A bit of hypocrisy Chief Justice John Roberts???

[The Rabbi]

I am not the one makng queries about my own original post.
Congratulations, moron. You've derailed your own thread.

It seems that everyone else fully understood my O/P except for you, rabbi.....Are you OK??? Constipated a bit more than usual?

Wow, double down on stupid.
You obviously DIDNT understand it. You were the one asking questions about it.
Have you had a stroke?

 

[Iceweasel]

fail to see it. How should it be illegal for a group of people to pool their money and support causes they believe in? What law should prevent that and why?

Because politicians should count VOTES...and NOT Donors.

Democrats love counting donor dollars from the union thugs that confiscate the money from their workers so where's the outrage?

But no, politicians aren't there to count votes, counting votes puts them there to do the will of those who voted for them.

 

[Iceweasel]

I fail to see it. How should it be illegal for a group of people to pool their money and support causes they believe in? What law should prevent that and why?

I don't see anything in this ruling that prevents this.

It doesn't, that was my point. There is no hypocrisy. Two different issues. But I was responding more to whoever was whining about Citizen's United.

 

[Moonglow]

fail to see it. How should it be illegal for a group of people to pool their money and support causes they believe in? What law should prevent that and why?

Because politicians should count VOTES...and NOT Donors.

Democrats love counting donor dollars from the union thugs that confiscate the money from their workers so where's the outrage?

But no, politicians aren't there to count votes, counting votes puts them there to do the will of those who voted for them.

The GOP has the support of police unions, thugs that violate due process by robbing suspects of their bling before they are ever tried or convicted.....

 

[nat4900]

t doesn't, that was my point. There is no hypocrisy. Two different issues. But I was responding more to whoever was whining about Citizen's United.

If you had more functioning brain cells you'd know the simple truth....

Roberts basically stated with his decision that it is OK to bribe congress, but you can't bribe the judiciary.......If you can't see the hypocrisy. then, CONGRATS, you're a full fledged moronic right winger.

 

[rightwinger]

The bigger problem is that judges should not be elected

 

[Iceweasel]

t doesn't, that was my point. There is no hypocrisy. Two different issues. But I was responding more to whoever was whining about Citizen's United.

If you had more functioning brain cells you'd know the simple truth....

Roberts basically stated with his decision that it is OK to bribe congress, but you can't bribe the judiciary.......If you can't see the hypocrisy. then, CONGRATS, you're a full fledged moronic right winger.

How does someone stated with their position? The Supremes are appointed, no money should be involved other than their paycheck. Politicians are elected by their constituents. See the difference?

 

[nat4900]

Here's my compromise that NO right wingers would support because......well because they're hypocrites.........

Prohibit unions from their donations AND repeal Citizen United......

Any takers???

 

[Iceweasel]

Here's my compromise that NO right winger would support because......well because they're hypocrites.........

Prohibit unions from their donations AND repeal Citizen United......

Any takers???

I'll go half way and get the unions from taking money from workers and giving it to politicians. Not all union members are going to support the union's choice, it's unfair.

That doesn't compare to the voluntary effort of a group of like minded individuals with a common cause. To take the right away would be unconstitutional and wrong.

So on both of those scenarios I side with the people being allowed to make their choice.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In today's decision, Chief Justice Roberts upheld a ban against judicial candidates directly soliciting contributions...the ban is necessary to stop the appearance of corruption among judges.

Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning: The “mere possibility that judges’ decisions might be motivated by the desire to repay campaign contributions” will undermine public faith in our courts.

Although I concur with Roberts' rationale, does anyone else detect just a tiny bit of hypocrisy in his reasoning versus his decision regarding Citizen United?

Judges shouldn't be elected positions in the first place. Should be entirely appointee-positions. Doesn't eliminate potential corruption but it certainly helps.

Corruption is easily fixed. But we don't wanna fix it because all the decision-makers are themselves corrupt. Execute officials and politicians if found to be corrupt as a warning to others. Easy fix. And make the execution horrible and agonizing like skin em alive with a carrot peeler. Hell I'll do it. And for free.

 

[nat4900]

Here's my compromise that NO right winger would support because......well because they're hypocrites.........

