E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSIn addition to its ruling on Arizona's immigration law, the U.S. Supreme Court today declined to revisit its controversial 2010 Citizens United decision, which permits corporations and labor unions to freely make independent expenditures in political campaigns.
What's more, in a 5-4 vote, "the majority summarily reversed a decision of the Montana Supreme Court that had refused to follow the Citizens United decision," the New York Times says.
The case involved Montana's Corrupt Practices Act. It requires corporations in the state to form what are essentially political action committees (PACs) and to spend only money that was given voluntarily by employees and shareholders. When the law was challenged as contrary to the Citizens United decision, the Montana Supreme Court upheld it as justified by the state's long history of political corruption. Besides, the state court said, the law doesn't run counter to Citizens United because corporations in Montana can still express their political views through the voluntary PAC-type funds. State regulations, the court said, are far simpler than federal campaign funding rules, imposing no real burden on corporate expression.
Leave a Comment:
Another VICTORY FOR LIBS!
Right, Feisty?
Too soon to reverse themselves. After all they don't want to be like...Romney.
They're not final because they're right, bobby -- they're right because they're final.
If anything, it's a victory for ideology. Congratulations on the victory for suppression of democracy.
But now that we've firmly established that corporations are people, I'd say we should send them all to do their duty in Afghanistan.
What? Dumb idea, you say? You can't send a corporation to fight a war?
Well, maybe that's because corporations are not people, after all.
The best part of the article ....
Wow ... someone finally mentioned "labor unions."
The funniest part of the article ....
Voluntary contributions by union employees? ..... good one!
Didn't we just fight World War Walker over that?
These guys are hilarious.
ince #HCR passage: $69M in ads supporting the law, $235M opposing it
Of course, guys like Scott Walker -- inspired by ALEC -- have gutted the unions so that, in Wisconsin, for example, Walker outspent Barrett in the recall by 7-1.
Can't complain about those union bosses anymore, bobby.
Because you and Scott Walker crushed them.
So, now it's only the corporations that anyone needs to fear.
And THAT's democracy in action. Be proud.
Only the Koched Up memeber
Hmmm... The SC once again says that the First Amendment freedom of speech protection is explicitly what it says in the text of the Constitution: " Congress shall make no law..... abridging the freedom of speech," and it does NOT say " Congress shall make no law..... abridging the freedom of speech, except for corporations and any other groups that lefty liberals would like to muzzle,"
Imagine that.
BTW AM, do you think the SC not issuing the ClunkerCare decision today and making Barry sweat it out for a couple of more days might be a reaction to Barry disrespecting a co-equal branch in a public in-your-face forum like the SOTU? Roberts is known for a snarky sense of humor and letting Barry hang out to dry like that would be Hillaryous!!
Only the Koched Up Justices (Scalia & Thomas et al) know corporations are people; but immigrants aren't.
Money = Speech?
Money is now not "spent", it is "spoken"?
If the Supreme Court is supposed to be non-partial and non-political (and more importantly appear that way) you're certainly not helping their cause.
January 22, 1973:
Get my point?
Didn't think so.
No, I think the timing relates more to their cowardice -- getting out of Dodge just before the 4th of July, when everyone is much more worried about fireworks and bratwurst and ice cream than they are about the vagaries of the Commerce Clause.
But I think it might make the first Monday in October pretty interesting.
No, I think the timing relates more to their cowardice.
_____________________________________
AM: Would you make the same "cowardice" argument if the SC upholds ClunkerCare?? My FT post gives it a 50/50 chance of being upheld based on Kennedy's vote.
BTW, the whole reason behind the lifetime appointment is so they will not be afraid of political revenge for their decisions. The SC has every right to tell Congress and the President they are wrong, and there's nothing they can do about it, that's why they are called "the SUPREME Court".
BTW, if I had been disrepected by a co-equal in a public forum like the SOTU, I sure as Hell would make that A-hole pay for his insolence.
Payback is a bitch.
Like Joe Wilson paid for HIS insolence, you mean?
Ha.
Of course, there is one other possibility, Joe.
And that's the possibility that you're right. and that the conservatives on the Court chose the timing to toss a little red meat to the Tea Party to soften the blow from their unanimous decision UPHOLDING the Affordable Care Act.
You're not buying that, either, huh?
Sigh.
Money = Speech?
Money is now not "spent", it is "spoken"?
_______________________
Da Hemorrhiod: Do you think the hundreds of millions of $$$$$$ Barry will spend on political commercials in his 2012 re-election is not "speech"????
Moron.
Come on Noid, You know that money has always "talked".
All the more reason voters should reelect President Obama. There is no way this nation can afford Mr. "Corporations Are People" Romney appointing more rightwing activists to the SCOTUS.
In the meantime, stand with Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act (1912) against money in politics!
@ Joe -- We appreciate your effort, but please try again.
It's not the money that constitutes the speech. It's the contents of the ads that constitutes the speech.
Question: If two guys with differing political views are sitting in a room with a million dollars, and they are arguing about the Presidential election, what is the money saying?
