What the Supreme Court Actually Ruled

[Sinatra]

+

Obama's open attack on the Court regarding his misunderstanding of the actual issue is already painting him as the increasingly inept moron he is.

Majority of Americans have no clue- but inside the Beltway, Obama lost more credibility, and that will only prove to lessen his already decreased standing from many within his own party...

 

[CMike]

Nice try. The problem is that media has to be read to take up their advertising.

I am sure the NYT wouldn't have a problem with it though.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History

SO I guess the ruling was way too much for you to read.

Yes, it is a lot of legalese....but rest assured...the supreme court did not rule that foreign entities will be allowed to influence elections.

And yes...I read it....and I read the original ruling...and I read how the parts of the original ruling that applied to foreign entities was untouched and still 100% in effect.

And in no way does it open the door to campaign contributions from corporations be they national or international.

are you this big a blowhard in real life?

 

[Oldandtired]

Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History

SO I guess the ruling was way too much for you to read.

Yes, it is a lot of legalese....but rest assured...the supreme court did not rule that foreign entities will be allowed to influence elections.

And yes...I read it....and I read the original ruling...and I read how the parts of the original ruling that applied to foreign entities was untouched and still 100% in effect.

And in no way does it open the door to campaign contributions from corporations be they national or international.

are you this big a blowhard in real life?

Very useful response in a debate.
Very useful.
In most cases, a response like yours is code for...

"Well, I ...uh....uh....have nothing useful to add becuase I have nothing to refute your statement...becuase I ....uh....uh....did not read it myself and...uh....uh......so there!"

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The issue was whether corporiations can give money to pay for ads that express political positions.

If it's ads simply pro or con a candidate that's not what the supreme court was talking about.

It was about advocating political positions.

The court ruled that you can not take away people's free speech...

And many do not consider corporations to be 'people' with all the inalienable rights of individuals. I don't think the SCOTUS precedents people rely on addressed this fundamental question of "all the inalienable rights" I thought the SCOTUS ruled in a narrow case of corps sometimes having the same rights as people, which in itself is an acknowledgement that corps are not people.

 

[jillian]

We know that they've advocated the censorship of Limbaugh and other prominent conservatives for years. Yet Air America, who couldn't make a dime if they tried, should have gotten tax money.

See, the problem with the extremists is they project their own nuttiness on others. No one wants to shut rushbo up... we just call him what he is.

it's actually the right wingnuts who want everyone who doesn't agree with them to be taken off the air, resign from office or be tossed.

 

[Oldandtired]

We know that they've advocated the censorship of Limbaugh and other prominent conservatives for years. Yet Air America, who couldn't make a dime if they tried, should have gotten tax money.

See, the problem with the extremists is they project their own nuttiness on others. No one wants to shut rushbo up... we just call him what he is.

it's actually the right wingnuts who want everyone who doesn't agree with them to be taken off the air, resign from office or be tossed.

Do you just make these things up as you go along?

 

[Oldandtired]

The issue was whether corporiations can give money to pay for ads that express political positions.

If it's ads simply pro or con a candidate that's not what the supreme court was talking about.

It was about advocating political positions.

The court ruled that you can not take away people's free speech...

And many do not consider corporations to be 'people' with all the inalienable rights of individuals. I don't think the SCOTUS precedents people rely on addressed this fundamental question of "all the inalienable rights" I thought the SCOTUS ruled in a narrow case of corps sometimes having the same rights as people, which in itself is an acknowledgement that corps are not people.

Truth is, I hate the ruling.

But seeing as I capitalize on the advantages that the consitution offers, I accept the disadvantages as well.

Like those that say "you pay lots of money for those that use the free health care they get at ER's"...

And I say...

"that is the disadvantage of living in a society that allows me many freedoms and liberties. I prefer paying for the free ER for the less fortunate to use than to lose my freedom of choice"

I am not a hypocrite. I accept the bad in an effort to appreciate and enjoy the good.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

The issue was whether corporiations can give money to pay for ads that express political positions.

If it's ads simply pro or con a candidate that's not what the supreme court was talking about.

It was about advocating political positions.

The court ruled that you can not take away people's free speech...