Prohibit unions from their donations AND repeal Citizen United......

Any takers???

I'll go half way and get the unions from taking money from workers and giving it to politicians. Not all union members are going to support the union's choice, it's unfair.

That doesn't compare to the voluntary effort of a group of like minded individuals with a common cause. To take the right away would be unconstitutional and wrong.

So on both of those scenarios I side with the people being allowed to make their choice.

I guess you have NO idea what a compromise would be.....Just like any 3 year old child.

 

[rightwinger]

In today's decision, Chief Justice Roberts upheld a ban against judicial candidates directly soliciting contributions...the ban is necessary to stop the appearance of corruption among judges.

Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning: The “mere possibility that judges’ decisions might be motivated by the desire to repay campaign contributions” will undermine public faith in our courts.

Although I concur with Roberts' rationale, does anyone else detect just a tiny bit of hypocrisy in his reasoning versus his decision regarding Citizen United?

Judges shouldn't be elected positions in the first place. Should be entirely appointee-positions. Doesn't eliminate potential corruption but it certainly helps.

Corruption is easily fixed. But we don't wanna fix it because all the decision-makers are themselves corrupt. Execute officials and politicians if found to be corrupt as a warning to others. Easy fix. And make the execution horrible and agonizing like skin em alive with a carrot peeler. Hell I'll do it. And for free.

Agree

A judge should not have to be afraid to make an unpopular decision because he has an election coming up

 

[Iceweasel]

Here's my compromise that NO right winger would support because......well because they're hypocrites.........

Prohibit unions from their donations AND repeal Citizen United......

Any takers???

I'll go half way and get the unions from taking money from workers and giving it to politicians. Not all union members are going to support the union's choice, it's unfair.

That doesn't compare to the voluntary effort of a group of like minded individuals with a common cause. To take the right away would be unconstitutional and wrong.

So on both of those scenarios I side with the people being allowed to make their choice.

I guess you have NO idea what a compromise would be.....Just like any 3 year old child.

Giving people freedom of choice is uncompromising to you?

 

[The Rabbi]

fail to see it. How should it be illegal for a group of people to pool their money and support causes they believe in? What law should prevent that and why?

Because politicians should count VOTES...and NOT Donors.

Democrats love counting donor dollars from the union thugs that confiscate the money from their workers so where's the outrage?

But no, politicians aren't there to count votes, counting votes puts them there to do the will of those who voted for them.

The GOP has the support of police unions, thugs that violate due process by robbing suspects of their bling before they are ever tried or convicted.....

Police unions support Democrats most of the time. Another fail post.

 

[The Rabbi]

In today's decision, Chief Justice Roberts upheld a ban against judicial candidates directly soliciting contributions...the ban is necessary to stop the appearance of corruption among judges.

Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning: The “mere possibility that judges’ decisions might be motivated by the desire to repay campaign contributions” will undermine public faith in our courts.

Although I concur with Roberts' rationale, does anyone else detect just a tiny bit of hypocrisy in his reasoning versus his decision regarding Citizen United?

Judges shouldn't be elected positions in the first place. Should be entirely appointee-positions. Doesn't eliminate potential corruption but it certainly helps.

Corruption is easily fixed. But we don't wanna fix it because all the decision-makers are themselves corrupt. Execute officials and politicians if found to be corrupt as a warning to others. Easy fix. And make the execution horrible and agonizing like skin em alive with a carrot peeler. Hell I'll do it. And for free.

Judges should represent the values of those in their district. They should be accountable to someone. Look at Iowa where the Supreme Court justices there legalized gay marriage and every one of them was recalled.

 

[Delta4Embassy]

In today's decision, Chief Justice Roberts upheld a ban against judicial candidates directly soliciting contributions...the ban is necessary to stop the appearance of corruption among judges.

Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning: The “mere possibility that judges’ decisions might be motivated by the desire to repay campaign contributions” will undermine public faith in our courts.

Although I concur with Roberts' rationale, does anyone else detect just a tiny bit of hypocrisy in his reasoning versus his decision regarding Citizen United?

