The Supreme Court Shows It True Color. Green.

#4
#4
LOSER:

-Civility and truthfulness. Watch out candidates: You may not like what you hear. And there will be little you can do about it. Both Republicans and Democrats say ads are likely to get tougher now that outside groups can expressly advocate for or against candidates. And it will be up to voters to sort through the clutter.
Click to expand...

:lolabove:

I must have missed the part about political ads being civil and truthful under McCain/Feingold.
 
#6
#6
orangeblooded2 said:
Utter Stupidity. Unfathomable consequences. General, pointed disregard for the will of the American People.


Concern voiced by both parties.



Reaction: Supreme Court's campaign finance ruling - washingtonpost.com
Click to expand...

The Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated from political pressures so they can uphold the Constitution - although their job in that area has been less than stellar to say the least. I would be more upset if they were influenced by the will of the American people when making their decision.
 
#7
#7
Ya I understand limiting direct "donations" to a candidate, but to limit what a company/person/whoever can do to express their opinion, even by advertisements is overstepping the constitution and our right to express ourselves.
 
#8
#8
paul1454 said:
The Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated from political pressures so they can uphold the Constitution - although their job in that area has been less than stellar to say the least. I would be more upset if they were influenced by the will of the American people when making their decision.
Click to expand...


^^^^
A distinctly liberal, even progressive, view of the role of the Court.

The far right frequently cites what the majority of the uneducated bubbas want the law to be as some sort of moral authority to play a role in the ultimate outcome of a pending case or issue. One of my least favorite characteristics of the radioheads and Fox-type thinkers is that we live in a pure democracy (little "d"). Really makes you wonder when that insipid Fox & Friends bunch asks for people to call or text in their vote on how the Court should rule.
 
#9
#9
paul1454 said:
The Supreme Court is supposed to be insulated from political pressures so they can uphold the Constitution - although their job in that area has been less than stellar to say the least. I would be more upset if they were influenced by the will of the American people when making their decision.
Click to expand...

The Court sold it's soul in 2000 in regards to political influence. The last sentence is at the least Anti-American and at the most a statement of someone who conformed to an authority "above" the people a long, long time ago.
 
#10
#10
orangeblooded2 said:
The Court sold it's soul in 2000 in regards to political influence. The last sentence is at the least Anti-American and at the most a statement of someone who conformed to an authority "above" the people a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...

how is it anti-American when it's pretty much the definition of their job?
 
#12
#12
orangeblooded2 said:
If you are saying that it is "American".......Then I accept the label Uber-American.
Click to expand...

great explanation!

Again, why should the will of the people influence their interpretation of the law? At that point we might as well just put it up for a vote and be done with the SC.
 
#13
#13
orangeblooded2 said:
The Court sold it's soul in 2000 in regards to political influence. The last sentence is at the least Anti-American and at the most a statement of someone who conformed to an authority "above" the people a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...


If by "above the people" you mean ruling based on the law and not the popular will of the moment, you are absolutely right. And that's the way it should be. Thank God, for the most part, is.
 
#14
#14
Here is a WSJ article on the decision.

President Barack Obama called the decision a victory for big oil, Wall Street and other interests, and said he would work with lawmakers to craft a "forceful response."
Click to expand...

What a misleading load of BS, he owes his postion to Wall St and the likes!!!!!!

BTW, McCain-Feingold helped pave the way for this decision.

The old switcheroo play where the conservatives are cast as liberals and the liberals cast as conservatives in which the truly moneyed people of politics seem to be for the little guy and vice versa.

How often have I seen that happen since I first became interested in politics??
 
#15
#15
orangeblooded2 said:
The Court sold it's soul in 2000 in regards to political influence. The last sentence is at the least Anti-American and at the most a statement of someone who conformed to an authority "above" the people a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...


So you think judges should be able to make their own laws based on their perception of what the people want - even if it goes against the Constiution? That's not how our government is set up. The Supreme Court is supposed to enforce and uphold the Constitution (of course, this doesn't always happen in practice). If the people want something to change within that context -they don't get the Supreme Court to change the law by misreading the Constitution - they write their legislatures and muster the votes needed to amend it.

EDIT: And to say that a desire to uphold the Constitution is Anti-American? I just can't fathom that notion.
 
Last edited:
#16
#16
utvolpj said:
great explanation!

Again, why should the will of the people influence their interpretation of the law? At that point we might as well just put it up for a vote and be done with the SC.
Click to expand...

I understand your point. However the people still have the last option for reversing this decision. Whether they have the will is debatable.
 
#17
#17
orangeblooded2 said:
I understand your point. However the people still have the last option for reversing this decision. Whether they have the will is debatable.
Click to expand...

so you want an amendment to the Constitution to deal with campaign finance? Seriously?
 
#18
#18
gsvol said:
The old switcheroo play where the conservatives are cast as liberals and the liberals cast as conservatives in which the truly moneyed people of politics seem to be for the little guy and vice versa.
Click to expand...


