No better way to energize the DEM voters than to block Obama's nominations...

[PoliticalChic]

 

[Correll]

What "Shit" did the court make up?

The part that says money is speech and therefore is protected by the first amendment.

You ever try to get a TV station to let you speak on the air without money?

Because it's their product that is for sale fool.

Mmm, your statement in no way supported your point.

And in no way made me look foolish.

You dumbass.

It did but it went over your head. There is no and never was any regulation concerning the purchase of advertising. Your attempt to conflate that with my point is where you looked foolish.

I was responding to YOUR "money is speech" compliant.

YOur previous post in no way addressed my point.

 

[Grizz]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations.....

Would they? I don't know that the average voter even pays attention to this shit. Either way, the president has the right to appoint a new justice and the Senate should give his nomination a vote.

Why?
There is nothing in the Constitution that says they need to be in any rush, the Left is lying in a bed that they made and crying foul. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. As usual the Left is trying to tell us what we should do because to do otherwise will do something to lose the elections.

Bullshit. Thanks but we'll risk it.

The real truth is this, we will get whomever they (they being the powers that be) have already decided we will get. We are all just playing a game here that as already been decided for us.....

 

[OKTexas]

Note to the ignorant one, a point made based on a myth ain't no point at all. Is that why you refuse to back up your claim of SCOTUS saying money is speech?

Like I said, tell us about the ruling counselor. Tell us why you believe my position is a myth.

Ok hero, Citizens United was a non profit political organization. They wanted to show Hillary, The Movie just prior to the elections. The hildabitch filed a complaint with the FEC who told the organization they could not show or advertise the movie on broadcast media. Citizens United in turn sued the FEC for prior constraint of speech. The lower court ruled in favor of the FEC because the McCain/Fingold restricted these organization from political activities 30 days prior to a primary, or 60 days from a general election.

Keep in mind, these organizations were not new, they had been around for some time. The Supreme Court ruled that the government couldn't arbitrarily restrain political speech prior to or during an election.


The Supreme Court reversed this decision, striking down those provisions of BCRA that prohibited corporations (including nonprofit corporations) and unions from making independent expenditures and "electioneering communications".[4] The majority decision overruled Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990) and partially overruled McConnell v. Federal Election Commission (2003).[6]

Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You see it had absolutely nothing to do with money and had everything to do with protected speech.

Just as I thought. You said nothing. What effect does that ruling have on how money is spent to benefit campaigns? How can that money now be raised and used? Does it in any way need to be reported? It is entirely about money and protecting it's collection and use as speech. The ruling pretty much eliminated any possibility of future regulation of campaign finance by enteties from outside the campaign by giving it protection under the 1st Amd. It effectively protects money as speech. A very shortsighted and narrow minded ruling. The negative effects are already apparent.

From the link: My bold

The Court, however, upheld requirements for public disclosure by sponsors of advertisements (BCRA §201 and §311). 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.[7]

The case changed nothing about how money was raised or reported. It had absolutely NOTHING TO DO WITH MONEY! It simply allowed these organizations to continue campaign activities throughout the election cycle. All your regressive acrobatics don't change the FACTS. But feel free to keep whining, you're very entertaining in your ignorance.

It is entirely about money. Your attempt to say it's only about "campaign activities" without mentioning how those activities are paid for is misleading. How those organizations raise, spend and report that money is now protected from gov't regulation. Money can be raised and spent on behalf of or against any candidate without any required disclosures as to it's origins.
If you believe that what this ruling enabled is good for our polititical system, then you either don't understand what it is or don't care. It was a shortsighted ruling.

Tell me, how to you engage in today's politics without money? Where do you go to get fliers printed for free, or what TV station will run commercials for free or what production company will produce the commercials for free? I could go on, but I think you get the point, it all takes money, so essentially if you restrict money, you restrict campaign activities, which are protected speech. You're just crying because the back door to limit speech was close by the court.

 

[candycorn]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations.....

Would they? I don't know that the average voter even pays attention to this shit. Either way, the president has the right to appoint a new justice and the Senate should give his nomination a vote.

Why?
There is nothing in the Constitution that says they need to be in any rush, the Left is lying in a bed that they made and crying foul. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. As usual the Left is trying to tell us what we should do because to do otherwise will do something to lose the elections.

Bullshit. Thanks but we'll risk it.

The real truth is this, we will get whomever they (they being the powers that be) have already decided we will get. We are all just playing a game here that as already been decided for us.....

So, you'd be fine if say Cruz/Trump wins the election and the Dems take over the Senate and they wait 4 years to see how 2020 plays out?

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations.....

Would they? I don't know that the average voter even pays attention to this shit. Either way, the president has the right to appoint a new justice and the Senate should give his nomination a vote.

Why?
There is nothing in the Constitution that says they need to be in any rush, the Left is lying in a bed that they made and crying foul. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. As usual the Left is trying to tell us what we should do because to do otherwise will do something to lose the elections.

Bullshit. Thanks but we'll risk it.

The real truth is this, we will get whomever they (they being the powers that be) have already decided we will get. We are all just playing a game here that as already been decided for us.....

So, you'd be fine if say Cruz/Trump wins the election and the Dems take over the Senate and they wait 4 years to see how 2020 plays out?

Yeah, they don't think about that and that's exactly how that ball would start rolling. This Congress holds up the confirmation for a year. Then say a Republican gets in and halfway through 2019 he gets a pick that would flip the court back to the GOP and this time the Dems refuse to confirm for a year and half because the GOP did it for a year. Then next time it becomes two years., etc.

This has already happened at the circuit court level. There were picks Obama was finally able to make in his first couple of years, only because he had a Dem Congress, that had been stalled since the Clinton administration because the Republican started refusing votes on his nominees, then the Dems did it to Bush in retaliation, and so on.

 

[Grizz]

It will be wonderful to see Dems turning out in droves to install HRC because the GOP is obstructing Obama's nominations.....

Would they? I don't know that the average voter even pays attention to this shit. Either way, the president has the right to appoint a new justice and the Senate should give his nomination a vote.

Why?
There is nothing in the Constitution that says they need to be in any rush, the Left is lying in a bed that they made and crying foul. It would be funny if it weren't so pathetic. As usual the Left is trying to tell us what we should do because to do otherwise will do something to lose the elections.

Bullshit. Thanks but we'll risk it.

The real truth is this, we will get whomever they (they being the powers that be) have already decided we will get. We are all just playing a game here that as already been decided for us.....

So, you'd be fine if say Cruz/Trump wins the election and the Dems take over the Senate and they wait 4 years to see how 2020 plays out?

I prefer Cruz over everyone, I might suggest you folks pay attention to the turn out numbers. The Repubs are enjoying record turnouts, the Dems not so much. Were You folks I'd start worrying about coattails. It simply isn't looking good for your side.