Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
like hell it isn't. i can guarantee you no one is touching chuck schumer's seat.
Yeah I heard Democrats saying the same thing about "Kennedys Seat" ....
Kennedy wasn't in it at the time. Or you wouldn't have, genius.
Well the billionare comment not withstanding, too bad though I would dispatch one of my numeous lackys to type better than I can if that were the case. lol However, I have made it pretty clear this decision while I respect the court, will have a serious negative impact on the election process and further while some seem to think that corporations and unions are entitled to the same rights as people under the constitution, they tend to forget that those corporations and unions exist only because the congress and laws the people vote for allow them to come into being in the first place. Perhaps there is a little confusion on the difference between "corporate speech" and "free speech" or is it just that pesky ol commerce clause we all like to argue on here is not rendered mute as well.
There is no confusion, if congress can pass a law that limits the speech of corporations, unions, etc.., then they can pass a law that limits the speech on any specific category(ies) of group(s). The first amendment does not permit this and it is not the job of the supreme court to make a determination whether this decision will have a "serious negative impact on the election process" it's job is to determine whether the law is constitutional or not (in this case it found that it is not), doing anything else would make the constitution meaningless and invalidate our entire system of the rule of law.
If the ruling is indeed detrimental to the functioning of the Republic then it's the job of Congress to re-write the law(s) so that it falls within the boundaries of the Constitution or to initiate a constitutional amendment proceeding as specified in Article V.
Don't be vapid, you know exactly what I meant. I noticed you're still right on track with your standard arrogant put downs every time you get your partisan button pressed though, congratulations on your consistency.
after their points shouldn't whine about how they're addressed.). and had you not used that you probably would have been answered differently.
I did notice that, I also noticed that it was contained in the minority opinion written by the more activist members of the court.Well the billionare comment not withstanding, too bad though I would dispatch one of my numeous lackys to type better than I can if that were the case. lol However, I have made it pretty clear this decision while I respect the court, will have a serious negative impact on the election process and further while some seem to think that corporations and unions are entitled to the same rights as people under the constitution, they tend to forget that those corporations and unions exist only because the congress and laws the people vote for allow them to come into being in the first place. Perhaps there is a little confusion on the difference between "corporate speech" and "free speech" or is it just that pesky ol commerce clause we all like to argue on here is not rendered mute as well.
There is no confusion, if congress can pass a law that limits the speech of corporations, unions, etc.., then they can pass a law that limits the speech on any specific category(ies) of group(s). The first amendment does not permit this and it is not the job of the supreme court to make a determination whether this decision will have a "serious negative impact on the election process" it's job is to determine whether the law is constitutional or not (in this case it found that it is not), doing anything else would make the constitution meaningless and invalidate our entire system of the rule of law.
If the ruling is indeed detrimental to the functioning of the Republic then it's the job of Congress to re-write the law(s) so that it falls within the boundaries of the Constitution or to initiate a constitutional amendment proceeding as specified in Article V.
Opinion of Stevens, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION
The Courts 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. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell , it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
While you may not think it was a matter for the court to take under consideration it is obvious that some of the members took it up to the point where it was in their opinion.
Explain how "corporate speech" is any different from speech emanating from any other group or organization, I'd also like to hear how NBC or FOX can have virtually unlimited speech with respect to stumping for any candidate or political point of view if they choose (by virtue of being media outlets) while Coca Cola Corp. or the ACLU cannot given that it they don't happen to own media outlets.While I agree with you on the structure in which the opinion was rendered, and how it is to be corrected, I could not disagree more on the contention that some are confusing the nature of Free Speech with that of corporate speech the courts opnion on the matter notwithsatnding. Which by the way, I am well aware of, and have stated as such.
Don't be vapid, you know exactly what I meant. I noticed you're still right on track with your standard arrogant put downs every time you get your partisan button pressed though, congratulations on your consistency.
well, maybe people who use
.
Don't be vapid, you know exactly what I meant. I noticed you're still right on track with your standard arrogant put downs every time you get your partisan button pressed though, congratulations on your consistency.
well, maybe people who use
.
I wasn't whining frankly I could care less what you say to me, I was just having a laugh at your expense.
I did notice that, I also noticed that it was contained in the minority opinion written by the more activist members of the court.There is no confusion, if congress can pass a law that limits the speech of corporations, unions, etc.., then they can pass a law that limits the speech on any specific category(ies) of group(s). The first amendment does not permit this and it is not the job of the supreme court to make a determination whether this decision will have a "serious negative impact on the election process" it's job is to determine whether the law is constitutional or not (in this case it found that it is not), doing anything else would make the constitution meaningless and invalidate our entire system of the rule of law.
If the ruling is indeed detrimental to the functioning of the Republic then it's the job of Congress to re-write the law(s) so that it falls within the boundaries of the Constitution or to initiate a constitutional amendment proceeding as specified in Article V.
Opinion of Stevens, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION
The Courts 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. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell , it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
While you may not think it was a matter for the court to take under consideration it is obvious that some of the members took it up to the point where it was in their opinion.
Explain how "corporate speech" is any different from speech emanating from any other group or organization, I'd also like to hear how NBC or FOX can have virtually unlimited speech with respect to stumping for any candidate or political point of view if they choose (by virtue of being media outlets) while Coca Cola Corp. or the ACLU cannot given that it they don't happen to own media outlets.While I agree with you on the structure in which the opinion was rendered, and how it is to be corrected, I could not disagree more on the contention that some are confusing the nature of Free Speech with that of corporate speech the courts opnion on the matter notwithsatnding. Which by the way, I am well aware of, and have stated as such.
What you're pointing out here is not limited to corporations, for example if you as a private citizen get on the "air waves" you are subject to the same regulation as corporations (or any other sort of group or individual for that matter). However given that the first amendment does not give congress the authority to deny certain categories of groups certain types of speech your point is immaterial to the question because clearly media corporations can and do express political viewpoints and stump for candidates "on the air" therefor any other regulation they are subject to is beside the point since it is applied consistently to all parties that fall under the same circumstances outlined in those regulations (i.e. one group does not receive favorable/unfavorable treatment under the same set of circumstances) - although I'm sure we could probably find quite a few FCC regulations that we could challenge on constitutional grounds.I did notice that, I also noticed that it was contained in the minority opinion written by the more activist members of the court.Opinion of Stevens, J.
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
CITIZENS UNITED, APPELLANT v. FEDERAL
ELECTION COMMISSION
The Courts 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. Before turning to the question whether to overrule Austin and part of McConnell , it is important to explain why the Court should not be deciding that question.
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N
While you may not think it was a matter for the court to take under consideration it is obvious that some of the members took it up to the point where it was in their opinion.
Explain how "corporate speech" is any different from speech emanating from any other group or organization, I'd also like to hear how NBC or FOX can have virtually unlimited speech with respect to stumping for any candidate or political point of view if they choose (by virtue of being media outlets) while Coca Cola Corp. or the ACLU cannot given that it they don't happen to own media outlets.While I agree with you on the structure in which the opinion was rendered, and how it is to be corrected, I could not disagree more on the contention that some are confusing the nature of Free Speech with that of corporate speech the courts opnion on the matter notwithsatnding. Which by the way, I am well aware of, and have stated as such.
Corporate Speech is subject to regulation,infringement, and modification whereas Free Speech may be subject to some of that , it is highly limited as to to how much of that Free Speech can be regulated. NBC, CBS, ABC, whatever media outlet you wish, are in theory subject not only to FCC Rules they are also subject to FEC rules when it comes to what they can and cannot not do in the political process.
Unfortunately this doesn't make sense, you assert they have the right to purchase a media outlet, yet don't acknowledge their right to HIRE a media outlet to express their point of view? Why must purchasing a media outlet be a prerequisite to enjoying the breadth of expression that existing media outlets already enjoy?What rules would Coca-Cola, Toyota and others be subject too should they happen to support candidate A or candidate B ? unlike a media outlet? They have every right such as with the case of G.E. to purchase a media company.
Not sure where you are going with this, sorry.On a side note I did happen to notice the case that the decision was based on from 1975 and noticed from that opinion that the court focused on "freedom of the press" and seemed to use that as an entity under the Free Speech clause in order to support that.
Yes congratulations on your accomplishment, later.well, maybe people who use
.
I wasn't whining frankly I could care less what you say to me, I was just having a laugh at your expense.
then you shouldn't whine that i made you look stupid.
Thanks for pointing that out.i doubt maggie had a problem with obama buying a half hour of prime time tv that he could afford due to his massive war chest...mccain, who took the public option, could not afford that....
McCain did not use public financing. He backed out. Please don't spread lies.
How McCain's Public Financing Two-Step Helps Obama - Political Punch
Schumer represents everything wrong with our Government. Why do people keep voting for that tool? He's been in Congress far too long. It's time for him to go.
His Seat is no longer Safe...
peace...
Don't be vapid, you know exactly what I meant. I noticed you're still right on track with your standard arrogant put downs every time you get your partisan button pressed though, congratulations on your consistency.
well, maybe people who use
and I did know what you meant (without your stupid
MY point was that if Kennedy had been alive, he wouldn't have even been running for office right now. He'd have been in til the end of his term. And he'd have been re-elected after that if he wanted to be.
As for Chuck, he's not going anywhere. It just makes me happy that my senator pisses off the extreme right so much (even when I don't agree with him about everything).
[couldn't resist ]
about 300, not counting civic/religious/charitable ones in america. the corporation as a legal entity of course predates the founding of our country by hundreds of years.
Schumer represents everything wrong with our Government. Why do people keep voting for that tool? He's been in Congress far too long. It's time for him to go.
His Seat is no longer Safe...
peace...
Yes it is.
Schumer has no credible opponents. He'll win, and he'll keep winning. The people of NY like Chucky.
Yes congratulations on your accomplishment, later.I wasn't whining frankly I could care less what you say to me, I was just having a laugh at your expense.
then you shouldn't whine that i made you look stupid.
so each election is going to be one group of corporations against another group of corporations.
His Seat is no longer Safe...
peace...
Yes it is.
Schumer has no credible opponents. He'll win, and he'll keep winning. The people of NY like Chucky.
chuck rocks. the frothing at the mouth he inspires is just a bonus. joe scarborough actually said reid should resign as senate majority leader and they should start a draft chuck movement.
their heads would explode.
so each election is going to be one group of corporations against another group of corporations.
What do you mean "going to be"? We've had ...
The Republican Corporation and all their corporate sponsors vs. The Democratic Corporation and all their corporate sponsors.
For a while now.
so each election is going to be one group of corporations against another group of corporations.
What do you mean "going to be"? We've had ...
The Republican Corporation and all their corporate sponsors vs. The Democratic Corporation and all their corporate sponsors.
For a while now.
