Given the SCOTUS recent shift to the "left" should...........

[nat4900]

Actually, I'm not too sure that the majority within the SCOTUS has really made a "left turn".....but just for argument sake, given Roberts and Kennedy's more objective (and less partisan) rulings, would this be a good time to bring up a challenge to Citizen United and the adverse impact that decision has had on our democratic election practices?

 

[Contumacious]

Actually, I'm not too sure that the majority within the SCOTUS has really made a "left turn".....but just for argument sake, given Roberts and Kennedy's more objective (and less partisan) rulings, would this be a good time to bring up a challenge to Citizen United and the adverse impact that decision has had on our democratic election practices?

The SCOTUS has continued a FASCIST trend whch began in 1935 - Aggrandizing and increasing the federal government powers by any means necessary.


They will not get in trouble since Americans are stupid and don't know the Constitution from a hole in the ground.


If Americans get, or if it appears that they are getting , something for nothing then the law is Constitutional.


.

 

[hipeter924]

SCOTUS might be leaning more progressive on social issues, but it is clearly on the side of corporate America on the economic front. I am convinced that when same-sex marriage issues are over, they will show their real agenda.

 

[Contumacious]

SCOTUS might be leaning more progressive on social issues, but it is clearly on the side of corporate America on the economic front. I am convinced that when same-sex marriage issues are over, they will show their real agenda.

Might be leaning more progressive on social issues - do they have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do so?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Actually, I'm not too sure that the majority within the SCOTUS has really made a "left turn".....but just for argument sake, given Roberts and Kennedy's more objective (and less partisan) rulings, would this be a good time to bring up a challenge to Citizen United and the adverse impact that decision has had on our democratic election practices?

The Supreme Court has not moved to the 'left.'

The majority of the justices are indeed conservative, including Justice Kennedy, but Kennedy is not an ideologue, unlike Scalia, which is causing the partisan confusion.

And Justice Thomas is not a conservative, he's a libertarian.

 

[amrchaos]

Concerning the Citizen United case--

How do we know which corporations are "American" and which are not?

Is it possible for a foreign entity to take over an American corporation and use it to influence our government?

Are there regulations in place to prevent foreign corporations from influencing our elections/government?

I have more questions, but these seems to trouble me the most.
Note: Americans in control of American Corporations that influence our government seems to be the least of our worries!!

 

[TemplarKormac]

 

[OKTexas]

Actually, I'm not too sure that the majority within the SCOTUS has really made a "left turn".....but just for argument sake, given Roberts and Kennedy's more objective (and less partisan) rulings, would this be a good time to bring up a challenge to Citizen United and the adverse impact that decision has had on our democratic election practices?

First you would need to demonstrate actual harm and since CU is beneficial to all parties, I seriously doubt you could do that.

 

[OKTexas]

Concerning the Citizen United case--

How do we know which corporations are "American" and which are not?

Is it possible for a foreign entity to take over an American corporation and use it to influence our government?

Are there regulations in place to prevent foreign corporations from influencing our elections/government?

I have more questions, but these seems to trouble me the most.
Note: Americans in control of American Corporations that influence our government seems to be the least of our worries!!

That's up to the FEC to sort out.

 

[amrchaos]

Concerning the Citizen United case--

How do we know which corporations are "American" and which are not?

Is it possible for a foreign entity to take over an American corporation and use it to influence our government?

Are there regulations in place to prevent foreign corporations from influencing our elections/government?

I have more questions, but these seems to trouble me the most.
Note: Americans in control of American Corporations that influence our government seems to be the least of our worries!!

That's up to the FEC to sort out.

So, I need to ask the FEC....

 

[OKTexas]

Concerning the Citizen United case--

How do we know which corporations are "American" and which are not?

Is it possible for a foreign entity to take over an American corporation and use it to influence our government?

Are there regulations in place to prevent foreign corporations from influencing our elections/government?

I have more questions, but these seems to trouble me the most.
Note: Americans in control of American Corporations that influence our government seems to be the least of our worries!!

That's up to the FEC to sort out.

So, I need to ask the FEC....

The Federal Election Commission is responsible for investigating election improprieties. Foreign contributions are banned by law. You think someone is fudging report them, they'll sort it out, if it's not going to a dem. If it's dem like the hildabeast getting it, she's safe so long as maobama is in the white house.

 

[BULLDOG]

Actually, I'm not too sure that the majority within the SCOTUS has really made a "left turn".....but just for argument sake, given Roberts and Kennedy's more objective (and less partisan) rulings, would this be a good time to bring up a challenge to Citizen United and the adverse impact that decision has had on our democratic election practices?