And many do not consider corporations to be 'people' with all the inalienable rights of individuals. I don't think the SCOTUS precedents people rely on addressed this fundamental question of "all the inalienable rights" I thought the SCOTUS ruled in a narrow case of corps sometimes having the same rights as people, which in itself is an acknowledgement that corps are not people.

Truth is, I hate the ruling.

But seeing as I capitalize on the advantages that the consitution offers, I accept the disadvantages as well.

Like those that say "you pay lots of money for those that use the free health care they get at ER's"...

And I say...

"that is the disadvantage of living in a society that allows me many freedoms and liberties. I prefer paying for the free ER for the less fortunate to use than to lose my freedom of choice"

I am not a hypocrite. I accept the bad in an effort to appreciate and enjoy the good.

Thank you for explaining where you stand. I also stand there. Where I differ is with the acceptance of things that are wrong. I accept the idea that people with abuse the system and cheat. But I do not accept that there isn't anything to be done about it.

reading Federalist 10 again.

 

[Jay Canuck]

I guess I'm goin to have to sort this out ....again.

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

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#ixzz0e1uFBnZg
​

I suggest you read more, you canadian leech (talk about redundancy...it is like saying "round circle").

Those of us that read it know exactly what part of the ruling was overturned and what part of the ruling remained the same.

You simply did what canadians do...acted as a leech....and let others read it and give you their summation...and that was enough for you.

ANd it makes you look like...well...a weak canadian leech.

(again redundant...."weak canadian leech" is like saying "round circle with no straight edges").

I suggest you come up with something a little stronger than just your opinion....you won't look so old and tired then Oldey Olsen.

 

[Oldandtired]

And many do not consider corporations to be 'people' with all the inalienable rights of individuals. I don't think the SCOTUS precedents people rely on addressed this fundamental question of "all the inalienable rights" I thought the SCOTUS ruled in a narrow case of corps sometimes having the same rights as people, which in itself is an acknowledgement that corps are not people.

Truth is, I hate the ruling.

But seeing as I capitalize on the advantages that the consitution offers, I accept the disadvantages as well.

Like those that say "you pay lots of money for those that use the free health care they get at ER's"...

And I say...

"that is the disadvantage of living in a society that allows me many freedoms and liberties. I prefer paying for the free ER for the less fortunate to use than to lose my freedom of choice"

I am not a hypocrite. I accept the bad in an effort to appreciate and enjoy the good.

Thank you for explaining where you stand. I also stand there. Where I differ is with the acceptance of things that are wrong. I accept the idea that people with abuse the system and cheat. But I do not accept that there isn't anything to be done about it.

reading Federalist 10 again.

I agree...but if "doing something about it" means that I lose liberties, I prefer not doing something about it.....except for what I personally do about it.

Ironically, all of the left and mosty if not all on the right hate the "pre existing condition" thing....but are you aware of why it is there?

Becuase people used to live without insurance until they needed it....so the insurance companies responded with "pre-exisiting" conditions.

So who was really in the wrong? Those that abused, or those that created a system to STOP the abuse....

Funny thing...I lost where I was going with that...but I guess making the point did not hurt.

 

[Oldandtired]

Ironically, all of the left and mosty if not all on the right hate the "pre existing condition" thing....but are you aware of why it is there?

Becuase people used to live without insurance until they needed it....so the insurance companies responded with "pre-exisiting" conditions.

So who was really in the wrong? Those that abused, or those that created a system to STOP the abuse....

I remmeber where I was going with it.....

Ironically, what was done to STOP the abuse is now what people are angry about...

 

[Oldandtired]

I guess I'm goin to have to sort this out ....again.

The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”

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#ixzz0e1uFBnZg
​

I suggest you read more, you canadian leech (talk about redundancy...it is like saying "round circle").

Those of us that read it know exactly what part of the ruling was overturned and what part of the ruling remained the same.

You simply did what canadians do...acted as a leech....and let others read it and give you their summation...and that was enough for you.

ANd it makes you look like...well...a weak canadian leech.

(again redundant...."weak canadian leech" is like saying "round circle with no straight edges").

I suggest you come up with something a little stronger than just your opinion....you won't look so old and tired then Oldey Olsen.