Answer: Not a thing until one of the two picks up the money and tosses it in the direction of some candidate.
See the point?
And that's that the conservatives on the Court chose the timing to toss a little red meat to the Tea Party to soften the blow from their unanimous decision UPHOLDING the Affordable Care Act.
____________________________________
AM: That's entirely possible. As I wrote on this morning's FT, it all depends on Kennedy's vote. If he votes to uphold ClunkerCare, my bet is that Roberts will join the majority in order to control the writing of the majority opinion. It's not a victory for the federal govt of limited powers embodied in the Constitution, but, a limited opinion that only rules on the unique aspects of the healh care market will force the big govt lefty liberals to find a new path to limiting the freedom of choice for American's to what they believe is "best for them".
Joe in Albany-1902257 -- Take your GOPee Wee Herman "I know you are, but what am I?" back to FOX Noise. There are still some sane Republicans out there who recognize how damaging this reversal of a century of precedence is. The question is, will these folks stay home, or will they vote, and will they toe the Party line and vote for the candidate with an 'R' next to his name even though they know he sucks?
So by your lack of logic, we should just cynically embrace it? WTF?
@ Joe -- We appreciate your effort, but please try again.
It's not the money that constitutes the speech. It's the contents of the ads that constitutes the speech.
__________________________________________________
So, if you agree with the "contents" of a Barry multi-million $$$$$ ad buy, it'sOK.
And if you don't agree with the "contents" of a similar Romney ad buy, it's wrong.
OK, maybe on Planet Liberal that makes sense.
Joe in Albany-1902257 -- Take your GOPee Wee Herman "I know you are, but what am I?" back to FOX Noise. There are still some sane Republicans out there who recognize how damaging this reversal of a century of precedence is. The question is, will these folks stay home, or will they vote, and will the "stay the course" and vote for the candidate with an 'R' next to his name even though they know he sucks?
___________________________________________
Thank you!!!!
I really do enjoy the FACT that most lefty liberals are living a miserable existence.
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Oh, I see, and taking away the rights of people to join unions is somehow NOT limiting freedoms -- like THEIR First Amendment rights?
Please.
And by the way, a capitalist like you ought to realize that what you're describing is really just anti-trust, which is what conservatives like, not liberals.
You don't really suppose that it's the intent of insurance companies to open up their markets for MORE competition because that's best for consumers, do you?
Or do the big insurers really just want to position themselves to crush their competition?
Like Wisconsin, for example, where the insurers and the conservatives did their level best to get rid of that popular health insurance plan owned by the teachers?
Did they do that because that was best for public employees -- i.e., their own sort of paternalism -- or best for destroying tough competition?
I guess for conservatives choice is only important as long as YOU get to choose.
But I would call that authoritarianism.
No, it makes sense on this planet, but you've got it backwards.
I don't object to the contents of Romney's ads -- unless they're full of lies. That's what the First Amendment protects.
I object to any one individual or group of individuals being permitted to spend unlimited money to run those ads.
And that's why I believe in public campaign finance, and always have.
Later, Joe.
HEY Big Sky Country! How do like these phony republicans telling you how you run your politics since you all already know the truth from over a hundred years ago? I would be mighty pissed. Surely a new round of common sense will be coming unless you just lay down and take this obvious bs. You have my blessings and prayers that this completely ignorant law will eventually be crap canned right along with this new phony GOP.
It's a clear choice. Romney the plutocrat who wants to privatize profits and socialize debt to concentrate even more wealth and power in the hands of a few--NOT. There are plenty of conservatives who do not want someone like Sheldon Adelson to wipe out their "one man, one vote." I know a conservative who is thinking to write-in Jeb Bush or Buddy Roemer, and he is Mormon. This is not about Party, it is about our Republic and democracy, and about We The People. Only a fool would think this is funny.
I hereby exercise my free speech to say: the Supreme Court is in the pocket of the Republican Party and their corporate masters. Worst Supreme Court ever.
Oh, and Clarence Thomas is dumb as a plank.
Anna Molly - Hopefully President Obama will get to appoint 2 new Supreme Court justices and they can re-visit the Citizens United debacle. Putting our country up for sale to foreign entities is not the American way. It's the GOP way - not the American way!
Amy B. Portland, ME -- The ruling on immigration in which I believe Sonia Sotomayor ruled based on the law shows which justices are legislating from the bench, and it isn't those who lean to the Left. The ruling on ACA will tell us even more?
SeekingSanity -- Until we can get the SCOTUS at least evened out, Citizen's United is already cracking. I mentioned Montana’s Corrupt Practices Act (1912) above. There are 22 other states looking at this as a model.
Obama/Biden - 2012!
I see our President has found yet another way around the law.
He has decided he just won't answer the phone when Arizona calls asking for Illegals to be prosecuted/deported.
Sweet. Does this guy even remember what country he is the President of?
Hey Amy, seems the SCOTUS was all well and good on the Immigration thread.
