Your thoughts on this Supreme decision?

Discussion in 'Political Action Forum' started by Rjm6254, Jan 21, 2010.

  1. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,520
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    AlMODUX, forget it!!!!!! He has to much of a man crush on NOBAMA and the Dem leaders Reid and Pelosi( Yes I said man crush!) getting pork spending on HC passed to benefit him, that he is blind to reality!!!!!
     
  2. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    Sure... Mr. Smith states the foreigners and nationals CAN't give directly to campaigns.. true...
    WHY? Oh because that would give foreign interests the power to influence US politics...

    HOWEVER... Mr. Smith fails to point out that such legislation has been nullified since NOW foreign nationals and other foreign interests now only need invest in US corporations... and those corporations under their influence can directly give and produce commercials for candidates....

    Mr. Smith claims that there has been no increase in the ability of foreigners to influence US politics is an outright falsehood.
     
  3. Steve Borgwald

    Steve Borgwald Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,239
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2000
    Location:
    OH
    I notice that the Court hung together on this one. All 9 just sat there stony-faced, even the dissenters.
     
  4. Steve Borgwald

    Steve Borgwald Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    10,239
    Joined:
    Sep 12, 2000
    Location:
    OH
  5. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    You are such a HOOT ron! Almodux and you are crying about liberal dems and when I point out accurately that the law in question was from Republicans... its "stop diverting"...and "we don't care who wrote it"..

    You certainly seemed to care when you thought you could blame it all on the democrats;)

    The court did not deal with the case from a Constitutional standpoint. they overstepped their authority with a much too broad position which usurps Congress' constitutional powers. The essentially ignored the case at hand and created a much different case..
    Not to mention that their approach to stare decisis was novel at best... they overturned Austin and McConnel based on nothing more than a feeling that the previous court "got it wrong"...
    And the assumptions that they made regarding those two decisions were completely wrong...

    The real irony will be when you start screaming against the influence of the unions, big corps, when you discover that the democrats will be the big benefactors of this decision.

    Yep.. sure sounds like you support the constitution:doh I am sure you will rail against the supreme court when they act "human" rather than doing their duty under the constitution.
     
  6. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,520
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    Again Jag. you are trying to deflect away from the ruling at hand. It did not undo as Nobama claims a 100 years of campaign contribution law. It did not open up elections to foreign companies, like Nobama claimed and you and wee spot.

    The simple matter that they dealt with was a corp right to voice their opinion on an election. The case that brought this to the forefront was the Hilary movie which as it turned out had no affect upon the election anyway. Others have filed suit against McCain/Fiengold law as well and had provisions of it struck down as well. The point is Jag that like it or not suppression of free speech is bad for this country. Just so you know I was opposed to this when it was debated and passed. The intent was good, but it created a whole new set of problems like the 501's. It did not remove money influence from debate, but made groups like the Swift Boats and MoveOn much more powerful in influencing an election.

    So let's stay on topic hear which is the ruling, not who signed it or voted for it etc... because that is moot at this point. The courts followed the Constitution by stating that Congress does not have the right simply by passing a law to change the First Amendment. They did not overstep their bounds, did not tread on the rights of Congress, but restored Constitutional rights granted under the Constitution that the Congress tried to take away without proper procedure in how the Constitution is to be changed.

    So **** and moan all you want, your claims and statements are as Alito mouthed to the Pres NOT TRUE!!!!!!!!! and are proven wrong in the brief and backed up by scholars who do not take the DNC talking points but the actual brief and point out that numerous other ruling prior to this have held the same position. Which means that the case law as you have said is settled, because it re-affirmed prior rulings in the same area!!!!!!!
     
  7. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,520
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    One other thing, Jag! I did not say the court will rule against Nobama and the EPA for his actions. What I said if you read it, was that it could influence one of the judges to take up the case instead of choosing no action, which is what happens to the majority of cases that get appealed to them.

    Your comment on the Court acting human vs upholding the Constitution is exactly what I would rail against!!!!!!! Because acting human as you say takes away the body and power of the document. It is meant to be rigid in what it sets down and it is then up to the voters and Congress to make changes to it. Not the court! They are simply there to interrupt not legislate!!!!!!

    I have been upset with a number of rulings, but understand that if the ruling was made following the Constitution then it is up to me and others to affect the changes needed via the ballot box. You seem to forget this!!!! Must be why you subscribe to so many socialist views!!!!!!!

    Oh and by the way, have you seen any of the news reports of the baby born at 7 weeks that is doing well? What is the human thing to do since you brought it up with other 7 week old babies? Oh I know you think it is perfectly fine to stick a needle into their head simply because they are inside the mother!!!!! I guess it is OK then for the mother to stick a cocaine filled needle in her arm until the baby is born as well!!!!!!! You know it is the human thing to do after all it is her body!
     
  8. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    Ron and Almodux...

    Its pretty obvious that you really don't know what the ruling was and what has changed..

    Come on Almodux. "insider trading"? You are WAY off base...

    Heres what was in place BEFORE the supreme court decision.

    Foreign interests could not give directly or indirectly to campaigns legally.

    Corporations DID HAVE FREE SPEECH... Corporations could and DID give millions of dollars to political campaigns... They did this through the establishment of PACs. Every AMERICAN shareholder, employee, manager etc in the corporation could donate to the PAC..

    The Political Action Committee or PAC requirement ensured two things:

    One was accountability. Since a PAC is required to keep track of WHO is giving them money for political purposes... it prevents foreigners influencing the system since donations are accounted for.

    The second major function is to ensure that the money being given to the PAC is from people WHO WANT IT USED FOR POLITICAL PURPOSES.

    IN FACT: The plaintiffs in the supreme court case would have avoided the whole issue if the making of the movie "hillary" had come from their PAC instead of general corporate funds. And incidentaly, they have a VERY active PAC.

    So there was NO BAN on free speech for corporations... merely accountability.

    That is what has been removed by the Supreme Court.

    Now... there is no accountability or way to know WHO is behind a corporate donation or advertisment. All it would take for a foreign interest is to simply purchase a block of stock in a US company (maybe even as little as 20%) and they could put the slate of directors that they wanted and influence what the company did during election time. AND IT WOULD BE ABSOLUTELY LEGAL...and even hard to detect.

    IN ADDITION: Since there again is no need for a PAC.. the money for advertisements, political donations can and will come from general operating funds...

    that means that funds from investors.. such as yourself RON, made through 401 K's or retirement accounts.. funds meant as an investment...those funds can now be used to finance a campaign for a candidate EVEN THOUGH YOU DISAPPROVE of that candidate!...

    Even more perverse... lets take a look at GM... GM is subsisting on government money... YOUR tax dollars ron... NOW the GM board can essentially use those tax dollars to support those candidates that GAVE THEM THE BAILOUT...
    The same with all the banking corporations that took TARP money and still have it...

    Freedom of speech doesn't mean that you have the right to TAKE MY MONEY so that you can buy a bull horn and shout down my free speech...

    Thats essentially whats been done in this case.

    Those ARE the facts Ron...

    Dispute them.
     
  9. Ron Gilmore

    Ron Gilmore Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    13,520
    Joined:
    Feb 27, 2003
    Location:
    nd
    Jag again you miss the point!! Corp that are publicly held will be at the scrutiny of its share holder. Private Corp are just that private!!!!!! I understand the ruling completely. You on the other hand continue to mix fact with fiction!!!!!

    Plain and simple, a corp that produces electricity from coal for example should be allowed to refute claims made against them by a candidate. They should be allowed to respond directly to them. It is in the best interest of the stock holders and well as the workers. The response has to be factual and accurate under the law. Where as the politician can make vague claims or use half truths!!!!!

    This is now fixed, as it should be. This is why Nobama and the left are so worried about this ruling. It no longer stifles a companies ablity to defend itself against is accuser. The health care bill is a prime example. Ins companies ran general ads that encompassed the entire Congress, when instead it could have in ND at least ran direct ads against Dorgan and Pomeroy pointing out exactly where they lied! Yes! They lied, and Dorgan was smart enough to realize it was going to cost him re-election and he bailed prior so as to not lose face, and be given his first defeat running for office!!!!!

    So like it or not Jag, the law was wrong, it stifled free speech and enabled others to attack without fear of rebuttal.
     
  10. jaeger19

    jaeger19 Elite Refuge Member

    Messages:
    8,499
    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2002
    Location:
    Parma idaho
    So full of crap Ron... corporations could always respond in your above situation against an accuser... big corps have a whole public relations department to deal with such things. Everything from ads to public appearance to media coverage in order to respond to accusations from ANYONE... plus they have a bucketload of lawyers that could respond against direct attacks...

    What they couldn't do without a PAC is give money to a politicians opponent.. or produce a video depicting the politician as a womanizer 60 days before an election...

    YOU are the one spinning untruths Ron...

    The only thing that has been lost is accountability....


    Which enables shareholders that are foreign to have influence they did not have previously... You just proved my point... all it did is decrease accountability for WHO was giving the money to the politicians and for what.

    Just like our previous discussions RON... you are going to be singing a different tune when you find out that this benefits the Dems way more than the Republicans and that now corporations, especially ones that benefit from government money.. such as big hospitals, Federal contractors, groups such as ACORN... now can influence government with less accountability...
     

Share This Page