First you would need to demonstrate actual harm and since CU is beneficial to all parties, I seriously doubt you could do that.

How exactly does it benefit the average American.

 

[sarahgop]

SCOTUS might be leaning more progressive on social issues, but it is clearly on the side of corporate America on the economic front. I am convinced that when same-sex marriage issues are over, they will show their real agenda.

LOL. Obamacare transforms the nation. Only the weak minded will beg roberts for a few crumbs after this. He is an asswipe no matter what he does from now on.

 

[nat4900]

First you would need to demonstrate actual harm and since CU is beneficial to all parties, I seriously doubt you could do that.

Whether CU is "beneficial" to both parties is not the issue; rather, the issue should be whether CU is adversely impacting on the [now legal] open corruption and bribery of elected officials. Unions and Koch Industries pour their millions into he electoral processes not because of altruism but because they believe in the quid pro quo syndrome......both entities are "buying" influence and since their pockets are much deeper than the average voter, their "voice" is also louder than the common voter,

 

[PratchettFan]

SCOTUS might be leaning more progressive on social issues, but it is clearly on the side of corporate America on the economic front. I am convinced that when same-sex marriage issues are over, they will show their real agenda.

Might be leaning more progressive on social issues - do they have the CONSTITUTIONAL AUTHORITY to do so?

Yes, they do. Maybe if you actually read the Constitution you might not have to ask such questions.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually, I'm not too sure that the majority within the SCOTUS has really made a "left turn".....but just for argument sake, given Roberts and Kennedy's more objective (and less partisan) rulings, would this be a good time to bring up a challenge to Citizen United and the adverse impact that decision has had on our democratic election practices?

First you would need to demonstrate actual harm and since CU is beneficial to all parties, I seriously doubt you could do that.

How exactly does it benefit the average American.

Not the question, how does it harm anyone physically or financially.

 

[BULLDOG]

Actually, I'm not too sure that the majority within the SCOTUS has really made a "left turn".....but just for argument sake, given Roberts and Kennedy's more objective (and less partisan) rulings, would this be a good time to bring up a challenge to Citizen United and the adverse impact that decision has had on our democratic election practices?

First you would need to demonstrate actual harm and since CU is beneficial to all parties, I seriously doubt you could do that.

How exactly does it benefit the average American.

Not the question, how does it harm anyone physically or financially.

That is exactly the question. You said it was beneficial to all parties, so I asked how. Either answer the question, or quit saying stupid stuff.

 

[OKTexas]

First you would need to demonstrate actual harm and since CU is beneficial to all parties, I seriously doubt you could do that.

Whether CU is "beneficial" to both parties is not the issue; rather, the issue should be whether CU is adversely impacting on the [now legal] open corruption and bribery of elected officials. Unions and Koch Industries pour their millions into he electoral processes not because of altruism but because they believe in the quid pro quo syndrome......both entities are "buying" influence and since their pockets are much deeper than the average voter, their "voice" is also louder than the common voter,

Sorry, influence peddling is still illegal, prove it and you have a case on other grounds, not the CU decision.

 

[OKTexas]

Actually, I'm not too sure that the majority within the SCOTUS has really made a "left turn".....but just for argument sake, given Roberts and Kennedy's more objective (and less partisan) rulings, would this be a good time to bring up a challenge to Citizen United and the adverse impact that decision has had on our democratic election practices?

First you would need to demonstrate actual harm and since CU is beneficial to all parties, I seriously doubt you could do that.

How exactly does it benefit the average American.

Not the question, how does it harm anyone physically or financially.

That is exactly the question. You said it was beneficial to all parties, so I asked how. Either answer the question, or quit saying stupid stuff.

No, in order to have standing to sue you must demonstrate harm, not a lack of benefit.

 

[BULLDOG]

Actually, I'm not too sure that the majority within the SCOTUS has really made a "left turn".....but just for argument sake, given Roberts and Kennedy's more objective (and less partisan) rulings, would this be a good time to bring up a challenge to Citizen United and the adverse impact that decision has had on our democratic election practices?

First you would need to demonstrate actual harm and since CU is beneficial to all parties, I seriously doubt you could do that.

How exactly does it benefit the average American.

Not the question, how does it harm anyone physically or financially.

That is exactly the question. You said it was beneficial to all parties, so I asked how. Either answer the question, or quit saying stupid stuff.

No, in order to have standing to sue you must demonstrate harm, not a lack of benefit.

I'm not trying to establish standing to sue. I'm asking you to back up your claim. Obviously, you can't do that, so you try to misdirect the discussion.