Why can't you libs make up your minds?
seeking -- so in your scenario if the newly composed Supreme Court reverses a prior precedent then it is OK because that is what you want them to do? i understood that folks on the left are upset because that is what you believe the court did with citizens united in the first place
White Collar Auto -- The president's memo to Homeland Security is a good compromise between the DREAM Act and Rubio's positions -- And did you not notice how Sotomayor ruled?
What you should really wonder about is Mr. Deregulation Romney and the pro-business GOP gang who will NEVER crack down on employers, and who love cheap labor. You need to keep the pressure on your own Party before coming in here to b!tch.
BTW, this thread is about Citizen's United.
Bob (many #s) wrote: Voluntary contributions by union employees? ..... good one!
Me: Voluntary contributions by company employees? Are the Koch bros really getting all those millions from their employees? Is Rove getting millions from employees of ... what? What employees? I want to see the list of employees that contribute to Crossroads or any other of the PACs that contribute to either candidate.
bleary -- lets imagine you get to see the list of names. what will you do with that information?
I object to any one individual or group of individuals being permitted to spend unlimited money to run those ads.
And that's why I believe in public campaign finance, and always have.
Later, Joe.
________________________________________
And yet you will go dutifully into the voting booth on 11/06/12 and happily and proudly cast your ballllot for the first Presidential candidate in history to refuse to take public financing, after having previously pledged to do so, because he found out he could raise a boatload of cash by avioding the federal limits accompanying public financing of election campaigns.
OK.
Later, AM.
Joe in Albany - we proudly voted for the best candidate in 2008 - it had nothing to do with how his campaign was financed. Remember, he never said "our economy is not in trouble." Nor did he select an idiot for his VP running mate. We elected THE BEST person running - which we will do again this time. See how that works?
Obama/Biden 2012
Boy, you sure got me there, Joe. But that's merely a failure of the system to protect against human weakness.
Dang, you DO make a great case for regulation.
We could use you on our side, Joe.
NoLimit - I feel comfortable using the word "we" since President Obama won so handily. And, I feel confident he will win again this time because of "us".
Joe in Albany - so you think those on the "left are living a miserable existence" and that makes you happy. You are a small little man aren't you. And, just for the record, most of my friends are living a great life -so - I guess that makes you an unhappy little man.
I don't support public campaign financing because raising money is part of the vetting process. Public funds are how Teabag wingnuts run for office, and I don't want one penny of my tax dollars used to help crazies.
All we need to do is what we used to do -- Limit the amount and make everything transparent. It's very simple.
Or maybe "public campaign financing", putting the emphasis on "public", could mean donations made by us - the public. It that were the law of the land, Romney would be up a creek without a paddle.
I think the reason the Supreme Court chose not to "revisit Citizens United" is because they would have to admit they were wrong in the first place.
Why would they?
No surprise they wouldn't even hear oral arguments...
There aren't enough paper towels in the world to wipe that the Citizen's United stain off their bought & paid for faces!
Sad day for democracy when corporations (especially foreign) are now considered to be people too...
You too can now own a piece of the 'country' for a couple of million $$$'s thanks to the Kangaroo court!
They can prove to me corporations are in fact people when the state of TX executes one!
Until then...
I may be wrong, but I thought you needed only 4 votes for oral argument. If I'm right, then that's interesting, all by itself.
Yep. That's interesting.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/visiting/visitorsguidetooralargument.aspx
When you add up all of the democrats, independents, women, Hispanics, Asians and a host of other people in the country, the GOP knew they couldn't compete to win elections.
In order to balance the scales or tip them in their favor, they simply waited until the time they had enough people in Congress accompanied with a majority of the SCOTUS to say that corporations are people and that they can give as much money as they want to support a candidate of their choice. In so doing, the supporters of the GOP can attempt to buy the presidency and every other elected position they want.
Now the question is if the American public will be fooled or if they will see through the GOP guise and send them packing. I have to hold hope that the people will see through them. If so, the law won't matter because the big pocket spenders will keep their money instead of trying to support a failed cause.
may be wrong, but I thought you needed only 4 votes for oral argument
They can't do anything about it until after the election cycle anyway. They'll probably put on their docket next year...Besides, the p
Correction Feisty .... according too Mark Murray and Pete Williams, that should read....
Sad day for democracy when corporations AND LABOR UNIONS (especially foreign) are now considered to be people too...
You're welcome old girl.
Btw - speaking of foreign cash, when is Obama's "first president in history to travel overseas to collect from foreign bundlers" trip?
Has to be soon ... anything in the Obama Diaries ... thinkformeprogress?
may be wrong, but I thought you needed only 4 votes for oral argument
They can't do anything about it until after the election cycle anyway. They'll probably put on their docket next year...Besides, O will probably be picking 2 new justices in his second term....
Obama/Biden 2012
They can prove to me corporations are in fact people when the state of TX executes one!
Until then...
______________________________________
Dumbfux: Just look at how the federal govt executed Arthur Andersen, a major worldwide accounting firm, and put 85,000 people out of a job for the actions of a few crooks involved in Enron. Corporations EMPLOY people, and killing the evil corporation causes great harm to the people that work for them. Corporations are the people they employ.
