Supreme Court Drop-Kicks McCain/Feingold, Scores Victory for 1st Amendment;

[Craig234]

I went to see if it was the same corrupt 5-4 voting that has dominated the court for years,with the same four right-wing radicals trashing our consitution when they get their enabler, Kenedy.

It was.

An issue that threatens our democracy, decided by the same 5-4 vote, the same people.

This is the fruition, in large part, of the disaster I warned of if Alito and Roberts were confirmed.

 

[highland145]

Another decision that breaks purely along ideological lines. Does it just seem like the nation is as polarized as ever?

The AFL-CIO supported this decision also.

 

[Carmen813]

I disagree with the notion that this was hampering "free speech." As far as I know, this legislation did nothing to prevent a corporation from telling its employees to sponsor a certain candidate, or organizing a rally, taking out an ad in a paper, or mailing people something or any other actual speech. There was nothing, as far as I know, stopping members of a corporation from donating to a candidate (though they are limitations on how much). Maybe I'm wrong about the ad in the paper.

What it did do was prevent companies/unions from deluging the air waves with so much noise as to quiet any dissent. That in fact accomplishes the exact opposite of what the first amendment was supposed to do.

If you think elections and politicians are corrupt now...well, I just fail to see how any good can possibly come from this decision.

It's not even as if this should be a Liberal/Conservative thing because both sides already get so much money from special interests.

You know that old cliche about the golden rule? Whoever has the gold makes the rules...

 

[Craig234]

Nope, every one of our voices just became immeasurably smaller. This is a loss for every American.

+1. 5-4. One vote that wasn't corrupt. One election not stolen by Bush, or even 275 votes reversed in Florida, and our democracy would not have been trashed by this. It'd be funny if it weren't so damaging.

 

[Mursilis]

Nope, every one of our voices just became immeasurably smaller. This is a loss for every American.

You're one person in a nation of ~300 million people. Your voice was already practically pointless.

 

[Craig234]

You're one person in a nation of ~300 million people. Your voice was already practically pointless.

The voices of 300 million people, as the rulers of this nation, were just greatly outshouted by the corporatocracy. The corpotocracy has very deep pockets to spend to defeat the public.

 

[spidey07]

The voices of 300 million people, as the rulers of this nation, were just greatly outshouted by the corporatocracy. The corpotocracy has very deep pockets to spend to defeat the public.

Yes, we get it. Corporations are bad according to you because they are being all corporationy.

You moron, this was a ruling to uphold YOUR VOICE and others that share a desire to protect your common interests. Fucking communist.

 

[Blackjack200]

I went to see if it was the same corrupt 5-4 voting that has dominated the court for years,with the same four right-wing radicals trashing our consitution when they get their enabler, Kenedy.

It was.

An issue that threatens our democracy, decided by the same 5-4 vote, the same people.

This is the fruition, in large part, of the disaster I warned of if Alito and Roberts were confirmed.

Alito and Roberts are ideologues, Bush was going to stack the SCOTUS as much as he could so I don't think it really mattered who he put in there. Remember Harriet Meyers?

Also, I like how these 5 justices have no problem changing laws and legislating from the bench when it suits their interests. Yet another hollow talking point. Good job.

 

[Craig234]

These four lying radicals, who said they were 'conservatives' who strongly supported 'stare decises' but have consistently had high rates of ignoring precedent, again overturned a previous ruling here.

 

[ccbadd]

Yes, we get it. Corporations are bad according to you because they are being all corporationy.

You moron, this was a ruling to uphold YOUR VOICE and others that share a desire to protect your common interests. Fucking communist.

He's just pissed that the "Union Advantage" was just shit canned.

 

[Blackjack200]

You're one person in a nation of ~300 million people. Your voice was already practically pointless.

I share interests with most of those other 300 million much more than I share interests with large corporations.

 

[Craig234]

Alito and Roberts are ideologues, Bush was going to stack the SCOTUS as much as he could so I don't think it really mattered who he put in there. Remember Harriet Meyers?

Also, I like how these 5 justices have no problem changing laws and legislating from the bench when it suits their interests. Yet another hollow talking point. Good job.

I'm not sure what you're saying - I agree with what you said.On our second point, funny enogh look at my post just following yours, posted concurrently.

 

[Carmen813]

Yes, we get it. Corporations are bad according to you because they are being all corporationy.

You moron, this was a ruling to uphold YOUR VOICE and others that share a desire to protect your common interests. Fucking communist.

Could you explain how? I'm being serious because I don't see how any good comes from this.

From the AP article:
"The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states."

