kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 21, 2010 16:13:10 GMT -5
I'm confused as to how corporations are protected under the first amendment. We, the company? I'm sure there's some convoluted item in there. I don't really know how this helps any of this, and why anyone here would be happy. What we need is more behind-the-scenes corporate influence and less influence for individual citizens? So you're saying that individual citizens are protected, but if they associate with each other, in the form of a corporation (for example), they lose those protections? |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 21, 2010 16:14:42 GMT -5
Free speech wins big as High Court strikes down spending limits for corporations on political campaigns. Amen. Now for my friends from the Left: How can it be that Justices Breyer, Stevens, Ginsburg and Sotomayor all voted against an expansion of Free Speech? I thought that crowd favored Free Speech? I can't believe that this is anything more than trolling. Should we apply the entire bill of rights to corporations? Is it unconstitutional to prohibit me from giving money to al qaeda because it infringes on my first amendment rights? I'm guessing it's probably illegal if its not unconstitutional. Also, I missed the election where al qaeda was on the ballot. |
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 21, 2010 16:27:49 GMT -5
I'm sure all you liberals will now respect the precedent this ruling establishes.
|
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 21, 2010 16:32:57 GMT -5
I'm sure all you liberals will now respect the precedent this ruling establishes. We can do that if you accept the precedent of Roe v. Wade. I am continually impressed by the chutzpah of the right, particularly during this century. It was...what...14 months ago that the public option in campaign financing was a Republican's best friend (also supported by an interesting group of posters on here). Hats off! I'm sure a majority of the public looks forward to additional robocalls and attack ads during election season. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 21, 2010 16:44:27 GMT -5
I'm confused as to how corporations are protected under the first amendment. We, the company? I'm sure there's some convoluted item in there. I don't really know how this helps any of this, and why anyone here would be happy. What we need is more behind-the-scenes corporate influence and less influence for individual citizens? So you're saying that individual citizens are protected, but if they associate with each other, in the form of a corporation (for example), they lose those protections? There's a distinct and enormous difference between individuals who are associated spending money and the association itself spending money from its treasury. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 21, 2010 16:47:00 GMT -5
I think, at the very least, Congress could push through legislation requiring employers, be it a corporation or union (etc.), to provide an opt-out option to individual employees/members so their money is not put toward political contributions, if those individuals so desire to exercise that option.
|
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,748
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 21, 2010 16:50:59 GMT -5
I'm confused as to how corporations are protected under the first amendment. We, the company? I'm sure there's some convoluted item in there. I don't really know how this helps any of this, and why anyone here would be happy. What we need is more behind-the-scenes corporate influence and less influence for individual citizens? So you're saying that individual citizens are protected, but if they associate with each other, in the form of a corporation (for example), they lose those protections? They don't lose anything. They can still donate. Why does the entity need to donate? Why would the entity have the right? |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 21, 2010 16:58:35 GMT -5
So you're saying that individual citizens are protected, but if they associate with each other, in the form of a corporation (for example), they lose those protections? They don't lose anything. They can still donate. Why does the entity need to donate? Why would the entity have the right? In theory, corporations will be limited by their responsibilities to their shareholders and the limitations placed on individual donors. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 21, 2010 17:01:31 GMT -5
I'm sure all you liberals will now respect the precedent this ruling establishes. No disrespect Ed, but you have an interesting definition of binding precedent if it includes a 5-4 decision that includes a significant division in the concurring opinions. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 21, 2010 17:27:58 GMT -5