Other than "Crazy Bob's" pro-stance on the issue, are there any righties or moderate Pubes out there that is opposed to the Citizens United ruling?
I may be wrong, but I thought you needed only 4 votes for oral argument. If I'm right, then that's interesting, all by itself.
Yep. That's interesting.
_________________________________________
AM: You are absolutely right. If they could not get the four liberal justices to grant cert, or allow oral arguments, then the case doesn't even pass the lefty liberal test for SC judicial activism by the lefty liberal justices. Hmmmm.... do you think the lefty liberal justices might even be reading the Constitution as it was actually written??
Naaaaahhhhh. Never going to happen.
Joe-
Republicans rail about activist judges, and claim to be for "original intent". Does ANYONE really believe that when the founders wrote about Freedom of Speech that they intended for that to include anything other than individuals? They fought against the tyranny of the minority yet you think they intended for corporations control the speech in this country?
What about a corporation composed of just a few people, or even just one? How do they EMPLOY people? How can a corporation donate without limits but a person has limits? I don't agree with unfettered spending by unions, either, by the way.
No more so than the five that think the 14th Amendment somehow applies to corporations.
They've been wrong before, Joe. Or don't you think Plessy v. Ferguson was wrong?
Because it you don't, then you surely must believe that Brown v. Board was wrong.
Which one, Joe?
Corporations are not the people they employ. Corporations -- at best -- are the people who own and control them.
And every one of those people already HAS rights.
Why, then, do they deserve more rights than the rest of us?
Thank you TNSEVOL.
Corporations date back to the 1300's ... the founding dads were pretty bright guys.
Indeed they were, bobby.
In fact, that was why the "founding dads" put a COMMERCE CLAUSE into the Constitution.
To REGULATE the corporations. Not to grant them rights.
Sheesh.
Buy a vowel or something.
I see it as democracy 2 Unions 0. That is it no gloating and lets move on to the next ruling.
Not looking good for the Libs/Progressive/socialist. Whatever you call yourselfs today.
Fiesty - Sad day for democracy when corporations (especially foreign)...
Do you have a link where foreign corporation (with no US connections and no US Employees) can contribute to PACs?
All I find is this link: http://www.opensecrets.org/pacs/foreign.php that states:
Only American citizens (and immigrants with green cards) can contribute to federal politics, but the American divisionsof foreign companies can form political action committees (PACs) and collect contributions from their American employees.
dumbfux, you are sadly mistaken. The people who work for a given corporation do not have their voice heard when the spokseman talk, nor do the labor union members when their union spokseman talks. You must realize that the real "owners" of said corporation, or union decide to create a voting atmosphere through their capatal issues, they are foisting their will. With these legal entities having pervue as private citizens they should be free to act as the giants in the land. If these entities are to act as citizens then they must be personaly liable. They must therefore, specify the name of the one who individualy holds and is personaly accountable to the laws of our land. The many people operating such entity are members of it and the witting or unwitting action thereof must be borne by said individual who must put his face, and dna on the line for it. No amount of pervue confirmaton upon said entity can bring forth a real person's burden; therefore, said entity needs  a human representitive. You see, such confirmation by the court may have created a negative cost effective situation for corporations and unions. The trials of "being human".
Aint that all just a scream ... I get whacked by the righties posting here because I am a Canadian and should bugger off ... silly me, I should just be writing anonymous checks right guys?
John, Tucson - the US Chamber accepts foreign contributions. That has been proved and they support the GOP candidates. Some of the money is from Saudi interests.
Since the Left is so upset with Citizens United I have an idea for you:
You all should mobilize the power that is the DNC and only vote for candidates who refuse to except money from PACS.
Should be easy.
Then you can eventually gain enough power to change the make up of the SCOTUS and get the ruling you want.
Cuz we all know, that law is never settled, now is it?
This law will be revisted. 69% of Americans do not want it and only 15% support it. It isn't over by a long shot!
WCA -
So according to you the path to world peace is for America to unilaterally disarm?
The US CoC is a lobbying group and lobbying groups have their own complicated set of rules and regulations. I was asking about PACs and foreign contributors as per the statement that Feisty made with out any links to research.
John, Tucson, the US Chamber supports PACs so in turn funnels foreign dollars into PACS.
I agree that the supreme court judges are being paid off under the table, they need to be investigated and then removed from office and finally put in JAIL. Time for the people to stand up and drag them out of their cushy offices on their arrogant, pompous butts.
I am truly getting sick of the corruption in our government, we NEED to fight back. The day they say we have to turn in our guns is when there will be a civil war. To bad we have to wait that long.
Tod - don't know if you're a Republican, Democrat or Independent but I totally agree with you!
seeking -- i just saw a gallop poll released today that shows 25% believe abortion should be legal in all circumstances, a decrease of about 5% in the last 6 years.
with that in mind do you believe the country is ready to reopen the discussion?
Don't see why, billybob. It was settled in 1973, just like Citizens United was settled.
