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

[Hutch Starskey]

Like Citizens United? That ruling, without a doubt has changed our political process for the worse.

What "Shit" did the court make up?

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

Can you point to that quote in the actual ruling?

Tell us about the ruling counselor.

I'll be happy to, just as soon as you answer my question.

I'm not playing your dumbass game. Make your point or move along.

 

[OKTexas]

What "Shit" did the court make up?

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

Can you point to that quote in the actual ruling?

Tell us about the ruling counselor.

I'll be happy to, just as soon as you answer my question.

I'm not playing your dumbass game. Make your point or move along.

What and deprive you of the opportunity to figure out on your own that the regressives you think are smarter than you have been lying to you all along, not a chance in hell. You made a statement and now you can't back it up you try to put the onus on me to disprove your claim, it's time to grow the fuck up little man. I know the basis for the decision, let's see if you can recognize truth on you own.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

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

Can you point to that quote in the actual ruling?

Tell us about the ruling counselor.

I'll be happy to, just as soon as you answer my question.

I'm not playing your dumbass game. Make your point or move along.

What and deprive you of the opportunity to figure out on your own that the regressives you think are smarter than you have been lying to you all along, not a chance in hell. You made a statement and now you can't back it up you try to put the onus on me to disprove your claim, it's time to grow the fuck up little man. I know the basis for the decision, let's see if you can recognize truth on you own.

I already made my point. You have said nothing.

 

[OKTexas]

Can you point to that quote in the actual ruling?

Tell us about the ruling counselor.

I'll be happy to, just as soon as you answer my question.

I'm not playing your dumbass game. Make your point or move along.

What and deprive you of the opportunity to figure out on your own that the regressives you think are smarter than you have been lying to you all along, not a chance in hell. You made a statement and now you can't back it up you try to put the onus on me to disprove your claim, it's time to grow the fuck up little man. I know the basis for the decision, let's see if you can recognize truth on you own.

I already made my point. You have said nothing.

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?

 

[Correll]

This is true.

On the other hand, we CAN'T allow a liberal court.

The damage to be done to our society would just be to great.

This really does work out well for Hillary <cough> motive<cough>.

this is the typical republican rant "its the liberal court" that forces to follow the constitution ... its the liberal press that points out what the republican did wrong .... how about this ??? why not tell the truth here ...

REad and learn moron.

Ricci v. DeStefano - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Eighteen city firefighters, seventeen of whom were white and one of whom was Hispanic, brought suit under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 after they had passed the test for promotions to management positions and the city declined to promote them. New Haven officials invalidated the test results because none of the black firefighters scored high enough to be considered for the positions. City officials stated that they feared a lawsuit over the test's disproportionate exclusion of certain racial groups from promotion under the controversial "disparate impact" theory of liability.

All the dem appointees supported this blatant anti-white racism.

The only reason this did not become the law of the Land YET, was because it was a "conservative" court.

 

[Correll]

Alito was an almost good choice.
obamas choice will be a total piece of shit.
cant compare the two.

I get it
You are conservative and oppose any candidate a liberal President would nominate. But almost 70 million Americans said they want Obama to do the nominating

When Republicans were President, Democrats allowed them to fill the vacancies with conservative judges. Even when it ensured there would be a conservative court

Republicans refuse to do the same

Because democrats don't have to fear that republican nominees are going to just make shit up on the bench and remake the nation in the process.

THe two sides are not the same.

Like Citizens United? That ruling, without a doubt has changed our political process for the worse.

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?

 

[LordBrownTrout]

Lol, most of the dem base doesnt even know what a supreme court justice is.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Tell us about the ruling counselor.

I'll be happy to, just as soon as you answer my question.

I'm not playing your dumbass game. Make your point or move along.

What and deprive you of the opportunity to figure out on your own that the regressives you think are smarter than you have been lying to you all along, not a chance in hell. You made a statement and now you can't back it up you try to put the onus on me to disprove your claim, it's time to grow the fuck up little man. I know the basis for the decision, let's see if you can recognize truth on you own.

I already made my point. You have said nothing.

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I get it
You are conservative and oppose any candidate a liberal President would nominate. But almost 70 million Americans said they want Obama to do the nominating

When Republicans were President, Democrats allowed them to fill the vacancies with conservative judges. Even when it ensured there would be a conservative court

Republicans refuse to do the same

Because democrats don't have to fear that republican nominees are going to just make shit up on the bench and remake the nation in the process.

THe two sides are not the same.

Like Citizens United? That ruling, without a doubt has changed our political process for the worse.

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.

 

[Kondor3]

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

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

Wake me up when Dems start turning out in droves to install Shrillary...

Uncle Bernie appears to want to have something to say on that subject, as do Young Folks, including Young Women, and a really good-sized chunk of the Democratic Party rank-and-file, who are beginning to latch onto this season's Populist Rebellion, and who are rejecting the DNC -anointed scion, in favor of an outsider.

 

[OKTexas]

I'll be happy to, just as soon as you answer my question.

I'm not playing your dumbass game. Make your point or move along.

What and deprive you of the opportunity to figure out on your own that the regressives you think are smarter than you have been lying to you all along, not a chance in hell. You made a statement and now you can't back it up you try to put the onus on me to disprove your claim, it's time to grow the fuck up little man. I know the basis for the decision, let's see if you can recognize truth on you own.

I already made my point. You have said nothing.

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I'm not playing your dumbass game. Make your point or move along.

What and deprive you of the opportunity to figure out on your own that the regressives you think are smarter than you have been lying to you all along, not a chance in hell. You made a statement and now you can't back it up you try to put the onus on me to disprove your claim, it's time to grow the fuck up little man. I know the basis for the decision, let's see if you can recognize truth on you own.

I already made my point. You have said nothing.

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.

 

[OKTexas]

What and deprive you of the opportunity to figure out on your own that the regressives you think are smarter than you have been lying to you all along, not a chance in hell. You made a statement and now you can't back it up you try to put the onus on me to disprove your claim, it's time to grow the fuck up little man. I know the basis for the decision, let's see if you can recognize truth on you own.

I already made my point. You have said nothing.

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.

 

[candycorn]

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

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

Wake me up when Dems start turning out in droves to install Shrillary...

Uncle Bernie appears to want to have something to say on that subject, as do Young Folks, including Young Women, and a really good-sized chunk of the Democratic Party rank-and-file, who are beginning to latch onto this season's Populist Rebellion, and who are rejecting the DNC -anointed scion, in favor of an outsider.

Expect a call on a Tuesday in November.

 

[Dot Com]

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

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

Maybe but I think its just as likely that republicans / conservatives will be energized as well so it may be a wash. As someone pointed out I think reasonably having this nomination hang in the balance given what Clinton and sanders have said on guns it is lijkely that every gun owner in America votes and that would help the republican and represents a group that crosses party lines. Couple that with the fact that historically the right tends to care more about judicial nominations in voting it could well be a plus for republicans

"Some" Republicans...correct.
But for most of the nation, it is recognized and accepted that we need to have a full bench on the Supreme Court. Hell, this past week saw a landmark case between the FBI and Apple Computer. It is conceivable that this question will make it to the Supreme Court since there are entire seas of uncharted waters in the ruling by the California jurist. Can a company be forced to create a software? I don't see how; myself but I think they should do all they can to assist law enforcement.

I really reject the idea that the right cares more about the court. It is the only thing that keeps people like Linsay Graham and John Cornyn from telling women they must carry pregnancies to term.

agree.

 

[Kondor3]

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

I haven't said it for a while but eventually the GOP will run out of either toes or bullets. It seems as though they have found another foot's worth of toes to aim at.

Wake me up when Dems start turning out in droves to install Shrillary...

Uncle Bernie appears to want to have something to say on that subject, as do Young Folks, including Young Women, and a really good-sized chunk of the Democratic Party rank-and-file, who are beginning to latch onto this season's Populist Rebellion, and who are rejecting the DNC -anointed scion, in favor of an outsider.

Expect a call on a Tuesday in November.

You've got to get past the Primaries and the Convention first, and that's not going very well so far, is it?

 

[HenryBHough]

Actually there IS a better way to motivate Democrat Party voters to come to the polls.

And it's very simple.

Just announce that any who don't vote no longer get any free stuff.

 

[Correll]

Because democrats don't have to fear that republican nominees are going to just make shit up on the bench and remake the nation in the process.

THe two sides are not the same.

Like Citizens United? That ruling, without a doubt has changed our political process for the worse.

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

Like Citizens United? That ruling, without a doubt has changed our political process for the worse.

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.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

I already made my point. You have said nothing.

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.