WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

[JWBooth]

so, it's NOT judicial activism when the right agrees with the ruling... but it IS judicial activism when the left does.


got it.

It's not activist to overturn overreaching gubmint actions and laws (which this ruling does).

It is activism to make up law out of whole cloth (i.e. Miranda and Roe).

Fail.

Said it better'n I did.

 

[Oddball]

The same kooks that rail against the "evil corporations", cry about not havin a job once the've been run out of business. As a businessman, I can tell you, it is a maze of one goofy regulation after another out there.... and in the meantime, our freinds in D.C. do as they like including exempting themselves and their cronies from the laws they impose on the rest of us.

Exactly.

The authoritarian nanny staters want to regulate, tax, sue, and use businesses as political punching bags when it suits them....But woe betide us all should businesses do anything to protect themselves or even get their side of story out.

 

[Oldandtired]

Are corporations jailed for crimes?
Can a corporation actually physically vote?

Corporations are tired and convicted for crimes, with the punishment being a fine....sometimes disolvment.

They pay taxes.

As for a corporation voting....do not be surprised if each corporation, one day down the line, is afforded one vote.

WHy?

They pay taxes.

foreign owned corps pay taxes in America as well. Should they be allowed to "vote"?
I love it, the right supporting foreign corps "voting" in America.

You must spin...always. It is quite sad.

US coroporations do business in the US as a right.
Foreign corporations are allowed to do business in the US..but by no means a right.

Jeez....you truly are naive.

How is it that you feel you can debate those in the know?

 

[Bern80]

It is a violation of the constitution as the freedom of speech was never an intended right to be given to a company or corporation.. When you give them that right you take that right away from the people..

Really? They are preventing you from speaking?

We the people don't have the means to compete with billion dollar industry when it comes to lobbying and campaigns.. We don't.. Our voices will not be heard.. Look at the health reform.. A vast majority of the people want a publc option.. A few hundred million dollars later and insurance companies with the help of some well paid republicans have managed to kill what the people want.. They have influenced and tainted the bill and turned it into a nightmare that nobody knows what to do with.. And people that desperately need it will now not get health care because insurance companies are to selfish.. Who stands to lose if a public option is created?? Certianly not the people.. The insurance companies..

So you would outlaw unions as well of course......What you may nor realize you are arguing against here is the right to organize. Do you not see how what you are arguing would put major limits on free speech. You're basically saying sure you can say what ever you want, but don't you dare seek out like minded individuals to bolster your case.

Companies are not individuals and have no business in politics.. The people that work in those companies all have the same right to vote and donate to campaigns as everyone else.. Allowing companies to do it denies people the right to be heard..

Legally, yes they are. The fact that you can't see how important it is that they be identified this way is interesting.

This ruling is a travisty and goes against everything the constitution stands for.. The justices that voted in favor of this have no reason being on the bench.. This is judicial activism at its worse!!

No. It took real courage to uphold the constitution in this manner. The right knows that this ruling works both ways. It isn't of any benefit to one party more so than the other. Looking at the funding the dems get from various media organizations. What you have here is 5 justices who upheld the law and the rest like that moron Sotomayor who thinks her job is to rule on things based on how she FEELS about them.

 

[rachidelaidi]

and what you expect? give me one idea whom you see your country?

 

[MIPS]

Maybe this will clear it up for those that are struggling to understand the decision...

Source: CNET

"A 5-4 majority concluded that technological changes have chipped away at the justification for a law that allows individuals to create a blog with opinions about a political candidate--but threatens the ACLU, the National Rifle Association, a labor union, or a corporation with felony charges if they do the same.

The now-invalidated law "would seem to ban a blog post expressly advocating the election or defeat of a candidate if that blog were created with corporate funds," Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote in the majority opinion (PDF). "The First Amendment does not permit Congress to make these categorical distinctions based on the corporate identity of the speaker and the content of the political speech."

Full Article: Supreme Court posts - Politics and Law - CNET News

 

[Shogun]

so, it's NOT judicial activism when the right agrees with the ruling... but it IS judicial activism when the left does.


got it.

It's not activist to overturn overreaching gubmint actions and laws (which this ruling does).

It is activism to make up law out of whole cloth (i.e. Miranda and Roe).

Fail.

YEA! tell yourself whatever you want to hear, dude. Lord fucking knows it's not hilarious to watch you people reach for a necessary caveat THIS time.

 

[JWBooth]

and what you expect? give me one idea whom you see your country?

 

[Shogun]

Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling
The Supreme Court's decision in favor of corporate spending in elections makes previous rhetoric laughable.

Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling - latimes.com

 

[Bfgrn]

Corporations are taxed just like people.

The ruling is fair and balanced as it applies to all...and all will have the advantages and disadvantages of the ruling.

The ruling takes away any concern of compromising the integrity of the constitution.

I hate the ruling. I love my country. I gain from the integrity of the constitution.

I support the ruling.

I'm glad you love your country, so do I...but I always considered my country as people...I guess I was wrong.

I never knew our founder's real intent was to design the Constitution as a weapon that can harm people...again I am wrong...

Wake up my friend. Wake up.
Dont vote for those that cowtow to the special interests.

Special interests? Isn't THAT who just hit the jackpot with this ruling? I never got to vote for Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito...did you?