If people don't want abortions, they don't have to have them.
Montana -- not them libruls in Massachusetts -- was ready to reopen the Citizens United discussion.
So, why didn't the Court let them re-open it?
Public campaign finance and NO PACs is a MUCH easier idea.
Tell you what. When your side stops grousing about Roe v. Wade, we'll consider that settled.
Abortion is an individual decision, citizens united is not. We cannot decide how much money can come from an individual or company. There needs to be limits set on campaign financing since there NEEDS to be equal footing in that type of process. Our whole election process needs to be looked at. We need to remove the party names from the ballots and make the voter truly know which candidate by name that they want which forces the ignorant voter to keep informed.
billybob - abortions are not legal in all circumstances so there is no reason to re-visit this. However, the far right has already indicated that they will revisit Roe VS Wade the minute they get a Republican back in office. Clearly you would be against that, right?
am -- thanks for your opinion.
I am still interested in Seeking's opinion.
Party line Roberts.... is the whole court bought and paid for ?
seeking -- i think it is reasonable for an individual's opinion to evolve and believe the same is true with abortion law. i would support a civil dialogue revisiting the situation. polls seem to be consistently reporting that more and more Americans are pro-life.
can you help me understand when an abortion is illegal? i cannot find any specifics and since you have said that they are not all illegal then i imagine you can do this.
billybob - not true. More and more US Citizens prefer to let the woman make her choice during the first trimester. It is not legal past the first trimester except to protect the life of the mother.
See - I can do that!
The only reason you believe more US Citizens are against a woman making her choice is because the far right is screeching so loudly. Polls show the majority are pro-choice. Most people realize this has to be a decision a woman makes since it is her body.
In my opinion some of the HUGE differences between Union and Corporation donations are: Union Officers are accountable to the members (who provide the funds and elbow grease necessary for the Unions to work and that elected them); Union books are open to all members; Union members vote on categories (if not actual amounts and types) of expenditures. Corporation Board Members are not elected by their employees (who provide the labor to give the Corporation the cash to spend ad hoc); Corporations do not open their books to their employees; employees have no say in how the money they helped earn for the Corporation is spent.
seeking -- the recent gallop poll shows something different than you contend. 50% of people polled on abortion consider themselves pro-life up a point from two years ago while 41% consider themselves pro-choice down 4 points from two years ago.
your claim about my reason for my position is something that you have simply fabricated and inappropriate for you to assert.
i do not listen to the far-right or far-left as they represent such a small percentage of the population. i read, i listen, i seek out multiple sources where possible and form my own opinion.
This decision did not surprise me for a couple of reasons. First, the Supreme Court would be expected to be unwilling to revisit such a recent decision on their part. Second, the argument that corporations are single entities has been made and supported many times (specifically with respect to being able to be sued, held accountable for manslaughter, murder, or injury - think cigarettes; insurance and licensing; etc.).
(Ofc, my issue with those decisions is that a "single entity" does not equal an individual. My dog is a "single entity", that doesn't mean that she should financially contribute to an election.)
That said, it DID open the door to multi-nationals (i.e. - foreign entities) being able to directly contribute to and influence American politics.
I'm also reminded of what President Lincoln (you know, that Republican that some folks like to boast about) said:
"I see in the near future a crisis approaching that unnerves me and causes me to tremble for
the safety of my country; corporations have been enthroned, an era of corruption in High Places will follow, and the Money Power of the Country will endeavor to prolong its reign by working upon the prejudices of the People, until the wealth is aggregated in a few hands, and the Republic is destroyed."
Abraham Lincoln
Source: //quotes.liberty-tree.ca/quote_blog/Abraham.Lincoln.Quote.4F97
You're not even close to reporting correctly and you have to know that.
The big exciting news for Republicans in the latest Gallup poll on abortion is that more Americans identify as "pro-life" and fewer identify as "pro-choice" than ever. Although that's probably not meaningless, Americans' views on whether abortion should be legal haven't actually changed at all.
Here's the carefully written lede from Life News: "A new Gallup survey out today finds the percentage of Americans who identify themselves as supporting legalized abortion has dropped to a record low." It's true that the pro-life movement sees itself as opposing all forms of legalized abortion and 50 percent of Americans now identify as pro-life. But when you look at what the poll results actually say, it's clear Americans' feelings about abortion being legal are much more complicated:
So a large majority—77 percent—of Americans support abortion being legal in all or "certain circumstances," and just 20 percent of Americans are actually "pro-life" in the sense that opponents of legalized abortion understand the term. Another way of saying this is that most Americans are actually pro-choice even if they sometimes identify as pro-life. In fact, there are more Americans who think abortion should be legal in all circumstances (25 percent) than think it should be illegal in all circumstances (20 percent).
That's good news for someone, but not for people who want to outlaw abortion.
Adam Sewer, May 2012
Why would the libs on the court want to try limiting political donations by corporations when that would also limit the donations by unions. Yeah, like that will ever happen.
I want to know how republicans are pro-life?
