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

[BlindBoo]

Any jump to the left will be followed by a step to the right....

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I've been exactly on point with the OP, you might want to read it again, it's about challenging CU.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I've been exactly on point with the OP, you might want to read it again, it's about challenging CU.

Typical. You state a lie , then hide from it.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I've been exactly on point with the OP, you might want to read it again, it's about challenging CU.

Typical. You state a lie , then hide from it.

God you're one ignorant fucker, I stated facts, I'm not hiding from shit. you're just too stupid to stay on point and then try to accuse me of misdirecting the discussion. Fuck off.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I've been exactly on point with the OP, you might want to read it again, it's about challenging CU.

Typical. You state a lie , then hide from it.

God you're one ignorant fucker, I stated facts, I'm not hiding from shit. you're just too stupid to stay on point and then try to accuse me of misdirecting the discussion. Fuck off.

Look dumbass You said

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

That is your direct quote that I am questioning. Either answer that or admit you lied.

 

[PratchettFan]

Any jump to the left will be followed by a step to the right....

That's just the beginning. In the end, it all leads to a pelvic thrust. A slippery slope.

 

[BULLDOG]

Any jump to the left will be followed by a step to the right....

That's just the beginning. In the end, it all leads to a pelvic thrust. A slippery slope.

Only a slippery slope if you are doing it right.

 

[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?

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

No, , they don't. Maybe if you actually read the Constitution you wouldn't make asinine statements.

 

[PratchettFan]

Any jump to the left will be followed by a step to the right....

That's just the beginning. In the end, it all leads to a pelvic thrust. A slippery slope.

Only a slippery slope if you are doing it right.

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.

No, , they don't. Maybe if you actually read the Constitution you wouldn't make asinine statements.

Large fonts don't make you right. Article 3 Section 2.

"The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;..."

Seriously, if you want to talk about the Constitution at least make an attempt to find out what's in it.

 

[OKTexas]

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.

I've been exactly on point with the OP, you might want to read it again, it's about challenging CU.

Typical. You state a lie , then hide from it.

God you're one ignorant fucker, I stated facts, I'm not hiding from shit. you're just too stupid to stay on point and then try to accuse me of misdirecting the discussion. Fuck off.

Look dumbass You said

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

That is your direct quote that I am questioning. Either answer that or admit you lied.

It's simple, well maybe not for the simple minded, everyone has the opportunity to donate to the organizations they support to their hearts desire and those organizations can produce ads all the way up to election time. Everyone and all political parties benefit equally. If you can't demonstrate harm, you have no standing to challenge the decision, period end of story.

 

[BlindBoo]

Any jump to the left will be followed by a step to the right....

That's just the beginning. In the end, it all leads to a pelvic thrust. A slippery slope.

Opps, you forgot to put your hands on your hips

 

[PratchettFan]

Any jump to the left will be followed by a step to the right....

That's just the beginning. In the end, it all leads to a pelvic thrust. A slippery slope.

Opps, you forgot to put your hands on your hips

Oh, I did. And pulled my knees in tight. But some things a man's got to do on his own. Now, the pelvic thrust.... that's a different story.

 

[BULLDOG]

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.

I've been exactly on point with the OP, you might want to read it again, it's about challenging CU.

Typical. You state a lie , then hide from it.

God you're one ignorant fucker, I stated facts, I'm not hiding from shit. you're just too stupid to stay on point and then try to accuse me of misdirecting the discussion. Fuck off.

Look dumbass You said

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

That is your direct quote that I am questioning. Either answer that or admit you lied.

It's simple, well maybe not for the simple minded, everyone has the opportunity to donate to the organizations they support to their hearts desire and those organizations can produce ads all the way up to election time. Everyone and all political parties benefit equally. If you can't demonstrate harm, you have no standing to challenge the decision, period end of story.

I know you are aware of the flaw in your silly diatribe, but I will repeat it again. That scheme gives unfair advantage to the wealthy. The average citizen can not equally participate in that form of "SPEECH", while the wealthy are free to BUY elections with their massive donations. In other words, it gives unfair advantage to a small amount of people whose control of elections is disproportionate to other voters.

 

[OKTexas]

I've been exactly on point with the OP, you might want to read it again, it's about challenging CU.

Typical. You state a lie , then hide from it.

God you're one ignorant fucker, I stated facts, I'm not hiding from shit. you're just too stupid to stay on point and then try to accuse me of misdirecting the discussion. Fuck off.

Look dumbass You said

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

That is your direct quote that I am questioning. Either answer that or admit you lied.

