Crybaby Schumer Calls for Hearings on UnAmerican Court Ruling...

[MaggieMae]

i doubt maggie had a problem with obama buying a half hour of prime time tv that he could afford due to his massive war chest...mccain, who took the public option, could not afford that....

I'm betting she didn't bitch at the millions the obamalama received on untraceable credit cards either.. what a whiner she is..poke a liberal and they just squeal.. now back to their favorite saying...


elections have consequences.. you betcha!

This is about corporate contributions vs. individual contributions contributions. Just because the Republican candidate sucked and INDIVIDIALS didn't donate, you're the one doing the whining here. If McCain had been popular and raked in individual campaign contributions, I "doubt that you [and Yurt] would have had any problem with that." McCain mistakenly thought he was just too charismatic and popular and wouldn't need those dollar bills to add to his kitty. He also was under the impression that 527s could donate enough to the RNC, which would turn around and dump that money back into his campaign war chest (which they did).

 

[MaggieMae]

How can anyone think this is a good thing? This means corportations will control everything. HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS IS A GOOD THING? Those damn dumb republicans.

peace...

How funny. Aren't you the whiner who started this thread?

 

[MaggieMae]

i doubt maggie had a problem with obama buying a half hour of prime time tv that he could afford due to his massive war chest...mccain, who took the public option, could not afford that....

I'm betting she didn't bitch at the millions the obamalama received on untraceable credit cards either.. what a whiner she is..poke a liberal and they just squeal.. now back to their favorite saying...


elections have consequences.. you betcha!

Hell, Obama was given an Hour of Sell Time on ABCFuckingNews...

Let me Check... Nope, he didn't pay a Fucking Dime for it either.



peace...

Since when does a president have to "pay for" an interview on network television. Whine whine, sob sob, boo hoo. God you people are dumb.

 

[MaggieMae]

It is not the true meaning of "activist" to honor your oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution.

A Justice is not an "activist" by faithfully and correctly ruling that the Constitution actually MEANS what its literal words say.

You obviously do not understand how the progressive hive mind works, anything that disagrees with the progressive world view is evil and that begins with pesky details like the rule of of law, after all progressives have no principles except "might is right".

That being said, from what I've read of the majority opinion the courts decision was arrived at in a strict constructionist fashion and thus compatible with the language and intent of the Constitution. The fact that authoritarian scoundrels like Chuck Schumer are so upset by it provides additional evidence that SCOTUS acted appropriately.

So cheers for Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas on a job well done.

Your first paragraph, of course, is blatantly hypocritical. "Progressives" didn't invent the OUR-WAY-OR-THE-HIGHWAY political mood all across this country. You have the memory span of a gnat.

"Constructionists" would have this nation operating by pony express and outhouses. A CORPORATION is not an INDIVIDUAL, no matter how you spin it. How many corporations existed when the Bill of Rights was signed? CORPORATIONS represent individiual SHAREHOLDERS. If the USSC had expressly required in its ruling that the shareholders and/or employees of said businesses signed off on a political stance or person as the only way to legitimize an endorsement, that would have been fine. However, what will happen now is that if the CEOs like a particular candidate, s/he will have a green light to spend corporate money on political advertising with no restraints.

 

[Queen]

.... This ruling helps the corporations and both political parties. Nothing more,nothing less.

This is true. And hurts the everyday people like us.

Ron Paul has no chance now. He might even be replaced by a corporate puppet. Ron Paul's power comes from the people who support him. He won't get EXXON or Merck or Humana to back him. Bye Bye Ron Paul.

 

[MaggieMae]

How can anyone think this is a good thing? This means corportations will control everything. HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS IS A GOOD THING? Those damn dumb republicans.

You just don't get it, it doesn't matter if it's a "good thing" or a "bad thing", the law was UNCONSTITUTIONAL, subjective judgments like "good" and "bad" have no place in the courts. We live in a nation of LAWS not in a nation ruled by the whims of men.

The appropriate response is to formulate a constitutional amendment not to attempt to demonize SCOTUS for doing it's job.

What's UNCONSTITUTIONAL is this new ruling. The Bill of Rights is replete with the phrase "the people" and it was formulated because of the concern of Jefferson and Madison that individual liberties might be usurped without it. I seriously doubt either man would conclude that Exxon Mobil, for example, is a person whose individual liberties are at stake.

Bill of Rights Transcript

 

[Queen]

i doubt maggie had a problem with obama buying a half hour of prime time tv that he could afford due to his massive war chest...mccain, who took the public option, could not afford that....

McCain did not use public financing. He backed out. Please don't spread lies.

How McCain's Public Financing Two-Step Helps Obama - Political Punch

 

[del]

It is not the true meaning of "activist" to honor your oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution.

A Justice is not an "activist" by faithfully and correctly ruling that the Constitution actually MEANS what its literal words say.