How can you be pro-war and pro-life at the same time?
How can you be pro-life and pro-death sentences at the same time?
How can you be pro-life and then vote to take the food out of the mouths of children that keeps them alive?
How can you be pro-life and then vote to take the medical care away from people that would save their lives?
Just because the republicans are against women's rights, you can hardly call that pro-life. Especially since the republicans have voted for hospitals the right to let a woman die in a pregnancy gone wrong before allowing an abortion to save her life.
So the republican stance is more about pro-control of women's private issues than pro-life.
VOTE FOR WOMEN'S FREEDOM....VOTE FOR A DEMOCRAT 2012
Funny First Read....Citizen's United is "Controversial".....Roe v Wade is "Landmark"
You guys are real funny....
Funny how? One protects an individual's Rights and one limits them.
See if you can figure out which is which.
Tell that to all the dead babies TNS.
CitizenBain - how many adopted children do you have or do you just want to protect children before they're born, then to hell with them?
If you guys are so worried about the dead babies then why are we sending all our jobs to China that forces abortions?
Why do we give our corporations tax breaks protected by the republicans to send our jobs to countries that don't believe in protecting a woman's right to choose and the Chinese government chooses instead?
Instead of asking our rich in our country to be patriotic the republicans want instead to borrow money and make China richer. Any Chinese products you buy you are supporting abortions demanded by the government in China.
Once the government is in charge of women's bodies like in China, then our govenment like China can just as easy force abortions as well as prevent them.
Do you really want any government in charge of your body?
I never had an abortion and would never want one, but I want the government and all republicans to stay out of my private business. Freedom is not the government in charge of my private personal bodily functions as republicans would have you believe.
No amount of idealogical B.S., or Fox "News" propaganda can ever change the actual fact that Citizens United IS judicial activism and is simply bad for democracy. Period. There's no argument.
Same with Roe v. Wade. Get over THAT, will you?
No,it is bad because it is UNCONSTITUTIONAL - it definitely goes against the "original intent" argument that Conservatives are supposed to be in favor of.
NolomitSoldier50
TYLENOL understands quite well, he is just playing stupid with us. That is how Liberals operate.
Notice I said playing oppose to when they just call us stupid because we differ from their ideology.
tns -- The Supreme Court of the United States of America has decided the Citizens United case. You disagree. Voice your opinion, do something about it through elected officials but quit whining about it.
Glad to see the media is showing Republicans in Montana are calling it judicial activism at it's worst.
billybob, NoLimit, CC -
OF COURSE it is just my opinion that it is unconstitutional, I thought that would be obvious - but I don't just disagree with the decison just because "it didn't go my way".
There is valid argument to be made that it goes against the "original intent" of the First Amendment to rule that there can be NO restrictions placed on how much a corporation spends and NO rules on discloure of funding sources.
And not that I really care, but I also fail to see how presenting my opinion on a constitutional argument is either "playing stupid" or "whining".
tns --
my apologies for the whining remark now that i understand you are just presenting your own opinion.
Quite scary that the First Amendment was upheld by a tenuous 5-4 vote.
The Democrats are ready with legislation muzzling their political opponents, all they need is for the Supreme Court to repeal freedom of speech.
Glad I was able to communicate my opinion on a website run by a ....gulp...corporation...
Since libs say corporations have no free speech rights, then libs will cheerlead the government when it shuts down web sites and newspapers that it doesnt approve of...
Just got to love that your opponent's freedom of speech is controlled by your ability to drown him out. Just love freedoms like that.
VP Bob just wants to probe.
Bob-
Why would EQUAL restrictions on campaign funding or expeditures be considered a limitation of Free Speech?
"Muzzling their political opponents"? Again, I don't see how limits that apply equally to all could be considered a "muzzle".
I don't see how your Straw Man argument about a "slippery slope" leading to shutdowns of web sites and newspapers makes sense in the context of limitations on funding and expenditures.
"Equal" restrictions on campaign funding equals incumbents reelection....
The Founding Fathers knew all about the 'slippery slope'...which is why the First Amendment is absolute...Congress shall make NO LAW.
Bob -
There have been several laws abridging Free Speech. You can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, there are laws against Libel and Slander, you can't make false claims in advertising, just to name a few.
I also fail to see how Equal restrictions on funding equals incumbent reelection - unlimited funding with the promise (spoken or unspoken) of granted favors seems to lean more towards the incumbent.
Oh well, at least we have Free Speech to thank for this argument!
Bob in Virginia-5210392
"Equal" restrictions on campaign funding equals incumbents reelection....
Bob, you need to start reading about elections in other countries. Your statement above carries absolutely no water.
... and please, no comebacks about America being freer that other democracies ... bull@!$%#.
The marketing budget for say, broccoli is way lower than the marketing budget for Lucky Charms. Hence, the obesity epidemic. In politics, the candidate with the bigger advertising budget has an advantage over a candidate not favored by the 1%, hence democracy is distorted.
How is this too difficult for the Supeme Court to understand? They must not have grown up watching TV.