Awww...heck Canuck.....I'll back off with that Canadian bashing.....not appropriate....just having some fun.....but in poor taste.

 

[Avatar4321]

One of these days it would be nice if the people who are so upset over the decision actually read it

 

[Avatar4321]

Manchurian Candidates
Court allows Saudi Arabia (the guys behind 9-11), others stake in US elections
by Greg Palast

Link Excerpt:
The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates. I’m losing sleep over the millions - or billions - of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation’s U.S. unit; or from the maker of “New Order” fashions, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation. Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC’s federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA. But under today’s Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

way to fight the war on terrorism CMike and SCOTUS Republitards!

So what your saying is that the American people are so stupid that when a advertisement comes on advocating that they elect a certain person and ends with "This advertisement has been brought to you by Al Qaeda" that everyone is going to to elect that person in a land slide victory? You might be that stupid. But most people are not.

 

[Oldandtired]

One of these days it would be nice if the people who are so upset over the decision actually read it

I not only read the ruling, but I read the original ruling.
I am not overly fond of the ruling but I support the role of the SCOTUS and what they decide...whether I agree or not.

Although I would like to suggest a different color robe.

 

[Oldandtired]

Manchurian Candidates
Court allows Saudi Arabia (the guys behind 9-11), others stake in US elections
by Greg Palast

Link Excerpt:
The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates. I’m losing sleep over the millions - or billions - of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation’s U.S. unit; or from the maker of “New Order” fashions, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation. Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC’s federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA. But under today’s Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

way to fight the war on terrorism CMike and SCOTUS Republitards!

So what your saying is that the American people are so stupid that when a advertisement comes on advocating that they elect a certain person and ends with "This advertisement has been brought to you by Al Qaeda" that everyone is going to to elect that person in a land slide victory? You might be that stupid. But most people are not.

Not to mention that the ruling in no way shape or form applies to al-quaeda or any foreign entity, whether it holds a share of an American company or not...including a majority share.

Unless, of course, people will want to break the law.

 

[Zona]

There is a difference between a president being against a ruling, and in the state of the union address, chastizing the Supreme Court members, as they are seated in the front row.

The justices don't have to be there. They only come to show respect for the office of the president and congress.

Unfortunately, Obama is too much of an egocentric shithead to show respect for them.

You lie.

 

[Zona]

Embarassment for the Supreme Court

They will be held accountable in American History

Not really. If a Saudi person owns 49% of a company and doesn't like how we deal with anything Oil related, he can get HIS American elected.

Whats so wrong with that?

Wrong. The ruling was about political issues, not about political candidates.

Obviously, free speech is a foreign concept to liberals.

Whats to stop foreigners from swaying elections now. seriously, answer that please.

 

[Zona]

Manchurian Candidates
Court allows Saudi Arabia (the guys behind 9-11), others stake in US elections
by Greg Palast

Link Excerpt:
The Court's decision is far, far more dangerous to U.S. democracy. Think: Manchurian candidates. I’m losing sleep over the millions - or billions - of dollars that could flood into our elections from ARAMCO, the Saudi Oil corporation’s U.S. unit; or from the maker of “New Order” fashions, the Chinese People’s Liberation Army. Or from Bin Laden Construction corporation. Or Bin Laden Destruction Corporation. Right now, corporations can give loads of loot through PACs. While this money stinks (Obama took none of it), anyone can go through a PAC’s federal disclosure filing and see the name of every individual who put money into it. And every contributor must be a citizen of the USA. But under today’s Supreme Court ruling that corporations can support candidates without limit, there is nothing that stops, say, a Delaware-incorporated handmaiden of the Burmese junta from picking a Congressman or two with a cache of loot masked by a corporate alias.

way to fight the war on terrorism CMike and SCOTUS Republitards!

So what your saying is that the American people are so stupid that when a advertisement comes on advocating that they elect a certain person and ends with "This advertisement has been brought to you by Al Qaeda" that everyone is going to to elect that person in a land slide victory? You might be that stupid. But most people are not.

You are questioning the stupidity of the Average right leaning American? Have you seen Fox's ratings?