• 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

gopman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Yeah! Like banning abortion, or forcing our kids to pray in schools, or, or...wait a minute.
 
Redress said:
Question for you: do you think some form of campaign finance regulation is needed and legal, and what form do you think it should take if so...and of course, why either way. You are one of the rational conservatives, so I am curious as to your thoughts.
Click to expand...

Can I answer? I'm rational too. ;)

The public owns the airwaves. Make the TV broadcasters give free or cheap airtime to candidates and others for political messages as a condition of the license.
 
Redress said:
I would like to see some way to limit it so that organizations have the right to free speech, and can run adds, but that the more money they have, the more voice they have.
Click to expand...

This is based on the assumption that they really do have more of a voice with more money, and that this is a bad thing.

If the people listen to the louder voice, that's their problem. It's democracy.

The only solution is to go start your own organization and collect money and run your own ads. Or find cheaper ways to get your point across, such as through the media, the internet, protests, etc. Which is what people have always been doing.

We could also demand some free ad time from TV broadcasters as a condition of their licenses. The public owns the airwaves and should be able to use them for a public purpose.
 
American said:
I don't like this, because this is akin to a poll tax which is unconstitutional.
Click to expand...

You can ask for voluntary tax contributions like we do for the Presidential public financing system now.
 
Redress said:
More voice because you have a talent for getting your voice heard is different from money as more voice.
Click to expand...

Why?

It's not fair that famous people have a bigger voice than I do, so we should limit what they say.

Sounds exactly like the logic of limiting corporate speech.
 
misterman said:
Are you going to answer the question?
Click to expand...

Quack, quack, quacky, quackier, quackist, quackism, quackalution quactwation quackstupation quacker quack quack.

Quackapoo quackadodo quackastitution: quackapoop

Quackadoddledo. Quackacoffee, quackieyumyum quacergood.
 
Last edited:
LiberalAvenger said:
The word unamerican is a throwback to the McCarthy and Nixon era. Hell it aint even a real word.
Click to expand...

It is to a real word,un is a prefix meaning not. In the general sense "unAmerican" means anything that violates the constitution and our country or something not American.
 
When FDR planned to pack the Court with additional members so it would side with his New Deal better, THAT was a threat. Other than refusing to fund SCOTUS's very small budget (not going to happen), there's nothing Schumer or anyone else can do to threaten the Supreme Court via the law.
 
LiberalAvenger said:
Quack, quack, quacky, quackier, quackist, quackism, quackalution quactwation quackstupation quacker quack quack.

Quackapoo quackadodo quackastitution: quackapoop

Quackadoddledo. Quackacoffee, quackieyumyum quacergood.
Click to expand...

I thought so. You can't answer it. You're afraid to.
 
jamesrage said:
It is to a real word,un is a prefix meaning not. In the general sense "unAmerican" means anything that violates the constitution and our country or something not American.
Click to expand...

How can you say that somebody is not an american citizen by putting an un in front of it. Yes, technically it's a word but it means nothing.

It is a form of sophistry. 'The he use and meaning of the term is by no means uniform in the US. Due in part to these historical associations with political abuses and jingoism, the attitudes of Americans toward the pejorative use of "Un-American" are often critical or suspicious. Moreover, Americans may vary widely in what they believe to be un-American."
 
LiberalAvenger said:
How can you say that somebody is not an american citizen by putting an un in front of it. Yes, technically it's a word but it means nothing.

It is a form of sophistry. 'The he use and meaning of the term is by no means uniform in the US. Due in part to these historical associations with political abuses and jingoism, the attitudes of Americans toward the pejorative use of "Un-American" are often critical or suspicious. Moreover, Americans may vary widely in what they believe to be un-American."
Click to expand...

I agree, i would consider most american schools of political thought to have examples of un-american or unconstitutional beliefs.
 
Z3n said:
I agree, i would consider most american schools of political thought to have examples of un-american or unconstitutional beliefs.
Click to expand...

I was taught about the word by my civics teacher in 1958.:)
 
LiberalAvenger said:
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:
Click to expand...
Well you're not allowed to say liberal in polite company. :rofl
 
Zyphlin said:
Link here

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
Click to expand...



Your partisan spin on the what Schumer is purposing:

"As chairman of the Senate Rules Committee, which is the committee with jurisdiction over these issues, I'm announcing that we will hold hearings on the impact of this decision within the next of couple of weeks," Schumer said.
Click to expand...

That is what is ridiculous...

This is ridiculous.
Click to expand...

Yes, that's what I said. You're being ridiculous...
 
hazlnut said:
That is what is ridiculous...
Click to expand...

Actually what's ridiculous is one of the most hyper partisan posters on the left on this site storming in, not even bothering to do this amazing thing called "Reading the thread" and thinking he's making some grand revelation in a sarcastic and jerkish way that one of his far more reasonable ideological compatriots already made and had been discussed at some length.

That's what I think is ridiculous personally.

Since you appear to be too lazy today to even read the FIRST PAGE let me help you without causing you too much strain, as I'm sure it would be difficult.

Check posts:

5
12
14
16
17
22
26
28
30
32
33
35

That should give you a good indication of where to begin the conversation, as you're not worth rehashing things already talked about over 4 days ago with a far more reasonable poster
 
Last edited:
aps said:
From the link.

How can people conclude that this is Schumer threatening the Supreme Court?

If the Supreme Court strikes down a law passed by Congress, it's certainly Congress's right to come back and pass a new law that is within the guidelines expressed by the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

I actually agree with this. It is only a study to assess the impact of the Supreme Court decision. It is not a threat in any way against the Supreme Court.
 
danarhea said:
I actually agree with this. It is only a study to assess the impact of the Supreme Court decision. It is not a threat in any way against the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

Granted, only two things...

One the beginning of the piece made it appear it was actually simply a hearing ABOUT the decision, not about how to access the impact of it. Which caused the misconception

Two...Schumers committee has no legislative reason to access the impact of the decision. The Rules committee has no oversight to my knowledge of campaign finance legislation. It has oversight over internal rules of the senate, which I don't believe campaign finance would fall under. I'm not sure how campaign finance fits into "administration of congressional buildings, and with credentials and qualifications of members of the Senate, including responsibility for dealing with contested elections."
 
Zyphlin said:
Granted, only two things...

One the beginning of the piece made it appear it was actually simply a hearing ABOUT the decision, not about how to access the impact of it. Which caused the misconception

Two...Schumers committee has no legislative reason to access the impact of the decision. The Rules committee has no oversight to my knowledge of campaign finance legislation. It has oversight over internal rules of the senate, which I don't believe campaign finance would fall under. I'm not sure how campaign finance fits into "administration of congressional buildings, and with credentials and qualifications of members of the Senate, including responsibility for dealing with contested elections."
Click to expand...

The sorry thing is that this has nothing to do with campaign finance anyway.

It's not about corporations giving money to candidates or anyone else. It's simply about spending their own money to express their own opinions. It's a blatant free speech issue. It never should have been restricted in the first place.
 
danarhea said:
I actually agree with this. It is only a study to assess the impact of the Supreme Court decision. It is not a threat in any way against the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

And the impact will be small.

Corporations could already run ads about campaigns. They just had to avoid using certain "trigger words" that invoked the law, like "vote for." It was a sham anyway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom