Proud fans of a 128-year old tradition

It is currently Sat Aug 30, 2014 3:11 am

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 12:12 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
We now have an activist supreme court, unless the definition of that phrase has changed.

We now have a decision that no matter your politics has made a huge decision that will adversely effect our elections and make democracy less a fact in America. Big business will now completely take over. No one will be able to get elected without their stamp of approval because they now can and will spend huge amounts to get their guys elected. While for years politicans have been unresponsive to Americans, they will surely now carry the water of those who get them elected. If you don't believe that, well just saying....

Thanks W for the activist court.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:30 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4151
Location: Zelienople, PA
How in the hell to get activist out of a court that simply says "There shall be no law infringing on free speech" means what it says.

I've said before Sub, jealousy is not a sound basis on which to build political views.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 3:37 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
How in the hell to get activist out of a court that simply says "There shall be no law infringing on free speech" means what it says.

ZM

Easy: the decision overruled 60 years worth of precedent. Can you say "shades of Earl Warren"?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4151
Location: Zelienople, PA
Willton wrote:
ZelieMike wrote:
How in the hell to get activist out of a court that simply says "There shall be no law infringing on free speech" means what it says.

ZM

Easy: the decision overruled 60 years worth of precedent. Can you say "shades of Earl Warren"?


No, it is directed at the McCain-Feingold act. I suppose you were happy with the Dred Scott decision as well. You know, maintaining precedent and all.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:45 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:
ZelieMike wrote:
How in the hell to get activist out of a court that simply says "There shall be no law infringing on free speech" means what it says.

ZM

Easy: the decision overruled 60 years worth of precedent. Can you say "shades of Earl Warren"?


No, it is directed at the McCain-Feingold act. I suppose you were happy with the Dred Scott decision as well. You know, maintaining precedent and all.

ZM

Of course I was not okay with Dred Scott. But I don't get angry at what I perceive to be judicial activism. I get angry when I see the Supreme Court render a decision that I believe is wrong.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 5:59 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
So the middle man is eliminated. Instead of companies and unions pumping money into PACs, they'll just give it directly to politicians. Should cut down on admin overhead.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 6:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Argentum wrote:
So the middle man is eliminated. Instead of companies and unions pumping money into PACs, they'll just give it directly to politicians. Should cut down on admin overhead.



Pretty much. The only way to totally remove special interests from the equation is totally public campaigns and I doubt that would withstand much of a legal challenge.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4151
Location: Zelienople, PA
Willton wrote:
Of course I was not okay with Dred Scott. But I don't get angry at what I perceive to be judicial activism. I get angry when I see the Supreme Court render a decision that I believe is wrong.


You are for censorship? Because that is what this is. Unless you are trying to imbue a corporation with some type of sentient behavior.

A corporation has a CEO and board. It has shareholders (for the most part) who they have to answer to. Do you REALLY think GE will give to one side or another to any great degree? With the size of their market and shareholders, about 1/2 of which they would be putting at risk?

Give me a break.

Free speech, especially political speech, is the very core of our country, and can't be F**ked with.

ZM

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:35 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:
Of course I was not okay with Dred Scott. But I don't get angry at what I perceive to be judicial activism. I get angry when I see the Supreme Court render a decision that I believe is wrong.


You are for censorship? Because that is what this is. Unless you are trying to imbue a corporation with some type of sentient behavior.

A corporation has a CEO and board. It has shareholders (for the most part) who they have to answer to. Do you REALLY think GE will give to one side or another to any great degree? With the size of their market and shareholders, about 1/2 of which they would be putting at risk?

Give me a break.

Free speech, especially political speech, is the very core of our country, and can't be F**ked with.

ZM

I reserve my right to form an opinion of the decision after I have actually read it. But at the outset, I am not comfortable with the notion that a legal fiction has the same rights as an actual person.

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 7:59 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5128
Location: Pittsburgh
ZelieMike wrote:
How in the hell to get activist out of a court that simply says "There shall be no law infringing on free speech" means what it says.

I've said before Sub, jealousy is not a sound basis on which to build political views.

ZM

By granting rights guaranteed to citizens to corporations, which are legal fictions. The Constitution describes a Republic, not a Plutocracy.

Perhaps it's time to go the way of Nascar. Instead of wearing those uncomfortable suits and ties to work, each member of Congress should wear a long sleeve shirt, long pants, and shoes bearing the logos of all of the corporations who own pieces of them. I look forward to the day when the Senator from, say, ADM yields the floor to the Senator from Microsoft.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:00 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5128
Location: Pittsburgh
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:
ZelieMike wrote:
How in the hell to get activist out of a court that simply says "There shall be no law infringing on free speech" means what it says.

ZM

Easy: the decision overruled 60 years worth of precedent. Can you say "shades of Earl Warren"?


No, it is directed at the McCain-Feingold act. I suppose you were happy with the Dred Scott decision as well. You know, maintaining precedent and all.

ZM

Bullshit. It overturns laws going back to before 1910.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:05 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5128
Location: Pittsburgh
ZelieMike wrote:
Willton wrote:
Of course I was not okay with Dred Scott. But I don't get angry at what I perceive to be judicial activism. I get angry when I see the Supreme Court render a decision that I believe is wrong.


You are for censorship? Because that is what this is. Unless you are trying to imbue a corporation with some type of sentient behavior.

Feel free to cite the clause in the Constitution which grants citizenship to corporations.

Quote:
A corporation has a CEO and board.