I have absolutely no problem with this as fact.
 
#19
#19
orangeblooded2 said:
The Court sold it's soul in 2000 in regards to political influence. The last sentence is at the least Anti-American and at the most a statement of someone who conformed to an authority "above" the people a long, long time ago.
Click to expand...

who was President in the year 2000?
 
#20
#20
FYI.



Yesterday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.

It's a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.

While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens.

Please add your name right away to help show that the American people support strong, urgent action to prevent a corporate takeover of our democracy.

Congress: I support bold action to ensure fair elections.


Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Add Your Voice

The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent saying that corporations could not pay for campaign ads from their general treasuries. And it struck down a law saying corporations couldn't buy "issue ads" -- which only thinly veil support for or opposition to specific candidates -- in the closing days of campaigns.

The result? Corporations can unleash multi-million-dollar ad barrages against candidates who try to curb special interest power, or devote millions to propping up elected officials who back their schemes.

With no limits on their spending, big oil, Wall Street banks, and health insurance companies will try to drown out the voices of everyday Americans -- and Republicans seem ecstatic.

While opponents of change in Congress are praising this victory for special interests, President Obama has tasked his administration and Congress with identifying a fix to preserve our democracy -- and we need to show that the American people stand with him.

Add your name today:

Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Add Your Voice


Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
 
#21
#21
orangeblooded2 said:
FYI.



Yesterday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.

It's a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.

While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens.

Please add your name right away to help show that the American people support strong, urgent action to prevent a corporate takeover of our democracy.

Congress: I support bold action to ensure fair elections.


Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Add Your Voice

The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent saying that corporations could not pay for campaign ads from their general treasuries. And it struck down a law saying corporations couldn't buy "issue ads" -- which only thinly veil support for or opposition to specific candidates -- in the closing days of campaigns.

The result? Corporations can unleash multi-million-dollar ad barrages against candidates who try to curb special interest power, or devote millions to propping up elected officials who back their schemes.

With no limits on their spending, big oil, Wall Street banks, and health insurance companies will try to drown out the voices of everyday Americans -- and Republicans seem ecstatic.

While opponents of change in Congress are praising this victory for special interests, President Obama has tasked his administration and Congress with identifying a fix to preserve our democracy -- and we need to show that the American people stand with him.

Add your name today:

Organizing for America | BarackObama.com | Add Your Voice


Thanks,

Mitch

Mitch Stewart
Director
Organizing for America
Click to expand...

I thought liberals were for free speech?
 
#22
#22
This whole situation brings some memories of when The movie theaters and with the inclusion of early TV by some accounts used subliminal messages to gain an unfair advantage in trade and commerces.

How is the current situation any different other than it is the people who are responsible for not only trade and commerce. But for the Full functionality of Government to be able to have undue influences using the same tactics as subliminal messaging? (I am not talking about politicians. I am speaking of special interest).

The perception being special interest already has to much of a death grip on this country's politics.

If it takes a constitutional Amendment to stop this So be it. Although it did not take a constitutional Amendment to stop subliminal messages, which could if the same reasoning afforded by this court applies then it to is protected by the first amendment.
 
#23
#23
orangeblooded2 said:
This whole situation brings some memories of when The movie theaters and with the inclusion of early TV by some accounts used subliminal messages to gain an unfair advantage in trade and commerces.

How is the current situation any different other than it is the people who are responsible for not only trade and commerce. But for the Full functionality of Government to be able to have undue influences using the same tactics as subliminal messaging? (I am not talking about politicians. I am speaking of special interest).

The perception being special interest already has to much of a death grip on this country's politics.

If it takes a constitutional Amendment to stop this So be it. Although it did not take a constitutional Amendment to stop subliminal messages, which could if the same reasoning afforded by this court applies then it to is protected by the first amendment.
Click to expand...

Why should McCain/Feingold be put into law by changing the consitution? People or interest groups should be able to support or advertise for or against any candidate at anytime they want to.

And this notion that you can limit the amount that someone or some interest group donates to a candidate is ridiculous, some candidates will always find ways around these laws, so why not have that info out in the open?
 
#24
#24
The court did what the court is supposed to do - rule on the Constitutionality of the law.

They found it was not Constitutional.

Change the law, change the constitution, or change the court.
 
#25
#25
lawgator1 said:
^^^^
A distinctly liberal, even progressive, view of the role of the Court.

The far right frequently cites what the majority of the uneducated bubbas want the law to be as some sort of moral authority to play a role in the ultimate outcome of a pending case or issue. One of my least favorite characteristics of the radioheads and Fox-type thinkers is that we live in a pure democracy (little "d"). Really makes you wonder when that insipid Fox & Friends bunch asks for people to call or text in their vote on how the Court should rule.
Click to expand...

You're right - this is all about Fox News :blink:
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top