I'm sure all you liberals will now respect the precedent this ruling establishes. No disrespect Ed, but you have an interesting definition of binding precedent if it includes a 5-4 decision that includes a significant division in the concurring opinions. So we can only cite to cases that have a 7-2 majority? A 9-0 majority? No concurring opinions? This holding isn't binding? |
|
SFHoya99
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
Posts: 17,748
|
Post by SFHoya99 on Jan 21, 2010 17:48:02 GMT -5
They don't lose anything. They can still donate. Why does the entity need to donate? Why would the entity have the right? In theory, corporations will be limited by their responsibilities to their shareholders and the limitations placed on individual donors. Hahaha! Next you'll tell me that Directors will properly set up reasonable compensation packages for CEOs and would never inflate them ina quid quo pro manner because of their deep and abiding fiduciary responsibility. |
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 21, 2010 18:25:30 GMT -5
No disrespect Ed, but you have an interesting definition of binding precedent if it includes a 5-4 decision that includes a significant division in the concurring opinions. So we can only cite to cases that have a 7-2 majority? A 9-0 majority? No concurring opinions? This holding isn't binding? I just meant that of all the opinions to suddenly trumpet as precedent, it's strange to choose one that leaves so much room for interpretation. |
|
|
|
Post by jerseyhoya34 on Jan 21, 2010 19:18:23 GMT -5
|
|
EasyEd
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Posts: 7,272
|
Post by EasyEd on Jan 21, 2010 19:25:02 GMT -5
So we can only cite to cases that have a 7-2 majority? A 9-0 majority? No concurring opinions? This holding isn't binding? I just meant that of all the opinions to suddenly trumpet as precedent, it's strange to choose one that leaves so much room for interpretation. Guess those on the left can't recognize my reference to judicial precedence was a scarcastic attempt to throw your words back onto you since you seem always to be enamored with it in questioning judicial nominees re Roe v Wade. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 21, 2010 20:11:50 GMT -5
I'm sure all you liberals will now respect the precedent this ruling establishes. I will respect this precedent just as much as I do the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. |
|
kchoya
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Enter your message here...
Posts: 9,934
|
Post by kchoya on Jan 21, 2010 20:26:44 GMT -5
I'm sure all you liberals will now respect the precedent this ruling establishes. I will respect this precedent just as much as I do the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Even though Citizens United overrules Austin? Good luck with that. |
|
|
|
Post by strummer8526 on Jan 21, 2010 20:44:43 GMT -5
I will respect this precedent just as much as I do the Supreme Court's 1990 decision in Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce. Even though Citizens United overrules Austin? Good luck with that. That's my point. Why should I respect this decision anymore than the Court respected Austin? Yes, I know. Because one is still good law and the other is not anymore. But I'm hoping you get my point. |
|
Boz
Blue & Gray (over 10,000 posts)
123 Fireballs!
Posts: 10,355
|
Post by Boz on Jan 21, 2010 21:04:01 GMT -5
To those who think that Keith Olbermann is any different, ANY different than Glenn Beck, except in terms of political philosophy, I recommend you watch his Special Comment from tonight.
The tears are still rolling down my cheeks, I was laughing so hard.
He's "special," alright. Whoo, baby.
Break out the tinfoil and put him in Team America's Film Actors Guild.
(For the record, I also laugh very loudly on the rare occasions that I get home from work in time to see any of Beck's shtick.)
|
|
Cambridge
Platinum Hoya (over 5000 posts)
Canes Pugnaces
Posts: 5,303
|
Post by Cambridge on Jan 21, 2010 23:00:42 GMT -5
I just meant that of all the opinions to suddenly trumpet as precedent, it's strange to choose one that leaves so much room for interpretation. Guess those on the left can't recognize my reference to judicial precedence was a scarcastic attempt to throw your words back onto you since you seem always to be enamored with it in questioning judicial nominees re Roe v Wade. I'm not on the left. |
|
The Stig
Diamond Hoya (over 2500 posts)
Posts: 2,844
|
Post by The Stig on Jan 21, 2010 23:29:24 GMT -5
To those who think that Keith Olbermann is any different, ANY different than Glenn Beck, except in terms of political philosophy, I recommend you watch his Special Comment from tonight. The tears are still rolling down my cheeks, I was laughing so hard. He's "special," alright. Whoo, baby. Break out the tinfoil and put him in Team America's Film Actors Guild. (For the record, I also laugh very loudly on the rare occasions that I get home from work in time to see any of Beck's shtick.) Maddow is our Glenn Beck. Olbermann's our O'Reilly. They all suck. The irony is that Olbermann's show will probably make a lot of money off this ruling. |
|