It's simple, well maybe not for the simple minded, everyone has the opportunity to donate to the organizations they support to their hearts desire and those organizations can produce ads all the way up to election time. Everyone and all political parties benefit equally. If you can't demonstrate harm, you have no standing to challenge the decision, period end of story.

I know you are aware of the flaw in your silly diatribe, but I will repeat it again. That scheme gives unfair advantage to the wealthy. The average citizen can not equally participate in that form of "SPEECH", while the wealthy are free to BUY elections with their massive donations. In other words, it gives unfair advantage to a small amount of people whose control of elections is disproportionate to other voters.

Poor wittle victim, how about you get together with a few million of your buddies, pool your money and you can play with Soros, unions and Koch's. No one is stopping you from forming your own political action committee and raising funds to espouse whatever propaganda you like. Ain't freedom great?

 

[BULLDOG]

Typical. You state a lie , then hide from it.

God you're one ignorant fucker, I stated facts, I'm not hiding from shit. you're just too stupid to stay on point and then try to accuse me of misdirecting the discussion. Fuck off.

Look dumbass You said

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

That is your direct quote that I am questioning. Either answer that or admit you lied.

It's simple, well maybe not for the simple minded, everyone has the opportunity to donate to the organizations they support to their hearts desire and those organizations can produce ads all the way up to election time. Everyone and all political parties benefit equally. If you can't demonstrate harm, you have no standing to challenge the decision, period end of story.

I know you are aware of the flaw in your silly diatribe, but I will repeat it again. That scheme gives unfair advantage to the wealthy. The average citizen can not equally participate in that form of "SPEECH", while the wealthy are free to BUY elections with their massive donations. In other words, it gives unfair advantage to a small amount of people whose control of elections is disproportionate to other voters.

Poor wittle victim, how about you get together with a few million of your buddies, pool your money and you can play with Soros, unions and Koch's. No one is stopping you from forming your own political action committee and raising funds to espouse whatever propaganda you like. Ain't freedom great?

It's not freedom if it is for sale to the highest bidder.

 

[OKTexas]

God you're one ignorant fucker, I stated facts, I'm not hiding from shit. you're just too stupid to stay on point and then try to accuse me of misdirecting the discussion. Fuck off.

Look dumbass You said

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

That is your direct quote that I am questioning. Either answer that or admit you lied.

It's simple, well maybe not for the simple minded, everyone has the opportunity to donate to the organizations they support to their hearts desire and those organizations can produce ads all the way up to election time. Everyone and all political parties benefit equally. If you can't demonstrate harm, you have no standing to challenge the decision, period end of story.

I know you are aware of the flaw in your silly diatribe, but I will repeat it again. That scheme gives unfair advantage to the wealthy. The average citizen can not equally participate in that form of "SPEECH", while the wealthy are free to BUY elections with their massive donations. In other words, it gives unfair advantage to a small amount of people whose control of elections is disproportionate to other voters.

Poor wittle victim, how about you get together with a few million of your buddies, pool your money and you can play with Soros, unions and Koch's. No one is stopping you from forming your own political action committee and raising funds to espouse whatever propaganda you like. Ain't freedom great?

It's not freedom if it is for sale to the highest bidder.

Poooooor baby, wait, wait











I think I feel a tear forming for ya, wait, wait
















Nope just something in my eye, so sad.

 

[nat4900]

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

War-profiteering companies pour a lot of [bribery] money into electing individuals who will repay the piper by pushing for aggressive stances by the US......and certainly we know that wars do harm "physically and mentally."

Further, congressional support of out-sourcing of jobs DOES financially harm all of us.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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.

See Articles III and VI.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

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,

It is true that the undue influence money has on the political process is a serious and significant problem that warrants debate and a solution.

But it was neither the role nor responsibility of the Citizens United Court to 'fix' the problem of money's undue influence in the political process, or afford to the people a 'solution.' It was the sole responsibility of the Court to determine if the solution the people enacted through force of regulatory law comports with First Amendment jurisprudence, where the Court indeed decided that it does not.

And it has always been the sole responsibility of the people to enact campaign finance reform that can pass Constitutional muster – that was the case before the ruling, and it remains the case now.

 

[OKTexas]

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

War-profiteering companies pour a lot of [bribery] money into electing individuals who will repay the piper by pushing for aggressive stances by the US......and certainly we know that wars do harm "physically and mentally."

Further, congressional support of out-sourcing of jobs DOES financially harm all of us.

Campaign finance is not the place to address those issues. Personally I would limit campaign donations to the area that a person represents, a member of the house could only get money from within their district, a senator from within their State and we would have term limits. But alas we must deal with what is and not what we wish.