So I'm not sure how this hurts labor unions. I'm not really for them getting more of a say either.

 

[ccbadd]

Alito and Roberts are ideologues, Bush was going to stack the SCOTUS as much as he could so I don't think it really mattered who he put in there. Remember Harriet Meyers?

Also, I like how these 5 justices have no problem changing laws and legislating from the bench when it suits their interests. Yet another hollow talking point. Good job.

What?? The ruling overturns part of a bad law, exactly what the courts were meant to do. You need to learn what "legislating from the bench" is before making such ridiculous statements.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

The voices of 300 million people, as the rulers of this nation, were just greatly outshouted by the corporatocracy. The corpotocracy has very deep pockets to spend to defeat the public.

Instead of whining about some BS about being sold out or other such nonsense, why don't you push them to write a law that will conform to the Constitution since M/F did not. It was quite clear it was not Constitutional and from what I heard commented on - Even Stevens opinion was about implications instead of the merits. Implications be damned - the USSC is not about the implication/implementation(or atleast is should not be) - it's supposed to be about the Constitutionality of said law/action.

So, while I do not support McFien - I would support a Constitutional version of Campaign finance law that would address some of your whining Craig.

 

[Infohawk]

The sky isn't falling. The democratization of publishing continues as the internet pushes on. Fewer and fewer people are watching network TV. Going forward it seems like it will be more important to have smart political marketing as opposed to expensive political TV marketing.

 

[CADsortaGUY]

What?? The ruling overturns part of a bad law, exactly what the courts were meant to do. You need to learn what "legislating from the bench" is before making such ridiculous statements.

Exactly, the morons leftists here just can not understand that the USSC is supposed to rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of things. Clearly McFien did not conform and we knew that the day it was passed(atleast some of us did). The point here is that a better law that follows the Constitution needs to be written to address some of the problems in our campaign laws.

 

[Mursilis]

The voices of 300 million people, as the rulers of this nation, were just greatly outshouted by the corporatocracy. The corpotocracy has very deep pockets to spend to defeat the public.

I'm confused - did 300 million people just lose the right to vote? Can corporations vote now?

 

[Blackjack200]

What?? The ruling overturns part of a bad law, exactly what the courts were meant to do. You need to learn what "legislating from the bench" is before making such ridiculous statements.

I know what it means. When one group does it, it's "legislating from the bench". When another group does it, it's "overturning a bad law".

Not hard to figure out what's going on here.

 

[Craig234]

I'm confused - did 300 million people just lose the right to vote? Can corporations vote now?

You have crossed the line to idiocy. Ask the question again with a hint of intellectual honesty if you want a response.

 

[Blackjack200]

Exactly, the morons leftists here just can not understand that the USSC is supposed to rule on the CONSTITUTIONALITY of things. Clearly McFien did not conform and we knew that the day it was passed(atleast some of us did). The point here is that a better law that follows the Constitution needs to be written to address some of the problems in our campaign laws.

This is clear only to a myopic few. Note again the ideological split in the SCOTUS decision. If it was so clear, it would have been a unanimous.

 

[Craig234]

Instead of whining about some BS about being sold out or other such nonsense, why don't you push them to write a law that will conform to the Constitution since M/F did not. It was quite clear it was not Constitutional and from what I heard commented on - Even Stevens opinion was about implications instead of the merits. Implications be damned - the USSC is not about the implication/implementation(or atleast is should not be) - it's supposed to be about the Constitutionality of said law/action.

So, while I do not support McFien - I would support a Constitutional version of Campaign finance law that would address some of your whining Craig.

Your entry into the idiot of the thread contest is received.

"The Supreme Court has said the constitution gives the right to spend as much as they like funding campaigns."

CAD post: "If you want to ban corporations from donating to political campaigns just pass a law that's constitutiona,, this ruling is no problem".

 

[Brainonska511]

What?? The ruling overturns part of a bad law, exactly what the courts were meant to do. You need to learn what "legislating from the bench" is before making such ridiculous statements.

LOL, so it's only legislating from the bench and activist judges when it goes against your point of view.

 

[theeedude]

The sky isn't falling. The democratization of publishing continues as the internet pushes on. Fewer and fewer people are watching network TV. Going forward it seems like it will be more important to have smart political marketing as opposed to expensive political TV marketing.

Just wait till media companies take advantage of this ruling.

 

[highland145]

The decision was supported by corps and labor. If they agree on the same issue there is a problem, imo. I would rather have them at odds to try and keep each other straight.

No one has mentioned the financial implications of foreign owned corps dumping $$ into our elections. Thoughts?