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.
Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
Go learn what citizen's is about. You are babbling now. And no one wants your hand guns. That is simply a far right bogeyman.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
Why liberal Supreme court udges want to get rid of Union donations?
Not going to happen..
The Supreme court won't revist that case..
You will have more luck with a constitution amendment reversing the 2 nd amendment then that one. To many players are involved.
Indeed. The far right is trying to give money free speech while talking away votes from eligible citizens.Good. It's a constitutional abomination.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
Go learn what citizen's is about. You are babbling now. And no one wants your hand guns. That is simply a far right bogeyman.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
Why liberal Supreme court udges want to get rid of Union donations?
Not going to happen..
The Supreme court won't revist that case..
You will have more luck with a constitution amendment reversing the 2 nd amendment then that one. To many players are involved.
The SC's primary driver is consistency. The CU case is glaringly inconsistent with previous case law and a lot of people are itching to overturn it on that basis.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
Why liberal Supreme court udges want to get rid of Union donations?
Not going to happen..
The Supreme court won't revist that case..
You will have more luck with a constitution amendment reversing the 2 nd amendment then that one.
To many players are involved.
Of course they do. They split hair's all the time. Citizen's is on the chopping block if HRC is appointed. And when that is over turned, as it will be, if HRC is elected, then a new McCain-Feingold bill will be passed. Corporations can be consider "people" for tax purposes but not for civil rights is the point that will be made and adopted. Easily.No you dumb ass read about the ruling.. Its already been decided by the supreme court .. Tell me when the Supremes revist a major ruling ?Go learn what citizen's is about. You are babbling now. And no one wants your hand guns. That is simply a far right bogeyman.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
Why liberal Supreme court udges want to get rid of Union donations?
Not going to happen..
The Supreme court won't revist that case..
You will have more luck with a constitution amendment reversing the 2 nd amendment then that one. To many players are involved.
Indeed. The far right is trying to give money free speech while talking away votes from eligible citizens.Good. It's a constitutional abomination.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
Of course they do. They split hair's all the time. Citizen's is on the chopping block if HRC is appointed. And when that is over turned, as it will be, if HRC is elected, then a new McCain-Feingold bill will be passed. Corporations can be consider "people" for tax purposes but not for civil rights is the point that will be made and adopted. Easily.No you dumb ass read about the ruling.. Its already been decided by the supreme court .. Tell me when the Supremes revist a major ruling ?Go learn what citizen's is about. You are babbling now. And no one wants your hand guns. That is simply a far right bogeyman.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
Why liberal Supreme court udges want to get rid of Union donations?
Not going to happen..
The Supreme court won't revist that case..
You will have more luck with a constitution amendment reversing the 2 nd amendment then that one. To many players are involved.
The SC's primary driver is consistency. The CU case is glaringly inconsistent with previous case law and a lot of people are itching to overturn it on that basis.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
Why liberal Supreme court udges want to get rid of Union donations?
Not going to happen..
The Supreme court won't revist that case..
You will have more luck with a constitution amendment reversing the 2 nd amendment then that one.
To many players are involved.
It doesn't matter which entities are making the contributions, it matters only that, based on past rulings, they don't have the right to be considered citizens so that they can make those contributions.
Hit a never.So mother fucker Jake the ass hole fake...Riddle me this? Which cases are now in the lower courts against citizens United?Indeed. The far right is trying to give money free speech while talking away votes from eligible citizens.Good. It's a constitutional abomination.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
You have no idea, do you? You will by spring next year.
One challenge might be over corporate entitlement to personhood with respect to civil rights.It first has to go through the lower courts..
So specify which challenge?
Be specific and not a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows
Hit a never.So mother fucker Jake the ass hole fake...Riddle me this? Which cases are now in the lower courts against citizens United?Indeed. The far right is trying to give money free speech while talking away votes from eligible citizens.Good. It's a constitutional abomination.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
One challenge might be over corporate entitlement to personhood with respect to civil rights.It first has to go through the lower courts..
So specify which challenge?
Be specific and not a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows
It was decided a hundred years ago that corporations do not enjoy Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Most recently, in 1988 the court ruled that the Fifth protects only the "right of a natural person, protecting the realm of human thought and expression." Only natural persons enjoy protection under the Fifth Amendment.
However, in CU, the court ruled that corporations enjoy the First Amendment right to express themselves the same as natural persons when it comes to making political contributions. The conservative court never did justify how they could be natural persons under the First Amendment after already having decided that they could not be natural persons under the Fifth Amendment.
Chew on that.
And why is that important? The SC isn't going anywhere.One challenge might be over corporate entitlement to personhood with respect to civil rights.It first has to go through the lower courts..
So specify which challenge?
Be specific and not a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows
It was decided a hundred years ago that corporations do not enjoy Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Most recently, in 1988 the court ruled that the Fifth protects only the "right of a natural person, protecting the realm of human thought and expression." Only natural persons enjoy protection under the Fifth Amendment.
However, in CU, the court ruled that corporations enjoy the First Amendment right to express themselves the same as natural persons when it comes to making political contributions. The conservative court never did justify how they could be natural persons under the First Amendment after already having decided that they could not be natural persons under the Fifth Amendment.
Chew on that.
I am asking you also which case is now in the lower courts?
And why is that important? The SC isn't going anywhere.One challenge might be over corporate entitlement to personhood with respect to civil rights.It first has to go through the lower courts..
So specify which challenge?
Be specific and not a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows
It was decided a hundred years ago that corporations do not enjoy Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Most recently, in 1988 the court ruled that the Fifth protects only the "right of a natural person, protecting the realm of human thought and expression." Only natural persons enjoy protection under the Fifth Amendment.
However, in CU, the court ruled that corporations enjoy the First Amendment right to express themselves the same as natural persons when it comes to making political contributions. The conservative court never did justify how they could be natural persons under the First Amendment after already having decided that they could not be natural persons under the Fifth Amendment.
Chew on that.
I am asking you also which case is now in the lower courts?
I'll also put your mind at ease and affirm that the sun will appear to rise from the eastern horizon tomorrow.And why is that important? The SC isn't going anywhere.One challenge might be over corporate entitlement to personhood with respect to civil rights.It first has to go through the lower courts..
So specify which challenge?
Be specific and not a fantasy world of unicorns and rainbows
It was decided a hundred years ago that corporations do not enjoy Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. Most recently, in 1988 the court ruled that the Fifth protects only the "right of a natural person, protecting the realm of human thought and expression." Only natural persons enjoy protection under the Fifth Amendment.
However, in CU, the court ruled that corporations enjoy the First Amendment right to express themselves the same as natural persons when it comes to making political contributions. The conservative court never did justify how they could be natural persons under the First Amendment after already having decided that they could not be natural persons under the Fifth Amendment.
Chew on that.
I am asking you also which case is now in the lower courts?
Check...
No court case..
Thanks for affirming that.
HL is a poor deflection. It will be revisited and narrowed. You love to drama, don't you? You are wrong, get over it.Just like hobby lobby? Damn Jake you have a dildo up your ass about this? Again what case drama queen?Hit a never.So mother fucker Jake the ass hole fake...Riddle me this? Which cases are now in the lower courts against citizens United?Indeed. The far right is trying to give money free speech while talking away votes from eligible citizens.Good. It's a constitutional abomination.Citizen's United is in the bull's eye if HRC is elected.
NoneBtw Looney tunes, did you guys bother to ask yourselves if they revisit this. case ...
And ruled against company's And unions..
How many jobs will be lost?
Again which case?
Or are you guys just having mental masturbation moments and more Jake the flack stuff?
