25 Responses to 'Explaining the Supreme Court on Campaign Finance'
Subscribe to comments with RSS
or TrackBack to 'Explaining the Supreme Court on Campaign Finance'.
Not for doing their job, which is to interpret the Constitution under the precedent of Marbury V Madison.
That seems to be the only “high crime or misdeamor” they are accused of here.
So read for context next time stupid. Obviously no one is above the law (unless of course your name is Clinton), however what exactly has the SCOTUS done in your” brilliant “legal mind that qualifies as a “high crime of misdemeanor” other than getting Liberal panties in a bunch?
I agree with that. Also another word that now gets me annoyed is when someone called ‘liberal’ as another word that just gets thrown around when you disagree with a persons points.
I just get the impression that politics these days means little. It’s just a figure head with his opponents calling out buzzwords and gimmicky insults.
@dalmatian847…Where did you go to school? You didn’t learn much about government. Supreme Court Justices CAN be impeached. They are usually appointed to a l;ifetime tenure, but they CAN be impeached. Look it up, nimrod. You spout off just like Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and others yet you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!
@dalmatian847…Your lack of education is what’s pathetic. You and all the other sheep that listen to Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and other faux news corrospondents.
@dalmatian847…These same corporations donated to John McCain, although not as much. So what’s your point? They hedged their bets on Obama to win, but played both sides of the fence. Corporate money must be taken out of politics, PERIODE. This country isn’t about them, it’s about us, the citizens. WE are garanteed certain inalienable rights, not corporations. Rule is by the people, for the peolpe, of the people, not the corporations. Rethink your position because you’re seriously wrong.
@ dalmation: I know how the Republikan mind works. It takes an indefensible position and and frantically looks for hypocrisy to defend it, which is essentially never a defense at all. Let me guess, you’re in favor of torture as well.
Just how long was Obama CEO of SEUI and GE? Did you “learn ” that from Beck?
Hypocrisy often swings both ways. In this case, I see no equivalence-but you DO so it is you and not me who is hypocritical.
Guess you aren’t seeing the difference here. It’s one thing to contribute to a campaign, within limits. It entirely different to be able to create movies, run ads and by air time for or against a candidate, spending unlimited amounts of money.
@tomvercetti Not per sei, foreign countries can not out and out donate to a candidate or run ads, pro or con in America, even if they are based in America. But many of our American based companies have large shareholders from foreign countries and their interest are the same interest of the company in which they hold shares. Therefore they will, in a round about way, be able to use their influence, through that American co.
What I find most disturbing about this decision (and somebody please correct me if I’m wrong) is that this freedom also applies to foreign companies operating in America. So foreign companies in enemy countries can influence policy in America?
Judges have no term limits, but may only remain on the bench provided they abide by certain code of conduct. It’s funny that one scenario that can get a judged removed is ruling on a case in which either the defendant or prosecutor/plaintive has personal or financial ties with his or her honor. Judges must recuse themselves from such cases, however Senators and Congressmen are permitted to vote on legislation to regulate businesses they’ve taken contributions from. Conflict of interest much?
Corporations are not individuals, if they were corporate takeovers would be paramount to slavery. Corporations have no right to dictate government policy as they are not Us Citizens. Any US citizen they employ already has the right to support a candidate of his or her choosing independently of the company he or she works for. It was an asinine ruling and has just made it easier to buy politicians. Both sides of the isle allow themselves to be influenced by special interest money.
Goldman Sachs ,Microsoft Corp,Google Inc ,Citigroup Inc ,JPMorgan Chase & Co ,Time Warner ,Sidley Austin LLP
National Amusements Inc ,UBS AG
,Wilmerhale Llp ,Skadden, Arps et al
IBM Corp, Morgan Stanley ,General Electric Corp.
Clearly you haven’t been paying attention to the state of the country the last year.
Liberals are absolutely fucking pathetic sorts. They have used the courts to push trough their agendas time and again yet now they are crying unfair. boo, hoo, hoo.
