• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

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.

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

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.
 
Last edited:
Judge scalia met with pat robertson in a closed to the public and press at the christian coalation here in virginia , beach , virginia.

Woah, woah, woah - you mean that one of the people on the Supreme Court met with someone who didn't have a case before him and the media wasn't invited? Alert the presses!

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.

The fact that they knew each other doesn't make it a conflict of interest requiring recusal. Furthermore, without knowing more details, I can say that it's not uncommon to require the posting of some sort of security before an appeal.

Don't worry, there are plenty of crooked judges

Which has nothing to do with this situation, which involves a whole bunch of partisans who don't know a goddamn thing about the law getting outraged because they think the court did something that goes against their preferred policy outcome.
 
I wrote senator chuck robb about it when he was in office. This happened a few years back. The story was reported in the virgina pilot newspaper. It caused no outrage.

Another thing. I know a charles martel racist who call robertson, "Pat" when we are discussing him. It's surreal. The racist never claimed he knew pat robertson but I got the impression that he did.

btw, senator robb said that although he agree with my contention that a supreme court justice should not be associating with political figures at closed to the public meetings, that he thought it was a matter of free speech and he could not do anyhing about it. Shortly thereafter robb lost his seat in the us senate.

So much for seperation of church and state.

This is a true story and I can verify it.
 
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?
 
My opponent was a freemason also. The case was a minor civil case. When I first went to court there was a black judge who was sympathetic to me but the mason judge, who was the chief judge delayed the trial and replaced the original judge with himself.
 
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?

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.
 
Think about why the Court would be relying on the 14th Amendment in order to invalidate a state law that restricted speech.

Man! He almost had you with that Fourteenth Amendment reference. Totally unexpected...:lol:
 
The republican policy of pro states rights was shattered when they ruled against the state of florida for ruling in gore's favor.

Doesn't pass the smell test.

Save the delta smelt.
 
No right is absolute.

Yes they are. That's why they're inalienable.

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.

Could you cite the specific case along with some relevant excerpts?

Also terrorists use free speech as part of their strategy on their pogrom upon our country.

What?

Every right comes with the responsibility to not abuse that right to abuse the rights of others. Fire in a crowded theater.

You think yelling fire in a crowded theater is a right?
 
You're right in that they certainly can. That doesn't however entitle them to any additional right.

I thought corporations couldn't have rights. Now you're implying that they have additional rights.

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.

That's not what I'm saying at all. I would never claim that a "group" is capable of possessing anything, let alone rights. My contention is that individuals have the right to assemble and speak on behalf of their business; this SCOTUS decision affirms that right.
 
Last edited:
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.

And now you're just throwing out every snippet you've ever heard that tangentially relates to free speech or terrorism.
 
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?

Of course not. But, isn't shouting anything free speech?
 
You've got that mixed up with the declaration of independence which is not law.

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?

Naw, I'm too lazy. Why don't you research it for me.

You see. This is blatant trolling. Please keep your childish basement tactics where they belong.

But, isn't shouting anything free speech?

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.
 
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:
 
Last edited:
Yes by using the rule of law which the declaration is not.

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?

jowol, mein fureur I love the sewer too.

Okay. We'll just mark this down as yet another assertion you've failed or refused to substantiate.

You are repeating what I said. Polly want a cracker, Poly want a cracker.

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.
 
That's not the definition of judicial activism. Sorry.

That's your opinion.... and probably the most popular conservative opinion; however, it is not correct.

In fact, if the decision had gone the other way, we would be having the opposite discussion.
 
And where are you getting that from? What part of the language in the first amendment leads you to that conclusion?
Because I didn't understand the question.



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.
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.



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.
Because you can leave a union without effecting your livelyhood if you disagree with it. You can't do the same with a job.



Think about why the Court would be relying on the 14th Amendment in order to invalidate a state law that restricted speech.
You aren't reading all of the opinions on it.
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.
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.
However the same restirictions do not apply to an individual.
 
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.

I did not say that. You are using an implication to say that I was implying something else totally different than what I said. You think you are a mind reader. You are a legend in your own mind. You are saying that. Poly wanna cracker.
 
Last edited:
This discussion with Mr E is beginning to sound like abbot and costello's "Who's On First" routine.
 
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

???!! You are describing some other person, perhaps? Its funny to me that there is so much bitter partisanship - at the end of the day the results are nearly identical no matter which party is in control. I voted for Nader when I had the opportunity. But why do you suppose Repub/Dem administrations perform similarly? I would say that it is due to corporate $$$. What is wrong with the health care bills? - The effort to make all of the corporate stakeholders happy. Why did Clinton sign bills that allowed media consolidation and bank deregulation?? Corporate money.
 
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.

:cool:
 
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.

:cool:

Who do you think the republicans will run for president then, sir? Who would you like to see run?
 
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.

:cool:

And that republican, if he or she wins is going to owe so many favors that your interests will not have a change of being served. At this point, its not going to matter of a republican or democrat wins, the citizens will lose.
 
Back
Top Bottom