John Paul Stevens and Ruth Bader Ginsberg likely on their way out.
I haven't seen enough from Sotomayor to have much of an opinion yet, but at least we'll be able to replace liberals with liberals. Alito scares me.
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- WH prepares for 2 possible SCOTUS vacs
WH prepares for 2 possible SCOTUS vacsFollow
I have to have judges that understand the spirit and purpose of law, yes. This campaign finance ruling shows me I won't find them on the conservative side.
If you believe that the courts shouldn't change policy, then you should actually share my pov. Except then you would make sense, and I understand that's not how you roll.
If you believe that the courts shouldn't change policy, then you should actually share my pov. Except then you would make sense, and I understand that's not how you roll.
Yeah, they basically fabricated a ruling based on nonexistant language in the Constitution, and it's going to take a frikking constitutional amendment to undo it.
Unless of course the conservatives WANT Venezuela and China and Russia to buy and sell our politicians. Which could be entirely possible, who knows.
Unless of course the conservatives WANT Venezuela and China and Russia to buy and sell our politicians. Which could be entirely possible, who knows.
publiusvarus wrote:
Cat,
As opposed to communists here in on our country? I'd rather have a capitalist country have more of a say in our govn than the commies that comprise hollywood and the labor unions.
Oh and Mcain Feingold was unconstitutional.
Edited, Feb 4th 2010 12:07pm by publiusvarus
Quote:
Unless of course the conservatives WANT Venezuela and China and Russia to buy and sell our politicians. Which could be entirely possible, who knows.
As opposed to communists here in on our country? I'd rather have a capitalist country have more of a say in our govn than the commies that comprise hollywood and the labor unions.
Oh and Mcain Feingold was unconstitutional.
Edited, Feb 4th 2010 12:07pm by publiusvarus
Varrus, you do realize that the US is the most right-wing country in the entire western hemisphere?
publiusvarus wrote:
Sweet,
Wouldn't be the first time the chi-coms have bought a US president; just ask slick willy.
Wouldn't be the first time the chi-coms have bought a US president; just ask slick willy.
publiusvarus wrote:
Cat,
As opposed to communists here in on our country? I'd rather have a capitalist country have more of a say in our govn than the commies that comprise hollywood and the labor unions.
Oh and Mcain Feingold was unconstitutional.
Edited, Feb 4th 2010 12:07pm by publiusvarus
Quote:
Unless of course the conservatives WANT Venezuela and China and Russia to buy and sell our politicians. Which could be entirely possible, who knows.
As opposed to communists here in on our country? I'd rather have a capitalist country have more of a say in our govn than the commies that comprise hollywood and the labor unions.
Oh and Mcain Feingold was unconstitutional.
Edited, Feb 4th 2010 12:07pm by publiusvarus
Yeah him. He also owns Citgo gas.
Quote:
As opposed to communists here in on our country? I'd rather have a capitalist country have more of a say in our govn than the commies that comprise hollywood and the labor unions.
This made me laugh, really. China, Russia and Venezuela are your choices to have more of a say in U.S. policies than U.S. citizens.
Wow. You lose.
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I don't get it. Are people more pissed that I expect a gringo to know foreign policy or that I expect varass to be anything other than a trite, thoughtless douche?
I'll admit both are naive, but what the hell. I'm wearing a skirt today. I can be a girl.
I'll admit both are naive, but what the hell. I'm wearing a skirt today. I can be a girl.
Knee-jerk reaction, probably. Mention Chavez, get rated.
Let's watch what happens!
Let's watch what happens!
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
I guess they're twitter fans.
The Glorious Atomicflea wrote:
varass to be anything other than a trite, thoughtless douche
He is so over the top he has to fake half of it just to get a reaction (or attempt to get a reaction). I swear he is the same person that wrote this: The Golden Girls: How One TV Show Turned A Generation Of American Boys Into Homosexuals (not to hijack the thread - like that never happens).
catwho wrote:
Yeah, they basically fabricated a ruling based on nonexistant language in the Constitution, and it's going to take a frikking constitutional amendment to undo it.
No. They responded to a campaign finance law passed relatively recently and decided that it went to far into the realm of infringing on free speech. Are you saying that the first amendment is "non-existent language"?
Quote:
Unless of course the conservatives WANT Venezuela and China and Russia to buy and sell our politicians. Which could be entirely possible, who knows.