Actually a common trait of conservatives is to point out facts that contradict lib statements and then have said liberal lobotomized trolls resort to name-calling and race-baiting.
Obama’s decision triggered a flurry of statements from campaign finance watchdog groups.
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, said he was “disappointed” in Obama’s decision. “We do not agree with Senator Obama’s rationale for opting out of the system,” he said. “Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system
Not for doing their job, which is to interpret the Constitution under the precedent of Marbury V Madison.
That seems to be the only “high crime or misdeamor” they are accused of here.
So read for context next time stupid. Obviously no one is above the law (unless of course your name is Clinton), however what exactly has the SCOTUS done in your” brilliant “legal mind that qualifies as a “high crime of misdemeanor” other than getting Liberal panties in a bunch?
BTW Northwestern U 1991.
dalmatian847
25 Jan 10 at 11:01 am
McCain took public financing because all he knew about the Internet is what Ted Stevens told him, “it was a series of tubes”.
TheAerialbomb
25 Jan 10 at 11:25 am
Not for doing what they are obligated to do under Marbury V Madison,, that being judicial review.
How’s that for precedent?
In other words, The SCOTUS having the FINAL say to interpreting the Constitution, particularly in this case,involving the1st Amendment.
Obviously if a SCOTUS Justice commits “High crimes and misdemeanors” they can be impeached. No one is above the law.
So unless there is precedent for the SCOTUS getting impeached for doing their job , STFU.
dalmatian847
25 Jan 10 at 12:02 pm
SO RIGHT, Greatmoves123
TheAerialbomb
25 Jan 10 at 12:27 pm
Yeah, we need another know-nothing in the White House…. Bush did such a good job being clueless for 8 years.
TheAerialbomb
25 Jan 10 at 1:02 pm
I agree with that. Also another word that now gets me annoyed is when someone called ‘liberal’ as another word that just gets thrown around when you disagree with a persons points.
I just get the impression that politics these days means little. It’s just a figure head with his opponents calling out buzzwords and gimmicky insults.
Yarrick2k5
25 Jan 10 at 1:14 pm
@dalmatian847…Where did you go to school? You didn’t learn much about government. Supreme Court Justices CAN be impeached. They are usually appointed to a l;ifetime tenure, but they CAN be impeached. Look it up, nimrod. You spout off just like Beck, O’Reilly, Hannity, Limbaugh and others yet you don’t know what the hell you’re talking about!
sep0507
25 Jan 10 at 1:51 pm
@dalmatian847…Your lack of education is what’s pathetic. You and all the other sheep that listen to Beck, Limbaugh, O’Reilly and other faux news corrospondents.
sep0507
25 Jan 10 at 2:04 pm
@dalmatian847…These same corporations donated to John McCain, although not as much. So what’s your point? They hedged their bets on Obama to win, but played both sides of the fence. Corporate money must be taken out of politics, PERIODE. This country isn’t about them, it’s about us, the citizens. WE are garanteed certain inalienable rights, not corporations. Rule is by the people, for the peolpe, of the people, not the corporations. Rethink your position because you’re seriously wrong.
sep0507
25 Jan 10 at 2:22 pm
I have never been involved in a march before. I am in my 50s now but I WOULD demonstrate on the steps of the Supreme Court on this one.
youcrackpot
25 Jan 10 at 3:19 pm
@ dalmation: I know how the Republikan mind works. It takes an indefensible position and and frantically looks for hypocrisy to defend it, which is essentially never a defense at all. Let me guess, you’re in favor of torture as well.
Just how long was Obama CEO of SEUI and GE? Did you “learn ” that from Beck?
Hypocrisy often swings both ways. In this case, I see no equivalence-but you DO so it is you and not me who is hypocritical.
youcrackpot
25 Jan 10 at 3:36 pm
Spread the word alex. I am. Most Americans arent even aware that this has happened to their own country.
This is unnaceptable. Its almost too late now. The more people who hear and understand this issue, the better.
Have a good one man.
lathzz
25 Jan 10 at 4:10 pm
This isn’t about who got money from who in the last election. This is about YOU, YOUR VOTE, YOUR VOICE.
