on their accounting dept. balance sheets)
    Last edited by Devil505; 09-10-09 at 09:18 AM.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •