Supreme Court Decision.. Libs lie once again.

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Nonelitist, Jan 28, 2010.

  1. Nonelitist
    Offline

    Nonelitist BANNED

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2010
    Messages:
    1,235
    Thanks Received:
    182
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +183
    From the NY Times:

    This time, Justice Alito shook his head as if to rebut the president’s characterization of the Citizens United decision, and seemed to mouth the words “not true.” Indeed, Mr. Obama’s description of the holding of the case was imprecise. He said the court had “reversed a century of law.”

    The law that Congress enacted in the populist days of the early 20th century prohibited direct corporate contributions to political campaigns. That law was not at issue in the Citizens United case, and is still on the books. Rather, the court struck down a more complicated statute that barred corporations and unions from spending money directly from their treasuries — as opposed to their political action committees — on television advertising to urge a vote for or against a federal candidate in the period immediately before the election. It is true, though, that the majority wrote so broadly about corporate free speech rights as to call into question other limitations as well — although not necessarily the existing ban on direct contributions.


    Justice Alito’s Reaction - Opinionator Blog - NYTimes.com


    Try a new argument. Lost once again.
     
  2. ihopehefails
    Offline

    ihopehefails BANNED

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2009
    Messages:
    3,384
    Thanks Received:
    228
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ratings:
    +228
    Obama lies again....
     
  3. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    That's enough for me sparky...you are on the list.
     
  4. Some Guy
    Offline

    Some Guy Deregulated User

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2010
    Messages:
    1,512
    Thanks Received:
    249
    Trophy Points:
    130
    Ratings:
    +380
    The Supreme Court acted stupidly, just like Cambridge police did.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  5. HUGGY
    Offline

    HUGGY I Post Because I Care Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Mar 24, 2009
    Messages:
    33,727
    Thanks Received:
    3,805
    Trophy Points:
    1,140
    Location:
    Seattle, in a run down motel
    Ratings:
    +6,285
    They acted willfully. They don't have much more time to ensure the neo con fundimentalists and religious zealots don't lose more power than the voters took away from them last year. It isn't enough to have a stranglhold on the ownership of the media. They have to get paid for the destruction they cause. The Supreme court ensured it this week. I hope when the first senator gets paid through a fake corp with funds generated by Al Quaida someone will take it upon themselves to remove Roberts and Alito
     
  6. Oldandtired
    Offline

    Oldandtired BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,618
    Thanks Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island
    Ratings:
    +349
    In your entire post you stated no supported facts.
    Yet you stated them as facts and never once used the word "assume" or the word "believe"
    You do realize, of course, that that is why you are known as a hack on this board.
    Just sayin'....hack.
     
  7. Jay Canuck
    Offline

    Jay Canuck by Crom you'll pay!

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,090
    Thanks Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +212
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  8. Jay Canuck
    Offline

    Jay Canuck by Crom you'll pay!

    Joined:
    Jul 30, 2009
    Messages:
    3,090
    Thanks Received:
    212
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Ratings:
    +212
    Stevens continued: “The Court all but confesses that a categorical approach to speaker identity is untenable when it acknowledges that Congress might be allowed to take measures aimed at preventing foreign individuals or associations from influencing our Nation’s political process. … Such measures have been a part of U.S. campaign finance law for many years. The notion that Congress might lack the authority to distinguish foreigners from citizens in the regulation of electioneering would certainly have surprised the Framers.”

    And on Page 75, Stevens wrote: “Unlike voters in U.S. elections, corporations may be foreign controlled.”


    Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0110/32151.html#ixzz0dwTKn9FA
     
  9. Oldandtired
    Offline

    Oldandtired BANNED

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    3,618
    Thanks Received:
    349
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Location:
    Long Island
    Ratings:
    +349
    Yep...it is one suck butt decision by the Supreme Court...but one that stays in line with our consitution.
    Hate the ruling but I support it as I have learned you take the good with the bad.
    You can not go against the constitution strictly out of convenience.
     
  10. driveby
    Offline

    driveby Gold Member

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2008
    Messages:
    8,836
    Thanks Received:
    2,305
    Trophy Points:
    183
    Ratings:
    +2,325
    Funny that Obama doesn't have a problem with the fact that George Soros has been doing this for years...... :eusa_whistle:
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1

Share This Page