Jump to content

Gay Marriage (Spray Version)


akhalteke

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 90
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

 

awesome link, thanks. I'm not sure I can even give the ACLU any money anymore after the citizens united debacle.

 

Ie, you're blaming the wrong folks.

 

Well, it's always a balancing act, isn't it? You're never going to find an organization you agree with 100%. Ending the drug war, gay marriage, Citizens United.

 

The latter was the only responsible decision SCOTUS could have made that wouldn't have trashed the 1st Amendment. Do you really want a government that can shut down free speech without bothering to prove any harm? McCain Feingold did just that, and SCOTUS rightfully struck it down. SCOTUS also left that avenue wide open: When congress wants to do the necessary work of proving a harm before restricting campaign contributions (as the state of Montana just did), you can have restrictions of corporate contributions...constitutional ones this time.

 

 

Edited by tvashtarkatena
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it is depressing to listen to all the greeners falling under his spell. idiotic.

 

I feel the same way about Obama.

 

Yeah but you're just the token repub on this site, no one really cares what you have to say in terms of politics, yer just wrong.

 

greeners are the exact opposite of what paul stands for, but they need someone to latch on to who isn't obama. I'm not really that excited for his second term. I wish there was a viable republican candidate who wasn't bat shit insane, I'd love to vote for someone new, but obama is the lesser of two evils.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

feck of course you're right, it was with a hint of sarcasm that I wrote that.

After moving to MT my political leanings have shifted to the right. Like for example I don't have that big of a problem with the wolf hunts, and I think that gun control laws don't need any more restrictions. As for this crop of republican candidates... I'm starting to worry about the GOP, that's seriously the best they could come up with?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Based on today's news looks like the Supremes may have buyers remorse on Citizens United. With good reason.

 

Two Supreme Court justices suggested Friday that the court reconsider its controversial 2010 decision that allowed unlimited corporate and union spending in elections.

 

The suggestion came as the court blocked a Montana Supreme Court decision upholding a century-old ban on corporate campaign spending in the state.

 

The Montana ruling seems squarely at odds with the court’s 5 to 4 decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which allowed unlimited corporate spending. The U.S. Supreme Court majority had said such independent spending did not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.

 

In Friday’s order, Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer said the upheaval in the world of campaign finance since the Citizens United decision does not bear out the majority opinion.

 

“Montana’s experience, and experience elsewhere since this court’s decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations ‘do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption,’ ” Ginsburg wrote.

 

“A petition for certiorari [from those challenging the Montana court’s decision] will give the court an opportunity to consider whether, in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates’ allegiance, Citizens United should continue to hold sway.”

 

The U.S. high court’s action Friday does not necessarily mean that it will hear the Montana case; it could later summarily reverse the Montana court’s decision. There is no timetable for such action, but Friday’s stay probably means that corporations will be able to spend money on state and local races in Montana this year.

 

In Friday’s order, Ginsburg appeared to refer to the vast amounts of money spent by super PACs that have flourished in the aftermath of Citizens United and subsequent decisions by lower courts and the FEC.

 

Corporations and wealthy individuals have contributed millions of dollars to super PACs supporting individual candidates for the Republican presidential nomination. Altogether, super PACs have spent twice as much on television advertising as have the candidates’ campaigns, according to estimates by Kantar Media/CMAG, an ad tracking firm.

 

The Montana court’s action has given rise to the first challenge of the Citizens United decision. By a 5 to 2 vote, the state court upheld Montana’s 1912 Corrupt Practices Act, which prohibits certain political spending by corporations.

 

The Montana court acknowledged the conflict with Citizens United, but Chief Justice Mike McGrath said the state was especially vulnerable to “continued efforts of corporate control to the detriment of democracy and the republican form of government.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think you want to debate the .000001% that are hard-core Ron Paul supporters. They're small in number (inconsequential really...), but rabid in their devotion. There's no point in engaging them. They are not a factor.

 

Yeah I saw them today downtown. There were so many of them that traffic continued to move smoothly and a few people turned their heads and noticed them standing on street corners

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The latter was the only responsible decision SCOTUS could have made that wouldn't have trashed the 1st Amendment. Do you really want a government that can shut down free speech without bothering to prove any harm? McCain Feingold did just that, and SCOTUS rightfully struck it down. SCOTUS also left that avenue wide open: When congress wants to do the necessary work of proving a harm before restricting campaign contributions (as the state of Montana just did), you can have restrictions of corporate contributions...constitutional ones this time.

 

Funny how Montanans knew that flooding the electoral process with corporate cash leads straight to plutocracy in 1912 but the supreme couldn't find any evidence of it in 2010.

 

Quit drinking the cool-aid Tvash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




×
×
  • Create New...