You obviously do not understand how the progressive hive mind works, anything that disagrees with the progressive world view is evil and that begins with pesky details like the rule of of law, after all progressives have no principles except "might is right".

That being said, from what I've read of the majority opinion the courts decision was arrived at in a strict constructionist fashion and thus compatible with the language and intent of the Constitution. The fact that authoritarian scoundrels like Chuck Schumer are so upset by it provides additional evidence that SCOTUS acted appropriately.

So cheers for Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas on a job well done.

Your first paragraph, of course, is blatantly hypocritical. "Progressives" didn't invent the OUR-WAY-OR-THE-HIGHWAY political mood all across this country. You have the memory span of a gnat.

"Constructionists" would have this nation operating by pony express and outhouses. A CORPORATION is not an INDIVIDUAL, no matter how you spin it. How many corporations existed when the Bill of Rights was signed? CORPORATIONS represent individiual SHAREHOLDERS. If the USSC had expressly required in its ruling that the shareholders and/or employees of said businesses signed off on a political stance or person as the only way to legitimize an endorsement, that would have been fine. However, what will happen now is that if the CEOs like a particular candidate, s/he will have a green light to spend corporate money on political advertising with no restraints.

about 300, not counting civic/religious/charitable ones in america. the corporation as a legal entity of course predates the founding of our country by hundreds of years.

 

[TheSuaveOne]

Ron Paul has no chance now.

Yeah, because he certainly doesn't take contributions from corporations...or does he?

link to 2008 Ron Paul contributers

Google Inc $52,801
Microsoft Corp $47,923
Lockheed Martin $23,425
Hewlett-Packard $23,318
Cisco Systems $23,007
Boeing Co $22,434
Verizon Communications $19,944
General Dynamics $18,206
Wachovia Corp $17,629
AT&T Inc $17,596
Northrop Grumman $16,907
Apple Inc $15,903
Raytheon Co $15,129
General Electric $15,000
IBM Corp $14,980

Doh!!!

-TSO

 

[Queen]

How can anyone think this is a good thing? This means corportations will control everything. HOW CAN YOU SAY THIS IS A GOOD THING? Those damn dumb republicans.

For some reason righties think this is a big win for them. Maybe all the righties on this board are billionaire CEOs.....then they're right, it's a big win.

Wow, if there are so many billionaires on this board, I wonder if any of them are single?

 

[MIPS]

It is not the true meaning of "activist" to honor your oath to uphold, protect and defend the Constitution.

A Justice is not an "activist" by faithfully and correctly ruling that the Constitution actually MEANS what its literal words say.

You obviously do not understand how the progressive hive mind works, anything that disagrees with the progressive world view is evil and that begins with pesky details like the rule of of law, after all progressives have no principles except "might is right".

That being said, from what I've read of the majority opinion the courts decision was arrived at in a strict constructionist fashion and thus compatible with the language and intent of the Constitution. The fact that authoritarian scoundrels like Chuck Schumer are so upset by it provides additional evidence that SCOTUS acted appropriately.

So cheers for Chief Justice Roberts, Justice Kennedy, Justice Alito, Justice Scalia and Justice Thomas on a job well done.

Your first paragraph, of course, is blatantly hypocritical. "Progressives" didn't invent the OUR-WAY-OR-THE-HIGHWAY political mood all across this country. You have the memory span of a gnat.

LOL, Who said anything about "the political mood all across this country"? pick up a history book before commenting on things that are obviously beyond your ability to comprehend (hint "might is right" has been the modus operandi of American Progressives since the "movement" began), however now that you mention it progressives ARE directly responsible for the angry mood of the people in this country, if you need further evidence just ask Senator Elect Scott Brown.

"Constructionists" would have this nation operating by pony express and outhouses.

Apparently you don't understand what STRICT constructionist means in a legal context, go look it up... I'll wait.

A CORPORATION is not an INDIVIDUAL, no matter how you spin it. How many corporations existed when the Bill of Rights was signed? CORPORATIONS represent individiual SHAREHOLDERS. If the USSC had expressly required in its ruling that the shareholders and/or employees of said businesses signed off on a political stance or person as the only way to legitimize an endorsement, that would have been fine. However, what will happen now is that if the CEOs like a particular candidate, s/he will have a green light to spend corporate money on political advertising with no restraints.

The ruling isn't about Corporations versus individuals , perhaps you should take the time to actually read the majority opinion before you comment on it. Here's a hint it's about the first amendment not permitting Congress to making categorical distinctions with respect to free speech.

Are you going to go out and actually do a little research on the subject now or are you just going to keep parroting what your progressive masters in Washington tell you to say and continue making yourself look foolish?

 

[Zoom-boing]

Can someone explain to me how a corporation is the same as an individual, therefore justifying this decision? I'm not getting it.