Judges shouldn't be elected positions in the first place. Should be entirely appointee-positions. Doesn't eliminate potential corruption but it certainly helps.

Corruption is easily fixed. But we don't wanna fix it because all the decision-makers are themselves corrupt. Execute officials and politicians if found to be corrupt as a warning to others. Easy fix. And make the execution horrible and agonizing like skin em alive with a carrot peeler. Hell I'll do it. And for free.

Judges should represent the values of those in their district. They should be accountable to someone. Look at Iowa where the Supreme Court justices there legalized gay marriage and every one of them was recalled.

That's just 'relative morality' though isn't it? Judges' values shouldn't be relative to a locality. What if the locality's values suck?

 

[Moonglow]

fail to see it. How should it be illegal for a group of people to pool their money and support causes they believe in? What law should prevent that and why?

Because politicians should count VOTES...and NOT Donors.

Democrats love counting donor dollars from the union thugs that confiscate the money from their workers so where's the outrage?

But no, politicians aren't there to count votes, counting votes puts them there to do the will of those who voted for them.

The GOP has the support of police unions, thugs that violate due process by robbing suspects of their bling before they are ever tried or convicted.....

Police unions support Democrats most of the time. Another fail post.

The police unions supported Bill Clinton, then Boosh and then McCain.....when Romeny ran they passed on support for any candidate...

 

[The Rabbi]

In today's decision, Chief Justice Roberts upheld a ban against judicial candidates directly soliciting contributions...the ban is necessary to stop the appearance of corruption among judges.

Chief Justice Roberts’ reasoning: The “mere possibility that judges’ decisions might be motivated by the desire to repay campaign contributions” will undermine public faith in our courts.

Although I concur with Roberts' rationale, does anyone else detect just a tiny bit of hypocrisy in his reasoning versus his decision regarding Citizen United?

Judges shouldn't be elected positions in the first place. Should be entirely appointee-positions. Doesn't eliminate potential corruption but it certainly helps.

Corruption is easily fixed. But we don't wanna fix it because all the decision-makers are themselves corrupt. Execute officials and politicians if found to be corrupt as a warning to others. Easy fix. And make the execution horrible and agonizing like skin em alive with a carrot peeler. Hell I'll do it. And for free.

Judges should represent the values of those in their district. They should be accountable to someone. Look at Iowa where the Supreme Court justices there legalized gay marriage and every one of them was recalled.

That's just 'relative morality' though isn't it? Judges' values shouldn't be relative to a locality. What if the locality's values suck?

I dont even know what that means.

 

[The Rabbi]

fail to see it. How should it be illegal for a group of people to pool their money and support causes they believe in? What law should prevent that and why?

Because politicians should count VOTES...and NOT Donors.

Democrats love counting donor dollars from the union thugs that confiscate the money from their workers so where's the outrage?

But no, politicians aren't there to count votes, counting votes puts them there to do the will of those who voted for them.

The GOP has the support of police unions, thugs that violate due process by robbing suspects of their bling before they are ever tried or convicted.....

Police unions support Democrats most of the time. Another fail post.

The police unions supported Bill Clinton, then Boosh and then McCain.....when Romeny ran they passed on support for any candidate...

You're talking about the national union. BUt there are many police unions.

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

Here's my compromise that NO right wingers would support because......well because they're hypocrites.........

Prohibit unions from their donations AND repeal Citizen United......

Any takers???

You Leftwats are still butthurt over Citizens United and you think it's going to be repealed? It will never be repealed because the ruling was based on sound, constitutional principles. The McCain Feingold act violated free speech laws by prohibiting the mentioning of any candidate 60 days before an election. That's unconstitutional, plain and simple.

What I find remarkable is how you Leftists are the ones always at loggerheads with the Bill of Rights, always trying to subvert freedom and advance tyranny in spite of clear constitutional protections.

Now here's where you Leftists are telling lies.

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
Citizens United v. FEC - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

That's right. Citizens United was NOT about monetary contributions by corporations to campaigns contrary to what you liars are claiming. It was about the freedom for ANYONE to promote or denounce a candidate for office at ANY TIME.

No matter how much you Leftists hate and revile freedom, freedom will prevail.