The ruling in question specifically did not overturn the restrictions on foreign corporations involving themselves in campaign finance. How many times does this have to be pointed out? What's bizarre is that even though this statement has been debunked, and even though the Dems and White House have acknowledged that it is not true, it just keeps on being repeated as fact by those who apparently either didn't get the message, or find the falsehood too valuable a bit of rhetoric to abandon.
It is not true. Nothing in that ruling allows foreign corporations to contribute to political campaigns in the US. The only thing this ruling did was put for-profit businesses on the same free speech footing as non-profits and individuals. You're certainly free to disagree with the ruling, but it might help if you know what it actually was first...
Edited, Feb 4th 2010 11:55am by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
The question left open is how it applies to US subsidiaries of foreign corporations or foreign owned corporations that have their corporate identity within the US rather than abroad. Can Wanxiang America run political ads? Sony USA? Citgo is incorporated in the United States, headquartered in Texas. Can they run ads?
The question isn't as easy as "Can Russian Bear Widgets from Moscow run political ads in the US?"
The question isn't as easy as "Can Russian Bear Widgets from Moscow run political ads in the US?"
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
gbaji wrote:
The ruling in question specifically did not overturn the restrictions on foreign corporations involving themselves in campaign finance. How many times does this have to be pointed out?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
Jophiel wrote:
The question left open is how it applies to US subsidiaries of foreign corporations or foreign owned corporations that have their corporate identity within the US rather than abroad. Can Wanxiang America run political ads? Sony USA? Citgo is incorporated in the United States, headquartered in Texas. Can they run ads?
I'm quite sure there are vastly more complex questions in our legal system than at what point a corporation is defined as "foreign" within this context, yet we manage to figure them out. It's not like those corporations are running for president or anything. Then, we might have to worry about the lack of methods to determine their status. ;)
Quote:
The question isn't as easy as "Can Russian Bear Widgets from Moscow run political ads in the US?"
Yeah. It kinda is. They have very specific designations which affect their tax categories, what sorts of properties they can buy, whether they are affected by export compliance laws, etc. You're talking about a trivial categorization as though it's some monumental legal task.
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
publiusvarus wrote:
Ugly,
[quote]I don't know. How long did "death pannels" run for? Stop whinning. Your side is equally bad for the same sh*t.[quote]
Here we go with the "you're party does it to" nonsense. When are liberals going to learn that copying bad behaviour doesn't make it acceptable because some other guy may have done it?
[quote]I don't know. How long did "death pannels" run for? Stop whinning. Your side is equally bad for the same sh*t.[quote]
Here we go with the "you're party does it to" nonsense. When are liberals going to learn that copying bad behaviour doesn't make it acceptable because some other guy may have done it?
Donate. One day it could be your family.
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo
publiusvarus wrote:
Ugly,
[quote]I don't know. How long did "death pannels" run for? Stop whinning. Your side is equally bad for the same sh*t.[quote]
Here we go with the "you're party does it to" nonsense. When are liberals going to learn that copying bad behaviour doesn't make it acceptable because some other guy may have done it?
[quote]I don't know. How long did "death pannels" run for? Stop whinning. Your side is equally bad for the same sh*t.[quote]
Here we go with the "you're party does it to" nonsense. When are liberals going to learn that copying bad behaviour doesn't make it acceptable because some other guy may have done it?
Uglysasquatch, Mercenary Major wrote:
gbaji wrote:
The ruling in question specifically did not overturn the restrictions on foreign corporations involving themselves in campaign finance. How many times does this have to be pointed out?
At least "death panels" was just a stretched interpretation of the whole "Government will set standards which doctors should follow when making life extending medical decisions and which may affect which choices will receive funding" bit. An exaggeration for effect? Sure. But it's not like the health care bill specifically forbade any government regulations or standards which might possibly be interpreted in a way as to encourage doctors to suggest end-of-life choices or insurers to fund those instead of life-extending procedures, and they just decided to lie and say that there were.
That's more or less exactly the case here. The Supreme Court specifically left the ban on Foreign business involvement in political campaigns intact, yet the whole "Now foreign businesses will be able to buy our elections!!!" argument appeared immediately and has been repeated ever since. It's not an exaggeration of the ruling, it's not a reasonable fear of what might arise as a result of the ruling, it's something which is 100% the opposite of what the ruling said.
So no. Not really the same at all.
Edited, Feb 4th 2010 1:09pm by gbaji
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Recent Visitors: 521
All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (521)
- Forums
- Cross Site
- The Asylum
- WH prepares for 2 possible SCOTUS vacs
© 2024 Fanbyte LLC