A bit of hypocrisy Chief Justice John Roberts???

[Iceweasel]

Bump.

ONE OF YOUR MORE ELOQUENT POSTS.....Keep trying.

Bump.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

You Leftwats are still butthurt over Citizens United and you think it's going to be repealed? It will never be repealed because the ruling was based on sound, constitutional principles. The McCain Feingold act violated free speech laws by prohibiting the mentioning of any candidate 60 days before an election. That's unconstitutional, plain and simple.

What I find remarkable is how you Leftists are the ones always at loggerheads with the Bill of Rights, always trying to subvert freedom and advance tyranny in spite of clear constitutional protections.

Now here's where you Leftists are telling lies.

The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office
Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That's right. Citizens United was NOT about monetary contributions by corporations to campaigns contrary to what you liars are claiming. It was about the freedom for ANYONE to promote or denounce a candidate for office at ANY TIME.

No matter how much you Leftists hate and revile freedom, freedom will prevail.

there is no freedom when corporations can control our govt. through monetary influence...
The Founding Fathers knew this, and made corporations unable to do so...until the GOP changed it in the 1880's...

Like most Leftists, you have no idea what McCain-Feingold did. It wasn't just corporations or unions, but every grass roots, shoe string budget advocacy group was disallowed from mentioning a candidate or their voting record. Try to rephrase it as anything you like, it's censorship and that's why the law was overturned and McCain lost the election like he deserved.

Although the legislation is known as "McCain–Feingold", the Senate version is not the bill that became law. Instead, the companion legislation, H.R. 2356—introduced by Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), is the version that became law. Shays–Meehan was originally introduced as H.R. 380
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Did other repubs lose also, or is it an excuse for McCain the mad man's campaign with and unknown air head VP pick?

And yet many voted for Obama which means they were against Campaign Finance Reform..

You Leftwats are still butthurt over Citizens United and you think it's going to be repealed? It will never be repealed because the ruling was based on sound, constitutional principles. The McCain Feingold act violated free speech laws by prohibiting the mentioning of any candidate 60 days before an election. That's unconstitutional, plain and simple.

What I find remarkable is how you Leftists are the ones always at loggerheads with the Bill of Rights, always trying to subvert freedom and advance tyranny in spite of clear constitutional protections.

Now here's where you Leftists are telling lies.

The case did not involve the federal ban on direct contributions from corporations or unions to candidate campaigns or political parties, which remain illegal in races for federal office
Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That's right. Citizens United was NOT about monetary contributions by corporations to campaigns contrary to what you liars are claiming. It was about the freedom for ANYONE to promote or denounce a candidate for office at ANY TIME.

No matter how much you Leftists hate and revile freedom, freedom will prevail.

there is no freedom when corporations can control our govt. through monetary influence...
The Founding Fathers knew this, and made corporations unable to do so...until the GOP changed it in the 1880's...

Like most Leftists, you have no idea what McCain-Feingold did. It wasn't just corporations or unions, but every grass roots, shoe string budget advocacy group was disallowed from mentioning a candidate or their voting record. Try to rephrase it as anything you like, it's censorship and that's why the law was overturned and McCain lost the election like he deserved.

Although the legislation is known as "McCain–Feingold", the Senate version is not the bill that became law. Instead, the companion legislation, H.R. 2356—introduced by Rep. Chris Shays (R-CT), is the version that became law. Shays–Meehan was originally introduced as H.R. 380
Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia
Did other repubs lose also, or is it an excuse for McCain the mad man's campaign with and unknown air head VP pick?

McCain is one of you guys. He was never a conservative Republican.

I see, so now you are at war with your own party, good luck in the presidential election....

My party is conservatives and we are all unified.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

My fellow progressives, (never mind the clueless right wingers) this latest decision by Roberts is actually GREAT NEWS regarding future challenges to Citizen United......Now the argument will very simply be:

"Justices, how can you allow campaign contributions for SOME elected officials and deby that same "right" for others who are also in need of such contributions to get elected?"

The precedent has been set....not by one of the "liberal" supremes, but by the conservative Chief Justice.

Yes, no SC justice has ever engaged in hypocrisy before.

Say, when is Kagen going to recuse herself?

 

[The Rabbi]

My fellow progressives, (never mind the clueless right wingers) this latest decision by Roberts is actually GREAT NEWS regarding future challenges to Citizen United......Now the argument will very simply be:

"Justices, how can you allow campaign contributions for SOME elected officials and deby that same "right" for others who are also in need of such contributions to get elected?"

The precedent has been set....not by one of the "liberal" supremes, but by the conservative Chief Justice.

Yes, no SC justice has ever engaged in hypocrisy before.

Say, when is Kagen going to recuse herself?

 

[nat4900]

Yes, no SC justice has ever engaged in hypocrisy before.

Say, when is Kagen going to recuse herself?

BTW, her name is Kagan......But recuse herself from what regarding campaign contributions?

II mean its not like "objective" Scalia going hunting with his buddy Dick Cheney now, is it?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes, no SC justice has ever engaged in hypocrisy before.

Say, when is Kagen going to recuse herself?

BTW, her name is Kagan......But recuse herself from what regarding campaign contributions?

II mean its not like "objective" Scalia going hunting with his buddy Dick Cheney now, is it?

Yes, no Justice that has friends can possibly be objective.

 

[nat4900]

Yes, no Justice that has friends can possibly be objective.