 

[Shogun]

But Justice John Paul Stevens, in a stinging dissent written for the minority, argues that the right wing of the court has engaged in a brazen act of activism--and has done so to award corporations more legal rights than they have previously been afforded.

A few excerpts:

* Even more misguided is the notion that the Court must rewrite the law relating to campaign expenditures by for-profit corporations and unions to decide this case.

* The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case.

* Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters.

* The financial resources, legal structure,and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.

* The majority’s approach to corporate electioneering marks a dramatic break from our past. Congress hasplaced special limitations on campaign spending by corporations ever since the passage of the Tillman Act in 1907....We have unanimously concluded [in 1982] that this “reflects a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process"...and have accepted the “legislative judgment that the special characteristics of the corporate structure require particularly careful regulation...The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaignspending as an invidious novelty born [in a 1990 opinion].

* The Court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions across the Nation. The path it has taken to reach its outcome will, I fear, do damage to this institution.

With this dissent, Stevens is scoffing at Chief Justice John Roberts' self-proclaimed fancy for "judicial modesty" and waging battle on one of the major fronts in the court's history: how far should the justices go in equating corporations with citizens. You can read the decision here.

Stevens Accuses Supreme Court Conservatives of Judicial Activism | Mother Jones

http://assets.sunlightfoundation.com/pdf/08-205.pdf

 

[Oddball]

Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling
The Supreme Court's decision in favor of corporate spending in elections makes previous rhetoric laughable.

Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling - latimes.com

Wow...The L.A. Times spinning a story that sheds republicans in a less-than-favorable light?

Be still my heart.

 

[beowolfe]

Because what the court did was not judicial activism. We often call judicial activism legislating from the bench. That is setting new precedents that aren't law.

the court did not do that here. Had the ruling gone the other way THAT would have been judicial activism. The court simply affirmed that limiting a corporations ability to contribute money to a campaign would have been a violation of the first amendment.

Okay. then show men the law or constitutional provision that says that corporations are persons. It seems that Americans simply can't be honest about this judicial activism issue. Both sides do it. When you agree with it, you call it 'sound legal reasoning'. When you disagree, you call it judicial activism. Either way, they are rulings with no basis in law.

 

[Oldandtired]

I'm glad you love your country, so do I...but I always considered my country as people...I guess I was wrong.

I never knew our founder's real intent was to design the Constitution as a weapon that can harm people...again I am wrong...

Wake up my friend. Wake up.
Dont vote for those that cowtow to the special interests.

Special interests? Isn't THAT who just hit the jackpot with this ruling? I never got to vote for Roberts, Kennedy, Scalia, Thomas and Alito...did you?

They did not hit that jackpot if those they support do not vote in congress to favor them.
And if those they support in congress vote to favor them, then dont vote for them next time.

If you do not like the salaries of athletes, do not watch the game or buy the merchandise.

When will people see that we, as a people, can control everything.

We simply choose not to.

As for the SCOTUS...seems to me your beef is with the appointments of justices. Maybe that should be another thread.

 

[Oddball]

Because what the court did was not judicial activism. We often call judicial activism legislating from the bench. That is setting new precedents that aren't law.

the court did not do that here. Had the ruling gone the other way THAT would have been judicial activism. The court simply affirmed that limiting a corporations ability to contribute money to a campaign would have been a violation of the first amendment.

Okay. then show men the law or constitutional provision that says that corporations are persons. It seems that Americans simply can't be honest about this judicial activism issue. Both sides do it. When you agree with it, you call it 'sound legal reasoning'. When you disagree, you call it judicial activism. Either way, they are rulings with no basis in law.

Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's the law of the land, Bubba.

 

[Oldandtired]

Because what the court did was not judicial activism. We often call judicial activism legislating from the bench. That is setting new precedents that aren't law.

the court did not do that here. Had the ruling gone the other way THAT would have been judicial activism. The court simply affirmed that limiting a corporations ability to contribute money to a campaign would have been a violation of the first amendment.

Okay. then show men the law or constitutional provision that says that corporations are persons. It seems that Americans simply can't be honest about this judicial activism issue. Both sides do it. When you agree with it, you call it 'sound legal reasoning'. When you disagree, you call it judicial activism. Either way, they are rulings with no basis in law.

Show me where this will favor anyone over anyone else as it pertains to campaigning?

 

[MIPS]

Okay. then show men the law or constitutional provision that says that corporations are persons.

Show me a where the first amendment makes categorical distinctions about which groups of people have unlimited free speech while other groups do not.

Let me help you out ....

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Happy hunting!

 

[Bfgrn]

Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling
The Supreme Court's decision in favor of corporate spending in elections makes previous rhetoric laughable.

Conservatives embrace judicial activism in campaign finance ruling - latimes.com

Wow...The L.A. Times spinning a story that sheds republicans in a less-than-favorable light?

Be still my heart.

But you're not a Republican, you're the DUDertarian ...so why all the quacking?


“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

 

[Vel]

So all this means is that we go back to the times before the airwaves were deluged by ads from 501c's, 527's and other PACS. We've been there before and it's certainly not as if corporations had not already found ways to get around the unconstitutional provisions of McCain/Feingold. Maybe we can try campaign reform again and get it right this time.

 

[Oddball]

The argument of the leftist bedwetters in a nutshell: