• 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!

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

Hatuey

Hatuey

Rule of Two
DP Veteran
Joined
Oct 17, 2006
Messages
59,363
Reaction score
27,049
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Undisclosed
Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.
Click to expand...

....this is a surprise.
 
Hatuey said:
Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News



....this is a surprise.
Click to expand...

It shouldn't be a surprise. It was a lousy ruling.

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people and have the same rights?

If a corporation is found guilty of a crime, do we read it its rights?

And where does it say that money is speech? Money talks, all right, but should we give it free speech?

Money has already corrupted our political system. Now, it will corrupt it even more.
 
Question: Do the 18% who support the ruling know how many justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court and can they name at least one?
 
Dittohead not! said:
It shouldn't be a surprise. It was a lousy ruling.

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people and have the same rights?

If a corporation is found guilty of a crime, do we read it its rights?

And where does it say that money is speech? Money talks, all right, but should we give it free speech?

Money has already corrupted our political system. Now, it will corrupt it even more.
Click to expand...

a more important question-at least to those of us who understand that the federal government is properly limited to those powers expressly delegated to it by the constitution ask

WHERE IN THE CONSTITUTION DID THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT EVER PROPERLY GET THE POWER TO TELL CORPORATIONS HOW TO SPEND THEIR OWN MONEY?
 
hazlnut said:
Question: Do the 18% who support the ruling know how many justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court and can they name at least one?
Click to expand...

I support the ruling and have lectured on constitutional law. Lets see (and this is without googling anything)

AJ Sotomayor-Obama
Associate Justice Alito-Bush II
Chief Justice Roberts-Bush II
AJ Breyer-Clinton
AJ Ruth Bader Ginsburg-Clinton
AJ Clarence Thomas-Bush I
AJ Anthony Kennedy-RWR
AJ Anton Scalia-RWR
AJ JP Stevens-Gerald Ford

I believe that is the order in reverse tenure
 
Dittohead not! said:
It shouldn't be a surprise. It was a lousy ruling.

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people and have the same rights?
Click to expand...

We gotta go over this crap yet once again?

Corporations are owned by people, therefore if the people owning the corporation wish to use the assets of their property to promote their ideas, that effort is protected by the First Amendment.

Dittohead not! said:
If a corporation is found guilty of a crime, do we read it its rights?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant strawman.

I see that Ken Lay was sentenced to prison. I can't recall if he died before showing up, but he was headed that way.

Dittohead not! said:
And where does it say that money is speech? Money talks, all right, but should we give it free speech?
Click to expand...

You never saw the Geico commercials with the pile of money staring?

Money doesn't have speech.

But if you've seen the commercials, the customer saving the money had tons to say.

Again, you're trying to introduce an irrelevant strawman.

Dittohead not! said:
Money has already corrupted our political system. Now, it will corrupt it even more.
Click to expand...

No, the goonions have direct access to the President right now.

Can't get more corrupt than that.
 
FilmFestGuy said:
4 to 1 isn't a vast majority?
Click to expand...

No. Since the poll wasn't of informed people.

Informed people do not object to allowing others their freedom to speak.

Maybe if the Washington Post and ABC spent more time presenting the reality of the case there'd be more informed people out there and less people ranting hysterically like some are.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
It shouldn't be a surprise. It was a lousy ruling.

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people and have the same rights?

If a corporation is found guilty of a crime, do we read it its rights?

And where does it say that money is speech? Money talks, all right, but should we give it free speech?

Money has already corrupted our political system. Now, it will corrupt it even more.
Click to expand...

I hope you realize that corporations were and still are banned from contributing to political campaigns.

All the ruling did was ensure that they weren't banned from making their own political ads and spreading a political message.

I'm not sure about that poll, considering it seems to contradict this one:
Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is "Free Speech"

Maybe the polls are different enough to allow completely different findings, but I still find it highly doubtful that a vast majority of Republicans oppose the ruling.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
No. Since the poll wasn't of informed people.

Informed people do not object to allowing others their freedom to speak.

Maybe if the Washington Post and ABC spent more time presenting the reality of the case there'd be more informed people out there and less people ranting hysterically like some are.
Click to expand...