Well, now you're deflecting with some lame sarcasm.....
My question, based on your post about Kagan having to recuse herself, was simple......WHY should she????

(and remember this thread is about campaign contributions....)

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Yes, no Justice that has friends can possibly be objective.

Well, now you're deflecting with some lame sarcasm.....
My question, based on your post about Kagan having to recuse herself, was simple......WHY should she????

(and remember this thread is about campaign contributions....)

She and Ginsburg both. The officiated queer weddings and cannot be objective.

Jindal Supports Ginsburg Kagan Recusal From Gay Marriage Decision

 

[nat4900]

She and Ginsburg both. The officiated queer weddings and cannot be objective.

Well, I'm not 100% sure, but I don't think that Scalia and his puppet, Thomas have vaginas....but it doesn't stop them from telling women what they can and cannot do with their bodies.

 

[nat4900]

She and Ginsburg both. The officiated queer weddings and cannot be objective.

Let's see if YOU have an ounce of objectivity.....Read below and tell us if justice Thomas should have recused himself from ruling on the ACA....

New Financial Forms Show Clarence Thomas s Wife Continued to Lobby Against Healthcare In 2011 - US News

Last week, a meme made its way around the Internet asking why Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas was planning to rule on the healthcare law when his wife, a conservative lobbyist, has made so much money challenging the law.

Now, just days after healthcare law was upheld (with Clarence Thomas dissenting), new financial forms show that Thomas's wife, Ginni, continued to rake in a profit from opposing healthcare reforms in 2011—even after she previously came under fire for doing so.

 

[nat4900]

The NO response from St. Mike may indeed mean that "objectivity" is the enemy of hypocrisy, so the dingbat has no need for objectivity.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

find more than a tiny bit of stupidity in your post. CU of course had nothng to dowith courts.

As expected, from a moron like you, rabbi.....you miss the entire point.....Here I'll make it so simple that even a dimwit like you can understand it:

WHY SHOULD SOME ELECTED OFFICIALS ( congress folks) BE ALLOWED TO TAKE DONATIONS...BUT OTHERS (judges) CANNOT?

Politicians feel the need to bribe their way to get elected into office and they need donors to finance and back their campaign. Unlike politicians, justices aren't elected by the people they are appointed. In other words... only politicians are held accountable by the people in order to keep their seats, so judges should ( at the very least ) be held to a higher standard.

 

[Darkwind]

Roberts is a two-bit whore.

I didn't think he was worth that much.

Roberts is a solid jurist. He fucked up on the Obamacare ruling. Everyone is entitled to a fuck up every now and then.

I don't know. That whole, "The Judiciary does not exist to protect the people from a corrupt congress" thing is just about the biggest fuck up a SCOTUS Justice can have. I'm not sure I'll ever get past that betrayal of the Constitution.

 

[nat4900]

Unlike politicians, justices aren't elected by the people they are appointed.

I appreciate your reasoned response; however, you are wrong that judges are NOT elected and simply "appointed"......The entire reason for the recent Roberts' decision is precisely based on the fact that when judges face an election, they DO go after contributions/donations.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Unlike politicians, justices aren't elected by the people they are appointed.

I appreciate your reasoned response; however, you are wrong that judges are NOT elected and simply "appointed"......The entire reason for the recent Roberts' decision is precisely based on the fact that when judges face an election, they DO go after contributions/donations.

Name for me a State or Federal Supreme Court judge, that the people were involved in voting them into their position.

Judges who have so much power to influence and shape our country, should not be influenced by outside contributions or supporters, as well as they need to strictly look at the United States Constitution as the sole base of their decision and not be swayed by outside influences over what OTHER countries are doing or how they choose to govern their nation. Judges need to be above reproach or they should be removed from their position.

 

[nat4900]

Name for me a State or Federal Supreme Court judge, that the people were involved in voting them into their position.

High court States may ban judicial candidates from personal fundraising - The Washington Post

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the Supreme Court’s liberals Wednesday in ruling that states may forbid judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions.

Rejecting the charge that the restrictions violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, the 5-to-4 decision upheld a Florida law that is similar to others in 29 states that elect judges but restrict their role in campaign fundraising.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

Name for me a State or Federal Supreme Court judge, that the people were involved in voting them into their position.

High court States may ban judicial candidates from personal fundraising - The Washington Post

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. joined with the Supreme Court’s liberals Wednesday in ruling that states may forbid judicial candidates from personally soliciting campaign contributions.

Rejecting the charge that the restrictions violate the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech, the 5-to-4 decision upheld a Florida law that is similar to others in 29 states that elect judges but restrict their role in campaign fundraising.

I agree totally with the view that judges should be impartial and not swayed by outside influences who may try to personally "influence" their decision.

Yet again, when you look at State and Federal Supreme Court judges, none of them have to face an election by the people to which they may be held accountable to. Now politicians are given "terms" to their office and the people have the power to vote them out, there lies the big difference. Politicians have the role of passing and changing laws, as part of their granted power to do so as the legislative branch. Then problem comes into play when these completely separate branches of government turns grey, and judges feel they have the ability to take on the role of the legislative body ... a role to which they were never given the authority to do.

 

[nat4900]

My point was and is that NO elected official should accept campaign donations since that is a euphemism for BRIBES.......Roberts is correct on this last decision and hopefully this will open up a sustainable challenge to overturn Citizen United.