 

[Navy1960]

Well the billionare comment not withstanding, too bad though I would dispatch one of my numeous lackys to type better than I can if that were the case. lol However, I have made it pretty clear this decision while I respect the court, will have a serious negative impact on the election process and further while some seem to think that corporations and unions are entitled to the same rights as people under the constitution, they tend to forget that those corporations and unions exist only because the congress and laws the people vote for allow them to come into being in the first place. Perhaps there is a little confusion on the difference between "corporate speech" and "free speech" or is it just that pesky ol commerce clause we all like to argue on here is not rendered mute as well.

 

[xsited1]

Can someone explain to me how a corporation is the same as an individual, therefore justifying this decision? I'm not getting it.

Here 'ya go:

Corporations - Isn't a corporation a legal fiction created by government and thus it can be regulated by government?

 

[Navy1960]

Can someone explain to me how a corporation is the same as an individual, therefore justifying this decision? I'm not getting it.

There is also this too Zoom

MARSHALL, C.J., Opinion of the Court

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward
ERROR TO THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW HAMPSHIRE


A corporation is an artificial being, invisible, intangible, and existing only in contemplation of law. Being the mere creature of law, it possesses only those properties which the charter of its creation confers upon it either expressly or as incidental to its very existence. These are such as are supposed best calculated to effect the object for which it was created. Among the most important are immortality, and, if the expression may be allowed, individuality -- properties by which a perpetual succession of many persons are considered as the same, and may act as a single individual. They enable a corporation to manage its own affairs and to hold property without the perplexing intricacies, the hazardous and endless necessity, of perpetual conveyances for the purpose of transmitting it from hand to hand. It is chiefly for the purpose of clothing bodies of men, in succession, with these qualities and capacities that corporations were invented, and are in use. By these means, a perpetual succession of individuals are capable of acting for the promotion of the particular object like one immortal being. But this being does not share in the civil government of the country, unless that be the purpose for which it was created. Its immortality no more confers on it political power, or a political character, than immortality would confer such power or character on a natural person. It is no more a state instrument than a natural person exercising the same powers would be. If, then, a natural person, employed [p637] by individuals in the education of youth or for the government of a seminary in which youth is educated would not become a public officer or be considered as a member of the civil government, how is it that this artificial being, created by law for the purpose of being employed by the same individuals, for the same purposes, should become a part of the civil government of the country? Is it because its existence, its capacities, its powers, are given by law? Because the government has given it the power to take and to hold property, in a particular form, and for particular purposes, has the government a consequent right substantially to change that form, or to vary the purposes to which the property is to be applied? This principle has never been asserted or recognised, and is supported by no authority. Can it derive aid from reason?
Trustees of Dartmouth College v. Woodward

 

[MIPS]

Well the billionare comment not withstanding, too bad though I would dispatch one of my numeous lackys to type better than I can if that were the case. lol However, I have made it pretty clear this decision while I respect the court, will have a serious negative impact on the election process and further while some seem to think that corporations and unions are entitled to the same rights as people under the constitution, they tend to forget that those corporations and unions exist only because the congress and laws the people vote for allow them to come into being in the first place. Perhaps there is a little confusion on the difference between "corporate speech" and "free speech" or is it just that pesky ol commerce clause we all like to argue on here is not rendered mute as well.

There is no confusion, if congress can pass a law that limits the speech of corporations, unions, etc.., then they can pass a law that limits the speech on any specific category(ies) of group(s). The first amendment does not permit this and it is not the job of the supreme court to make a determination whether this decision will have a "serious negative impact on the election process" it's job is to determine whether the law is constitutional or not (in this case it found that it is not), doing anything else would make the constitution meaningless and invalidate our entire system of the rule of law.

If the ruling is indeed detrimental to the functioning of the Republic then it's the job of Congress to re-write the law(s) so that it falls within the boundaries of the Constitution or to initiate a constitutional amendment proceeding as specified in Article V.

 

[jillian]

Schumer represents everything wrong with our Government. Why do people keep voting for that tool? He's been in Congress far too long. It's time for him to go.

His Seat is no longer Safe...



peace...

like hell it isn't. i can guarantee you no one is touching chuck schumer's seat.

 

[jillian]

Can someone explain to me how a corporation is the same as an individual, therefore justifying this decision? I'm not getting it.

you're not getting it because it's a wrong and really evil decision.

 

[MIPS]

like hell it isn't. i can guarantee you no one is touching chuck schumer's seat.

Yeah I heard Democrats saying the same thing about "Kennedys Seat" ....

 

[jillian]

like hell it isn't. i can guarantee you no one is touching chuck schumer's seat.

Yeah I heard Democrats saying the same thing about "Kennedys Seat" ....

Kennedy wasn't in it at the time. Or you wouldn't have, genius.

And last I heard Chuck is very much alive.