Boomer1949
25 Jan 10 at 4:44 pm
@dalmatian847
Your wrong, Congress can and has.
Boomer1949
25 Jan 10 at 4:50 pm
@dalmatian847
Guess you aren’t seeing the difference here. It’s one thing to contribute to a campaign, within limits. It entirely different to be able to create movies, run ads and by air time for or against a candidate, spending unlimited amounts of money.
Boomer1949
25 Jan 10 at 5:37 pm
@tigerone1970
We should demand the impeachment of Aleto and the other 4 judges on the grounds of treason!!
Boomer1949
25 Jan 10 at 6:04 pm
@tomvercetti Not per sei, foreign countries can not out and out donate to a candidate or run ads, pro or con in America, even if they are based in America. But many of our American based companies have large shareholders from foreign countries and their interest are the same interest of the company in which they hold shares. Therefore they will, in a round about way, be able to use their influence, through that American co.
Boomer1949
25 Jan 10 at 6:17 pm
What I find most disturbing about this decision (and somebody please correct me if I’m wrong) is that this freedom also applies to foreign companies operating in America. So foreign companies in enemy countries can influence policy in America?
tomvercetti
25 Jan 10 at 6:47 pm
Judges have no term limits, but may only remain on the bench provided they abide by certain code of conduct. It’s funny that one scenario that can get a judged removed is ruling on a case in which either the defendant or prosecutor/plaintive has personal or financial ties with his or her honor. Judges must recuse themselves from such cases, however Senators and Congressmen are permitted to vote on legislation to regulate businesses they’ve taken contributions from. Conflict of interest much?
shankstab
25 Jan 10 at 7:37 pm
Before you call anyone ‘a genius’, it pays to do some reading. From Wikipedia:
On who can be impeached according to the US Constitution by Congress:
“… Constitution grants the House the power to impeach “The President, the Vice President, and all civil Officers of the United States.” ”
And on who has been impeached historically…
” One Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Samuel Chase in 1804. He was acquitted by the Senate. ”
So there is even precedent.
tigerone1970
25 Jan 10 at 8:14 pm
Corporations are not individuals, if they were corporate takeovers would be paramount to slavery. Corporations have no right to dictate government policy as they are not Us Citizens. Any US citizen they employ already has the right to support a candidate of his or her choosing independently of the company he or she works for. It was an asinine ruling and has just made it easier to buy politicians. Both sides of the isle allow themselves to be influenced by special interest money.
shankstab
25 Jan 10 at 8:17 pm
Goldman Sachs ,Microsoft Corp,Google Inc ,Citigroup Inc ,JPMorgan Chase & Co ,Time Warner ,Sidley Austin LLP
National Amusements Inc ,UBS AG
,Wilmerhale Llp ,Skadden, Arps et al
IBM Corp, Morgan Stanley ,General Electric Corp.
All 550 K and up contributors to Obama in 2008.
You were saying?
dalmatian847
25 Jan 10 at 8:50 pm
You can’t impeach SC justices, genius.
However, if you want to impeach the POTUS, I’ll all ears(and so is he).
dalmatian847
25 Jan 10 at 9:21 pm
Clearly you haven’t been paying attention to the state of the country the last year.
Liberals are absolutely fucking pathetic sorts. They have used the courts to push trough their agendas time and again yet now they are crying unfair. boo, hoo, hoo.
Actually a common trait of conservatives is to point out facts that contradict lib statements and then have said liberal lobotomized trolls resort to name-calling and race-baiting.
Truth is not your friend, is it troll?
dalmatian847
25 Jan 10 at 9:33 pm
Obama’s decision triggered a flurry of statements from campaign finance watchdog groups.
Fred Wertheimer, president of Democracy 21, said he was “disappointed” in Obama’s decision. “We do not agree with Senator Obama’s rationale for opting out of the system,” he said. “Senator Obama knew the circumstances surrounding the presidential general election when he made his public pledge to use the system
Yes, he can.
dalmatian847
25 Jan 10 at 10:23 pm