PDA

View Full Version : The Radical RW Supreme Court.



Qtec
06-26-2012, 03:37 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Supreme Court Reverses Anti-Citizens United Ruling </div></div>

The so-called Conservatives reverse a 100 years of Law.

The GOP is up in arms..............NOT.

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-reversed-citzens-united-montana_n_1605355.html?utm_hp_ref=politics)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down Montana's <span style='font-size: 23pt'>century-old </span>limits on corporate political spending, putting an end to the state's resistance to Citizens United and effectively expanding that controversial ruling to the state and local elections.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided in January 2010, struck down federal limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions as violations of the First Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, reached the bold conclusion that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,</span>" and therefore "[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."

In December 2011, the Montana Supreme Court disagreed. It found that the state's Gilded Age history of business-driven corruption was sufficient to justify the state's Corrupt Practices Act. Passed by voter referendum in 1912, the law decrees that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party."

By summarily reversing the case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the justices refused to reconcile their sweeping statement of free speech principles in Citizens United with the real-world facts -- from Montana's history to today's super PACs -- put forward by Montana and its supporters to demonstrate that independent expenditures do, indeed, corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. Instead, the 5-4 majority, in an unsigned opinion, wrote that "[t]here can be no serious doubt" that Citizens United applies to Montana's law.

"Montana's arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case," the majority wrote.

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote to dissent from the summary reversal. "Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so," Breyer wrote. "Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case." </div></div>

Just shows how far removed these Republican Judges are removed from real life. Either that or they are corrupt.

Q

LWW
06-26-2012, 04:09 AM
Why do you hate liberty?

Gayle in MD
06-26-2012, 04:19 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> <div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Supreme Court Reverses Anti-Citizens United Ruling </div></div>

The so-called Conservatives reverse a 100 years of Law.

The GOP is up in arms..............NOT.

link (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/25/supreme-court-reversed-citzens-united-montana_n_1605355.html?utm_hp_ref=politics)

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">WASHINGTON -- The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday struck down Montana's <span style='font-size: 23pt'>century-old </span>limits on corporate political spending, putting an end to the state's resistance to Citizens United and effectively expanding that controversial ruling to the state and local elections.

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, decided in January 2010, struck down federal limits on campaign spending by corporations and unions as violations of the First Amendment. Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing on behalf of Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito, reached the bold conclusion that "independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, <span style='font-size: 20pt'>do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,</span>" and therefore "[n]o sufficient governmental interest justifies limits on the political speech of nonprofit or for-profit corporations."

In December 2011, the Montana Supreme Court disagreed. It found that the state's Gilded Age history of business-driven corruption was sufficient to justify the state's Corrupt Practices Act. Passed by voter referendum in 1912, the law decrees that a "corporation may not make ... an expenditure in connection with a candidate or a political party that supports or opposes a candidate or a political party."

By summarily reversing the case, American Tradition Partnership v. Bullock, the justices refused to reconcile their sweeping statement of free speech principles in Citizens United with the real-world facts -- from Montana's history to today's super PACs -- put forward by Montana and its supporters to demonstrate that independent expenditures do, indeed, corrupt or create the appearance of corruption. Instead, the 5-4 majority, in an unsigned opinion, wrote that "[t]here can be no serious doubt" that Citizens United applies to Montana's law.

"Montana's arguments in support of the judgment below either were already rejected in Citizens United, or fail to meaningfully distinguish that case," the majority wrote.

Justice Stephen Breyer, joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, wrote to dissent from the summary reversal. "Montana's experience, like considerable experience elsewhere since the Court's decision in Citizens United, casts grave doubt on the Court's supposition that independent expenditures do not corrupt or appear to do so," Breyer wrote. "Were the matter up to me, I would vote to grant the petition for certiorari in order to reconsider Citizens United or, at least, its application in this case." </div></div>

Just shows how far removed these Republican Judges are removed from real life. Either that or they are corrupt.

Q

</div></div>


That's why they have the lowest approval ratings by Americans, of any sitting Supreme Court in history! They are so partisan, and corrupt, it's pathetic.



Do they expect us to all believe that for over a century, all previous Supreme Courts, were denying First Amendment rights to corporations. Absurd.

This is exactly what our Founders worried about, and now, they have basically thrown the Founders and the Constitution, under their big bad bus, getting mighty crowded under there!

/forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

Soflasnapper
06-26-2012, 10:34 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you hate liberty? </div></div>

Could you be more of a hack?

What about states' rights? The 10th amendment?

What of the inherently conservative notion that 100 year long arrangements are obviously legal, let alone deserving a strong presumption of being left in place?

What about the PROVEN history of corruption in that state that caused this legislation in the first place?

Do you REALLY believe the SCOTUS theory in Citizens that there is no showing or likelihood of corruption or undue influence from allowing unlimited corporate monies into the political system?

Why DID Congress prohibit corporate and union money from the political system back in the earliest days of the 20th century? For no reason, except an urge to stifle free speech?

Remember, the Congress in those days was as bought and paid for as at any time. Still, they passed this prohibition because of the strong political pressures of the people, who had seen the corruption that ensues.

So, is unlearning the lessons of history now the conservative mantra?

A formerly respectable and critically important political viewpoint, conservatism, has utterly betrayed its own integrity and the needs of the country, at the worst possible time.

Repent, as the time grows short.

Sev
06-26-2012, 10:52 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Soflasnapper</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why do you hate liberty? </div></div>

Could you be more of a hack?

What about states' rights? The 10th amendment?

What of the inherently conservative notion that 100 year long arrangements are obviously legal, let alone deserving a strong presumption of being left in place?

What about the PROVEN history of corruption in that state that caused this legislation in the first place?

Do you REALLY believe the SCOTUS theory in Citizens that there is no showing or likelihood of corruption or undue influence from allowing unlimited corporate monies into the political system?

Why DID Congress prohibit corporate and union money from the political system back in the earliest days of the 20th century? For no reason, except an urge to stifle free speech?

Remember, the Congress in those days was as bought and paid for as at any time. Still, they passed this prohibition because of the strong political pressures of the people, who had seen the corruption that ensues.

So, is unlearning the lessons of history now the conservative mantra?

A formerly respectable and critically important political viewpoint, conservatism, has utterly betrayed its own integrity and the needs of the country, at the worst possible time.

Repent, as the time grows short.



</div></div>

Do you support nullification?

Soflasnapper
06-27-2012, 10:51 AM
Do you support nullification?

I support the Fully Informed Jury Act, which is the power of jury nullification of laws.

I do not support state nullification of federal laws, which we last saw attempted in Birmingham, Alabama and Little Rock, Arkansas. Eisenhower sent federal law enforcement to Little Rock for the last, and I think that was the correct action.

Before the civil rights era attempts at state nullification, we have the glorious war of Northern Aggression as the prior example. Too much blood to support that again, in my view.