Informed people know who Malcolm X was. I'll give you a hint. He wasn't a black panther. ;)
 
Dav said:
I hope you realize that corporations were and still are banned from contributing to political campaigns.

All the ruling did was ensure that they weren't banned from making their own political ads and spreading a political message.

I'm not sure about that poll, considering it seems to contradict this one:
Public Agrees With Court: Campaign Money Is "Free Speech"

Maybe the polls are different enough to allow completely different findings, but I still find it highly doubtful that a vast majority of Republicans oppose the ruling.
Click to expand...

Your poll is from....October 2009. This poll is from February 2010.
 
Scarecrow Akhbar said:
I don't care that much about terrorists, especially dead ones.

How about if you stay on topic?
Click to expand...

You made yourself the topic when you started talking about uninformed people. Not my fault you're a culturally illiterate troll. Oh wait, those words are really big for you. You are Trigg Palin with internet access.
 
Last edited:
Dittohead not! said:
It shouldn't be a surprise. It was a lousy ruling.

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people and have the same rights?
Click to expand...

I do not know about people but corporations,unions and other groups are a peaceful assembly of people which is a 1st amendment right.Regardless if it is a single person or a group of individuals we have the right to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. Speech is the articulation of words in verbal,written or sign language. Making commercials, or ads is a form of speech regardless of how much money is poured into making that ad.


If a corporation is found guilty of a crime, do we read it its rights?
Click to expand...
If lawsuits can be filed against them then surely criminal charges can be brought against those who own and or run the corporation.
Tobacco politics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
And where does it say that money is speech? Money talks, all right, but should we give it free speech?
Click to expand...

Money is used to buy ad space,ads are speech.As far as I know the recent supreme court decision does not make it legal for a corporation to directly donate to a candidate.
 
Last edited:
Hatuey said:
Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News



....this is a surprise.
Click to expand...

The vast majority of Americans don't have the slightest clue of what the decision actually said, so I don't really a give a **** what they think.

Dittohead not! said:
It shouldn't be a surprise. It was a lousy ruling.

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people and have the same rights?
Click to expand...

Exhibit A. Nowhere did this decision say that they have the same rights.

And where does it say that money is speech? Money talks, all right, but should we give it free speech?
Click to expand...

Exhibit B: Lack of knowledge of Supreme Court precedent, particularly Buckley v. Valeo.

There's a reason why the law is interpreted by those who know something about the law and not by the masses.
 
Dittohead not! said:
It shouldn't be a surprise. It was a lousy ruling.

Where in the Constitution does it say that corporations are people and have the same rights?

If a corporation is found guilty of a crime, do we read it its rights?

And where does it say that money is speech? Money talks, all right, but should we give it free speech?

Money has already corrupted our political system. Now, it will corrupt it even more.
Click to expand...

Corporations are made up of people. So, when people are a part of a corporation, they lose free speech rights? The Supreme Court isn't there to be popular, it is there to interpret the Constitution.
 
hazlnut said:
Question: Do the 18% who support the ruling know how many justices sit on the U.S. Supreme Court and can they name at least one?
Click to expand...

This could be equally asked for th 82% that support the ruling, but of course that wouldn't fit your political agenda to point that out.
 
Left and Right United in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

Left and right united in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision - Yahoo! News

"A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns."

"Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling."

"The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision"

One issue the the overwhelming number of Americans can agree on, imply put, this activist Supreme Court got this wrong.....way wrong.

I hope, for the sake of our country, that Congress DOES pass legislation to correct this.
Those of us that follow the Supreme Court saw this coming a mile away. Roberts and Alito both were extremely activist in the lower courts in advancing corporate interests over individuals. Roberts ruled in favor of corporations against individuals almost every time the issue was in front of him.
Hopefully Americans will open their eyes and begin to watch the actions of this Court more closely as a result of this outrageous decision.
 
Re: Left and Right United in opposition to controversial SCOTUS decision

That's because most people are too stupid to understand the ruling in the first place. The vast majority think the SCOTUS decision allows companies to contribute directly to campaigns, which they can't.

I don't remember the outrage when the media bagged on Republicans up to and during the actual casting of votes for the past 40 years.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom