• 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!

Schumer calls for hearings on 'un-American' court decision

I disagree. You claim that he is arrogant because he criticizes a branch of "our, of the people government".

If everybody thought like you we would be doomed.:(

No, pretty sure he's calling him arrogant for thinking he has any right to have hearings about the DECISION, not about figuring out how to makes laws that comply with the decision, since his senate committee really has no grounds or reason to be dealing with campaign finance reform.
 
Link here

Umm, what?

He doesn't like the decision so he's threatening THE SURPREME COURT, an Equal part of government to not him but his entire BRANCH, with "hearings" simply because he disagrees with a decision they rendered concerning the constitution...which is, you know, they're job?

This is ridiculous.

Where was he when they decided to enact anti-2nd amendment legislation or when a supreme court judge cited foreign law? He also jumped on board the amnesty for illegals train and he supports the fairness doctrine. He has no room to say any court room decision is unAmerican or bitch about something being unAmerican considering the fact he supports a lot of anti-American things. What a ****en hypocrite. (just in case no one else pointed all this out)
 
Last edited:
Democrats have been very transparent with their desire to change the government in any way possible to secure absolute power over every aspect of our lives. First Obama's tampering with the census, then the MA Secretary of State promising to delay seating Brown (after they had changed the rules for Senate succession several times to suit their own needs), forcing healthcare through by any secretive means necessary, and now hearings on the supreme court are just the next in what promises to be a long line of abuses of power by the party of big government.

Abuse of power for not agreeing with their decision? What a stretch. The supreme court has just made a new law and you, a conservative, is not complaining is very disturbing to me.
 
This just goes to show what a real threat Liberals are to our country.

There are a lot of real conservatives who are extremly upset and who do not tow the corporate rope.

You may be listening to too much talk radio.:doh
 
No, you are in a coma if you see it any other way.

They want to be your healthcare provider, your banker, your car dealer, your news source provider, your employer......

Read Saul Alinsky's Rules for Radicals. Obama is working word for word out of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals", including yesterday when he identified himself with Scott Brown (the enemy).

Alinsky is a bought and paid for corporate lap dog.:)
 
Abuse of power for not agreeing with their decision? What a stretch. The supreme court has just made a new law and you, a conservative, is not complaining is very disturbing to me.

They didn't make a new law, they said existing laws were unconstitutional. That's their job.
 
Since when is a corporate entity people?:confused:

Soylent Green is people"
 
No, pretty sure he's calling him arrogant for thinking he has any right to have hearings about the DECISION, not about figuring out how to makes laws that comply with the decision, since his senate committee really has no grounds or reason to be dealing with campaign finance reform.

Could you cite some law or the constitution where he has no grounds or reasons.:confused:
 
Where was he when they decided to enact anti-2nd amendment legislation or when a supreme court judge cited foreign law? He also jumped on board the amnesty for illegals train and he supports the fairness doctrine. He has no room to say any court room decision is unAmerican or bitch about something being unAmerican considering the fact he supports a lot of anti-American things. What a ****en hypocrite. (just in case no one else pointed all this out)

Wow, he supports the fairness doctrine. He should be executed.:roll::roll::roll:
 
They didn't make a new law, they said existing laws were unconstitutional. That's their job.

I'll bet you would not be claiming that if we were discussing Roe v Wade.
 
Actually, while there is a system of checks and balances and separation of powers in our government, nowhere in the Constitution does it say that the different branches of government are equal with each other. If that was the case, the powers the presidency have assumed would be drastically cut back.

The Constitution doesn't say how much power each branch should have. Sometimes Congress is the dominant branch. Sometimes the Presidency is the dominant branch. A few times the Supreme Court brings the power of both down a few notches. But the Constitution never explicitly states, which isn't so bad since it gives our country's government the freedom it needs to effectively operate.

That's right. The people of government are people therefore they are guaranteed the rights enumberated in the bill of rights.
 
Could you cite some law or the constitution where he has no grounds or reasons.:confused:

I can point you to a description of what hte Senate Rules committee oversee's and you can see that "campaign finance reform" does not fit in any way shape or form.

However, you accused me personally of being against free speech. How about before trying to worm your way out and duck and dodge, which is all you apparently do here, you actually back up that statement first.
 
I can point you to a description of what hte Senate Rules committee oversee's and you can see that "campaign finance reform" does not fit in any way shape or form.

However, you accused me personally of being against free speech. How about before trying to worm your way out and duck and dodge, which is all you apparently do here, you actually back up that statement first.

You are talking apples and oranges. legislative rules are not laws and constitutional enumerations. Rules do not have to be signed by the president and approved by both houses of congress.

I apologize. You are not against free speech when it is something you agree with.
 
You are talking apples and oranges. legislative rules are not laws and constitutional enumerations. Rules do not have to be signed by the president and approved by both houses of congress.

And you're still making no sense how this has anything to do with me saying that he has no place to be using his position on the Rules committee to hold hearings on the "decision" if that's indeed what he's going to do. Where did I say what he was doing was unlawful. I didn't even say it was unconstitutional, just against the spirit of it.

I apologize. You are not against free speech when it is something you agree with.

Ah, backhanded insults, gotta love them.

So, again you continue to duck and doge, which is not a surprise to anyone. So again, I must ask...

How am I against free speech when its NOT something I agree with.

Please, give me examples, most specifically in this thread since this is where you made your asinine comment.

Come on now, you want to throw out a personal accusation such as that, how about you back it up or show your true colors with your trollish one liners
 
And you're still making no sense how this has anything to do with me saying that he has no place to be using his position on the Rules committee to hold hearings on the "decision" if that's indeed what he's going to do. Where did I say what he was doing was unlawful. I didn't even say it was unconstitutional, just against the spirit of it.



Ah, backhanded insults, gotta love them.

So, again you continue to duck and doge, which is not a surprise to anyone. So again, I must ask...

How am I against free speech when its NOT something I agree with.

Please, give me examples, most specifically in this thread since this is where you made your asinine comment.

Come on now, you want to throw out a personal accusation such as that, how about you back it up or show your true colors with your trollish one liners

As I said before, I do believe that you are against free speech when it comes to a liberal point of view. It is only my opinion. Opinions are like butt holes. Everybody has one.

From what I have seen in the dog and pony show in Congress among democrat and republicans I have lost all respect for their rules.

I am sorry I offended you and I apologizes.

You seem to be a veteran of forums and I would expect your skin to be a little thicker.

If you like you may insult me if you wish. I give you a free slap to my face and we will be even.

Again I am sorry.
 
As I said before, I do believe that you are against free speech when it comes to a liberal point of view. It is only my opinion. Opinions are like butt holes. Everybody has one.

From what I have seen in the dog and pony show in Congress among democrat and republicans I have lost all respect for their rules.

I am sorry I offended you and I apologizes.

You seem to be a veteran of forums and I would expect your skin to be a little thicker.

If you like you may insult me if you wish. I give you a free slap to my face and we will be even.

Again I am sorry.

So long story short you said an ignorant statement with nothing to back it up and when you were asked to back it up were unable to do anything but go "Its my opinion"

My god you're Devil505 reincarnated.

Here's a tip, if you are going to get huffy and puffy about people questioning your "opinions", often of which you state as fact, perhaps you should start having some actual legitimate reasons to have your opinions other than "just because".
 
So long story short you said an ignorant statement with nothing to back it up and when you were asked to back it up were unable to do anything but go "Its my opinion"

My god you're Devil505 reincarnated.

Here's a tip, if you are going to get huffy and puffy about people questioning your "opinions", often of which you state as fact, perhaps you should start having some actual legitimate reasons to have your opinions other than "just because".

Good. I love you. Now we are even.:)
 
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini
 
Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power.
Benito Mussolini

Yep or even nationalistic socialist, Godwin's law, notwithstanding.
 
Wow, he supports the fairness doctrine. He should be executed.:roll::roll::roll:

I was pointing out that the man has no room to bitch about anything being unAmerican considering his anti-American stance on a lot of issues with his support for the fairness doctrine and a lot of other anti-American issues. I was not suggesting that the man should be shot.Although that is a good idea to require that politicians who subvert the constitution be executed.
 
I was pointing out that the man has no room to bitch about anything being unAmerican considering his anti-American stance on a lot of issues with his support for the fairness doctrine and a lot of other anti-American issues. I was not suggesting that the man should be shot.Although that is a good idea to require that politicians who subvert the constitution be executed.

The word unamerican is a throwback to the McCarthy and Nixon era. Hell it aint even a real word.

I agree but if I were a democrat I would be worried about an appeal to the present supreme court, especially justice Lond Dong Silver.:roll:
 
He lives in DC, which while physically a part of the planet doesn't reside in the same plane of reality. Threatening the Supreme Court is beyond arrogant.

FDR got away with it, so Schumer thinks since it worked once, it might work again.

.
 
Last edited:
FDR got away with it, so Schumer thinks since it worked once, it might work again.

.

An i
That's an ambiguous argument because you can threaten to sue somebody which is legal or you can threaten to kill someone which is not.

One is protected by free speech and the other is not.:)
 
Personally, I would like to see the hearing look into ways that can reform campaign finance laws that fits within the framework of what SCOTUS will allow. Whether that will be the thrust of the hearing, I have no idea, but will wait and see.

See, that's the thing - this isn't about "campaign finance" at all. It's about corporations simply expressing their own views, with their own money, about candidates. It's speech like anyone else's.
 
Back
Top Bottom