[The Founding Fathers knew all about the 'slippery slope'...]
Maybe McDonnell will change that to "The Founding Fathers knew all about the "slippery probe"...
Equal" restrictions on campaign funding equals incumbents reelection....
V-Bob, If this was the case, wouldn't the unequal funding put the person in office in the first place, keeping him there by the same inequity, that got him elected in the first place?
Amy -- very good. some new excuses for the administration to use -- It is all the fault of Lucky Charms!
does your argument regarding the advertising budget resulting in a distorted democracy hold when one considers that obama spent nearly 3 times the amount spent by mccain
More evidence that 5 Supreme Court Justices need to understand history of corruption.
It's pretty sad when 5 Republicans on the Supreme Court use their power to overturn something the vast majority of Americans (both Democrats and Republicans) call corruption at it's worst.
The only good part about this is Americans hate Supreme Court Justices who repeatedly rule on political lines. History has taught us that their political party ends up paying the price for decades. People grew tired of the liberal justices and elected Republican Presidents for 28 out of 40 years. Today, Independent Americans are tired of 5 Republican justices repeatedly ruling on party lines and regularly disagreeing with even moderate Republicans on issue after issue.
These 5 Republican Justices were never elected by Americans, yet hold more power than Congress and the President combined. Just look at their ruling on this issue for evidence.
Debbie - it's beyond sad. Hopefully it will be overturned in the future. With replacement of one or more judges it can be done.
There is NOTHING Supreme about his court.
IN MY OPINION Romney will not win in November so IN MY OPINION Romney will never get a chance to appoint a Supreme Court justice.
IN MY OPINION that is a good thing.
TNSEVOL - we can't have Romney as President for SOOOOOO many reasons and this is just one of them.
Obama/Biden 2012
Lets hope your right TNS !!!
Obama/Biden 2012
It's the best court money can buy. However, the second term of Obama will enable him to replace one or two and delivery justice back to the process.
Let's face it. The Az decision coming in today mostly favoring the President means only one thing. They're waiting until the last possible day to drop the bomb on healthcare. It's one thing when a Republican congress does everything to circumvent the President....it's a whole other ballgame when a supposed impartial Supreme Court does it.
DEE - there is nothing SUPREME about this court. It was bought and paid for a few years back.
SS
Yes, and one of the sad things about it is that just a few years ago, they at least tried to hide their rightwing impartiality. Now it's out there for everyone to see, and they don't care who sees it.
DEE - so true. Thomas's blatant bias is out of control but he doesn't have the integrity to stay out of opinions he has been shown to have a prejudice about.
In reply to SeekingSanity, who writes.
It sure was.......... By both sides, Reps and Dems. Let's call it for what it is and not try to do bend the truth to benefit your point. For all our sakes let's be fair sometimes. Either side tries to move the dominos to their side when in power.
Concern Citizen - unfortunately with Scalia, Thomas and Alito - the right shows it has bought more of the justices. I can't actually say there are any the left bought.
The Democrats try to keep the court moderate and not have it got to the "dark side" of the far right!
SeekingSanity,
Let's be fair, the Reps had the WhiteHouse for 8 years, if Obama gets re-elected then for sure he will tip the scale the other way.
Don't be so nieve that democrats try to keeo a moderate court. Again you are being a fanatic.
Concern Citizen - President Obama's Supreme Court appointee - Sonya Sotpmayor recused herself from voting on the AZ law because of conflicts. None of the far right justices - even with obvious conflicts - Alito hunting with Cheney right before a vote (of course we all believe it was never discussed - right) and Thomas whose wife is part of an extreme right think tank. It's a matter of integrity which the right wing justices have shown they lack.
Your fanaticism is showing - I'm not a fanatic - just a concerned citizen.
Loosing Sanity
If that is the case, shouldn't Kagen recuse herself from the healthcare debate. That doesn't show a conflict at all does it? She only worked with OB1 on the stupid thing.
I believe she has.
Unfortunately she has not. She did from the Arizona case, but not from health care.
Transparency at its finest in this administration.
No money = no voice.
Do you really believe your Representatives and Senators will listen to you now, or ever?
Honestly?
Do you believe they are looking out for you?
The almighty dollar now rules government, and some of you lot handed them the keys.
Some of you lot are middle class, hard wroking folks, and if you think you still have a voice in government, you JUST LOST WHAT LITTLE VOICE YOU HAD, because these money grubbers DON'T CARE about you.
You are fools to trust they are doing the right thing for you, or this country.
Let us revisit the words of Saint George the Great:
"There's a reason that education sucks, and it’s the same reason it will never ever ever be fixed. It’s never going to get any better, don’t look for it. Be happy with what you’ve got. Because the owners of this country don’t want that. I’m talking about the real owners now, the big, wealthy, business interests that control all things and make the big decisions.
Forget the politicians, they’re irrelevant.