And every one of them enjoys freedom of speech.

Quote:
It has shareholders (for the most part) who they have to answer to.

Each of whom already enjoys freedom of speech.

Quote:
Do you REALLY think GE will give to one side or another to any great degree?

Yes, they will give a great deal more to whichever party they believe will serve their short term bottom line the best.

Quote:
With the size of their market and shareholders, about 1/2 of which they would be putting at risk?

Give me a break.

Free speech, especially political speech, is the very core of our country, and can't be F**ked with.

ZM

As I stated above, feel free to point out the clause of the Constitution which grants citizenship to corporations.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 8:41 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Thu May 08, 2008 9:17 pm
Posts: 1163
Are you arguing founder's intent?

Because if you are, I'd like to hear how the founder's anticipated multi-billion dollar corporations when they wrote the constitution.


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:04 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:18 pm
Posts: 5060
Location: Scotch Plains, NJ
Jeremy wrote:
Are you arguing founder's intent?

Because if you are, I'd like to hear how the founder's anticipated multi-billion dollar corporations when they wrote the constitution.

Ever heard of the East India Trading Company?

_________________
"For every complex problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong."
~H. L. Mencken


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 9:17 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 WWW  YIM  Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:24 pm
Posts: 4151
Location: Zelienople, PA
Since corporations are not sentient, they are not of interest here.

The laws as currently written by McCain-Feingold, the activating case here, are designed to restrict the PEOPLE of the corporation, or union, from binding and making a political statement. Unless you don't pay attention sisy, the right of assembly for free speech is protected as well.

Simply because, as I am seeing here, you dislike "Big" corporations, and I suppose, the people at the core, is no reason to limit their constitutional right "To assembly" for political statement.

The Legal fiction you cite does not make a political statement, a group of folks who make up that corporation and who might have a political view, were NOT allowed to make their statement under McCain Feingold, or whatever law you wish to posit from old. A 60 year old BAD law is a 60 year old BAD law, and needs to go.

_________________
Someone tell Votto... rbis are good


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 10:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:52 pm
Posts: 5128
Location: Pittsburgh
ZelieMike wrote:
Since corporations are not sentient, they are not of interest here.

No, no, no, that is ABSOLUTELY wrong. Corporations (and unions) are now free to spend as much as they want. That was NOT the case before this decision, and has not been true going back to 1903 (I think it was 1903, but sometime in that decade).

Quote:
The laws as currently written by McCain-Feingold, the activating case here, are designed to restrict the PEOPLE of the corporation, or union, from binding and making a political statement. Unless you don't pay attention sisy, the right of assembly for free speech is protected as well.

Simply because, as I am seeing here, you dislike "Big" corporations, and I suppose, the people at the core, is no reason to limit their constitutional right "To assembly" for political statement.

The fact is that I work for a big corporation, and I have no problem with big corporations. I DO have a problem finding the clause in the Constitution of the United States that grants citizenship to legal fiction. Obviously you're having the same problem, as I asked you twice to cite that clause, and you haven't done so.

Quote:
The Legal fiction you cite does not make a political statement, a group of folks who make up that corporation and who might have a political view, were NOT allowed to make their statement under McCain Feingold, or whatever law you wish to posit from old. A 60 year old BAD law is a 60 year old BAD law, and needs to go.

That group of folks were quite free to make any political statement they wanted before this decision. The only changes made by this decision was to grant citizenship to corporations.

_________________
"Enjoy every sandwich." - Warren Zevon


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Fri Jan 22, 2010 11:08 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
ZelieMike wrote:
How in the hell to get activist out of a court that simply says "There shall be no law infringing on free speech" means what it says.

I've said before Sub, jealousy is not a sound basis on which to build political views.

ZM


Most people would define judical activism as the court throwing away established law and creating new precedent. If that's even close to your understanding of judicial activism then that's what we got here.
Jealousy of what?

Just so I understand you, is it activism when the court agrees with a liberal position and not when it agrees with a conservative one? No, Mike you can say what you want, this is setting precedent which changes established law.

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 5:22 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 4:22 pm
Posts: 2495
So instead of Microsoft "asking" 100 Executives to "donate" $115k (maximum allowed under law)to say the SEIU, who in turn dole out the cash as required, Bill gates simply strokes a $11,500,000 to a few Representatives that would have gotten the money anyhow. The way I see it the means have changed but the end results are business as usual. Most politicians are already bought off, so the SC ruling probably just makes them richer by putting more cash into the buyoff pot.


Last edited by Argentum on Sat Jan 23, 2010 11:53 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Sat Jan 23, 2010 8:36 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 7:30 pm
Posts: 6215
I concur Argentum. :( :( :( :(


Top
 
 Post subject: Re: Supreme Court -- just saying...
PostPosted: Sun Jan 24, 2010 1:47 pm 
Offline
 Profile

Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2008 6:11 pm
Posts: 3364
Location: Wheeling, WV
Actually, it gets even worse. Foriegn corporations have a big stake in American laws too. So, they will now be free to buy any politican they want as well. American democracy and American middle class is totaly screwed. Before anyone denies that point, remember a corporation is a corporation is a ...

And I repeat Thank you W.-- nice appointments

_________________
2011 Will Be Our Year -- well make that 2012 (just saying) So it looks like 2013 now - how long must this go on!
THIS IS IT-- NO MORE STREAK!!! *** Finally*** Time to win it in 2014


Top
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 79 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 4 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group  
Design By Poker Bandits