Page 35 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585 ... LastLast
Results 341 to 350 of 1049

Thread: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

  1. #341
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    How did we come in possession of pieces of the electromagnetic radiation spectrum? Can I own purple? I'll charge exorbitant prices for it and restrict what can be done with purple.
    We own it because it's a public resource and it is limited. If we just let anyone broadcast, there would be nothing but static.

    Fine - you can have maroon. Happy?

  2. #342
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    A) Corporate personhood is not a doctrine enshrined anywhere in the text of the Constitution.
    Restriction of corporate political activity is not mentioned in the Constitution either.

    But there is the Tenth Amendment.

    Hence, my argument that Congress does not have the power to restrict corporate political activity is Constitutionally grounded, your assertion that it can is disproven.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    B) Do you understand that "judicial activism" has an actual meaning other than "Supreme Court decisions I personally dislike"?
    Yes, it means court activity I personally dislike, not you, that isn't allowed by the Constitution. Notice that the court activity has to be unconstitutional or, more specifically, no grounded on the Constitution.

    Since the Constitution does not allow Congress to control corporate political activity, the court's announcement that the Congress does not have that power is not "judicial activism".

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    Judicial activism is the willingness to overturn precedent if one disagrees with the precedent.
    So what's it called when it's the willingness to overturn precedent when one agrees with the precedent?

    Since we're exploring this brand new definition of judicial activism that never existed before, and since you're opposed to it, what's you're opinion of the Brown vs Board of Education ruling?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    So yes, "rejecting 100 years of bad law and precedent," as you describe it, is a textbook example of judicial activism.
    No, it's a textbook example of the court doing it's job and correcting mistakes made by other courts, just like Brown vs Board of Education was.

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    How is that relevant to anything I wrote? What in the world gave you the impression I support the McCain-Feingold Act?
    Your defense of it is a good clue.

  3. #343
    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 Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Kandahar View Post
    The Supreme Court essentially declared that corporations, unions, and nonprofits have all the same rights as human beings...which goes against precedent established when Teddy Roosevelt was president.
    I don't see how you're getting that from this decision. Nowhere does it give corporations "all the same rights as human beings." It just reaffirms (strongly) a SC precedent going back to 1886.

    Quote Originally Posted by liblady View Post
    i don't read the dailykos. and i'm certainly not trying to distract anyone. it's my belief that all campaigns should be funded by taxpayers, equally.
    And as I noted before, this isn't about funding campaigns, it's about speech during campaign season. Do you think that everyone other than the candidates should be banned from expressing their thoughts on the election? The NYT should be banned from endorsing candidates? The ACLU should be banned from advocating for candidates who support privacy rights? The Sierra club should be banned from emailing its members to vote for environmental candidates?
    People sleep peaceably in their beds at night only because rough men stand ready to do violence on their behalf.

  4. #344
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by elbatrop View Post
    as long as you fully understand the implications and end result......
    I do.

    I support freedom of speech, and I trust the voters to handle it.

  5. #345
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    We own it because it's a public resource and it is limited. If we just let anyone broadcast, there would be nothing but static.
    Wrong!

    The GOVERNMENT seized it because the "Progressives" allowed that to happen, even though there's no Constitutional authority for the government to seize or regulate property.

    The correct and Constitutional process to "regulate" the E-M spectrum would have been to allow exploiters of new radio bands title to those bands in their area of broadcast, and to treat such titles as the government treats real estate.

    Just in case you didn't notice, there are laws against trespassing on privately owned property and there could easily have been anti-E-M-trespassing laws.

    Cite the Constitutional authority allowing the government to steal the E-M spectrum.

  6. #346
    User
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Last Seen
    01-25-10 @ 10:48 PM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    50

    Re: Supreme Court eases restrictions on corporate campaign spending

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    I do.

    I support freedom of speech, and I trust the voters to handle it.
    your trust is misplaced given the current state of affairs in this nation methinks

  7. #347
    Educator Winnb's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Virginia
    Last Seen
    02-22-10 @ 07:09 PM
    Gender
    Lean
    Libertarian
    Posts
    822

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by RightinNYC View Post

    And as I noted before, this isn't about funding campaigns, it's about speech during campaign season.
    First, this is a great thread and a great discussion. But I do have to point out that the central issue is about speech and funding. They're being treated as the same thing. Money = Speech is an argument that many conservatives have been making for quite awhile. George Will probably makes the best case for it I've ever read.

    This ruling from SCOTUS affirms that imo. Whether that's what they intended or not.
    Peace, commerce and honest friendship with all nations; entangling alliances with none.

    -------------------------------------------------

  8. #348
    Sage
    misterman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Last Seen
    02-09-12 @ 08:41 AM
    Lean
    Undisclosed
    Posts
    12,913

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Scarecrow Akhbar View Post
    Wrong!

    The GOVERNMENT seized it because the "Progressives" allowed that to happen, even though there's no Constitutional authority for the government to seize or regulate property.

    The correct and Constitutional process to "regulate" the E-M spectrum would have been to allow exploiters of new radio bands title to those bands in their area of broadcast, and to treat such titles as the government treats real estate.

    Just in case you didn't notice, there are laws against trespassing on privately owned property and there could easily have been anti-E-M-trespassing laws.

    Cite the Constitutional authority allowing the government to steal the E-M spectrum.
    LOL.

    Go start a new thread on this one. You can start by explaining how anyone could hear a damn thing if anyone with a transmitter and microphone could broadcast any time they wanted.

  9. #349
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by Ikari View Post
    Instead, GM can not just funnel money to the pockets of the lawmakers that want it, even if the law could possibly harm the People themselves. The individual is still restricted
    GM should be banned most bodaciously from any and all political activity in the foreseeable future.

    GM is a government controlled company at this time.

    When the government divests itself of GM, GM can resume it's status as an equal among other publicly traded corporations and private persons.

  10. #350
    Banned
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Los Angeles
    Last Seen
    09-22-10 @ 04:36 AM
    Gender
    Lean
    Independent
    Posts
    11,430

    Re: Supreme Court Overturns Limits on Corporate Spending in Political Campaigns

    Quote Originally Posted by misterman View Post
    LOL.

    Go start a new thread on this one. You can start by explaining how anyone could hear a damn thing if anyone with a transmitter and microphone could broadcast any time they wanted.
    Nah, almost everyone but you can figure out what I meant by "no trespassing".

Page 35 of 105 FirstFirst ... 2533343536374585 ... 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
  •