Politicians are put there to give you that idea that you have freedom of choice. You don’t. You have no choice. You have owners. They own you. They own everything. They own all the important land, they own and control the corporations, and they’ve long since bought and paid for the Senate, the Congress, the State Houses, and the City Halls. They’ve got the judges in their back pockets. And they own all the big media companies so they control just about all the news and information you get to hear.
They’ve got you by the balls.
They spend billions of dollars every year lobbying to get what they want. Well, we know what they want; they want more for themselves and less for everybody else. But I’ll tell you what they don’t want—they don’t want a population of citizens capable of critical thinking. They don’t want well informed, well educated people capable of critical thinking. They’re not interested in that. That doesn’t help them. That’s against their interest. You know something, they don’t want people that are smart enough to sit around their kitchen table and figure out how badly they’re getting @!$%#ed by a system that threw them overboard 30 @!$%#ing years ago.
They don’t want that, you know what they want?
They want obedient workers, obedient workers. People who are just smart enough to run the machines and do the paperwork and just dumb enough to passively accept all these increasingly @!$%#tier jobs with the lower pay, the longer hours, the reduced benefits, the end of overtime and the vanishing pension that disappears the minute you go to collect it.
And now they’re coming for your social security money.
They want your @!$%#ing retirement money; they want it back so they can give it to their criminal friends on Wall Street. And you know something? They’ll get it. They’ll get it all from you sooner or later because they own this @!$%#ing place. It’s a big club and you ain’t in it! You and I are not in the Big Club. By the way, it’s the same big club they use to beat you in the head with all day long when they tell you what to believe. All day long beating you over the head with their media telling you what to believe, what to believe, what to think and what to buy.
The table is tilted folks, the game is rigged.
Nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care. Good honest hard working people, white collar, blue collar, it doesn’t matter what color shirt you have on. Good honest hard working people continue, these are people of modest means, continue to elect these rich @!$%#s who don’t give a @!$%# about them. They don’t give a @!$%# about you. They don’t give a @!$%# about…give a @!$%# about you! They don’t care about you at all, at all, at all.
And nobody seems to notice, nobody seems to care.
That’s what the owners count on, the fact that Americans are and will probably remain willfully ignorant of the big red, white, and blue dick that’s being jammed up their @!$%#s everyday. Because the owners of this country know the truth, it’s called the American Dream, because you have to be asleep to believe it."
- George Carlin
I love George Carlin. He was right then and still is today.
x
Any pretentious jerk who uses the term "x" when not referring to his scrotum probably should be deported. Same goes for "y".
Any pretentious jerk who uses the term SCOTUS when not referring to his scrotum probably should be deported. Same goes for POTUS.
I prefer typing SCOTUS and POTUS, it reduces the opportunity to spell something incorrectly!
Jerk, maybe - but not pretentious, just a bad typist.
Ah, yes, another great victory for Fascism-by-proxy.
At least Mussolini was transparent enough to just dissolve Parliament entirely and invite corporate reps to write their own laws. We get the illusion of choice...and, coincidentally, a red-blue, (D)-(R), elephant-donkey dichotomy that keep people bickering and distracted so that the bu$ine$$ of politic$ can continue unabated.
Another gutless SCOTUS decision!
Why would this Conservative Supreme Court REVERSE ANYTHING with the BALL AND MONEY BOUNCING THE REPUBLICANS WAY?
The current make up of this Court gives me more reason to want to NOT HAVE Judges WITH lifetime Appointments. This Court never would have REVERSED SEGREGATION, Up held the Civil Rights/ Voting Acts if it had come before them.
We now have an IDEOLOGY DRIVEN SUPREME COURT, and they are PREPARED TO REVERSE EVERYTHING that were HARD FOUGHT BATTLES DECADES AGO for Human Dignity in this Country
If Republicans win this Election, Democracy will be something held over from the 20th Century and Earlier. We are now poised to give the Entire Country back to the ROBBER BARONS.
Romney could care less about being President as much as he about being the first Mormon President of the United States and the Mainstream Media cannot ask him any questions, when they have TRANSVAGINALED President Obama and 1/2 of Republicans believe he is a Muslim and they have made Rev. Wright an Al Queda like figure.
Romney's Mormon Church Affiliation should be investigated thoroughly. This is a Church who thought Black People were not fit to be part of it not all that long ago.
The Mormon Church is secretive. Do your job Press and inform the People, instead of A LOT OF MIS-INFORMATION for Sensationalism.
So them NOT REVERSING Citizens United is no Suprise to me. It should not be to anyone else who pays attention to their CIVIL RIGHTS SLOWLY BEING ERODED to give the Rich TOTAL CONTROL over the Country dominated by a NASTY INSANE REPUBLICAN PARTY. The Moderates have left the building.
Romney does what is best for him , always.
Veterans, military retirees; note that Romney PROMOTED THE DRAFT, then skipped out to France for extraordinary lenth of time when church missionary tours were limited. When Romney came home, he sided with his dad that the whole Viet Nam War was a scam and that he was against the war. His early flip flops, he is good at.
Promoting the draft, while Americans were dieing, he skipped out, then says he wishes he could have participated. Pro church, Anti Americam.