Political Forums  

Go Back   Political Forums > Politicalchat.org discussion boards > History
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

We appreciate your help

in keeping this site going.
Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 04-18-2012, 01:51 PM
bobabode's Avatar
bobabode bobabode is offline
Admin
 
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Behind the Orange Curtain in California
Posts: 37,234
Quote:
Originally Posted by piece-itpete View Post
This ship has sailed a LONG time ago, and news flash - your guy is a corporate goon too.

One thing I like about the United decision, that the political news/candidate/consultant machine encompassing both parties is no longer in total control. Whether it ends up being as entertaining as it should be remains to be seen.

Pete
If only they hadn't done it in such a smoke filled back room, underhanded and sleezy fashion. Trust me Pete, I don't need a set of crystal balls to say that their decision is going to be up for review when the composition of the court shifts as it always does. It'll be an easy one to set aside for many reasons. Too bad that so much coin will be wasted righting this perverse decision.

If someone wants to dramatically change the way the country is run they should take it to the people through the normal process of legislation. What the Roberts court has done is to water down (actually, pissed in the face of) the respect and confidence that we had in the court of last resort. (Well, what little was left after their crowning the Shrub in 2000, you know.)

Roberts, IIRC , at his confirmation had stated that he was against activism from the bench and the very next year pulled that Citizens United decision out of thin air. The two sides had already come to a compromise deal and it was narrowly focused on the issue before the court. Never in the 200+ years of the court has this kind of activism been seen. Law is a slowly built up succession of little steps but this one was a freaky gyration of convolutions and outright fables that I think everyone was left slackjawed and stunned by it. No one could believe much less mount any argument against this absolutely brazen power grab.

If ever there was a time for the Ol' Hickory response to a decision coming from the bench, this was it. (Actually, Old Hickory was wrong in his decision to ignore that one, BTW, and should've been impeached. IMO.) But war heroes being war heroes he got away with it.

I for one don't see any entertainment value in demeaning the relevance of the Supreme court but what the hell do I know? I'm just a hophead nail pounder like my esteemed colleague from Bugtussle, ya know?
__________________
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like, and I like less than half of you half as well as you deserve.
- Mr. Underhill
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 04-18-2012, 03:23 PM
bhunter's Avatar
bhunter bhunter is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: San Diego California
Posts: 3,261
Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode View Post

If someone wants to dramatically change the way the country is run they should take it to the people through the normal process of legislation. What the Roberts court has done is to water down (actually, pissed in the face of) the respect and confidence that we had in the court of last resort. (Well, what little was left after their crowning the Shrub in 2000, you know.)
No, it is the court that needs to protect political speech against the silencing of a hostile legislature.

Quote:
Roberts, IIRC , at his confirmation had stated that he was against activism from the bench and the very next year pulled that Citizens United decision out of thin air. The two sides had already come to a compromise deal and it was narrowly focused on the issue before the court. Never in the 200+ years of the court has this kind of activism been seen. Law is a slowly built up succession of little steps but this one was a freaky gyration of convolutions and outright fables that I think everyone was left slackjawed and stunned by it. No one could believe much less mount any argument against this absolutely brazen power grab.
One could say the same thing about Austin v. Michigan. Have you read Kennedy's dissenting opinion in the Austin case? The suppression of speech, any speech, ought be severely restricted when there is not a clear physical danger to life regardless of assumed potentialities of unfairness IMHO. Inasmuch that corporations are great contibutors to our way of life and generally compete amongst themselves, there is little reason to unfairly lock them out of campaign involvement.
__________________
Dear Optimist: Unless life gives you water and sugar too, your lemonade will suck.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 04-18-2012, 03:37 PM
piece-itpete's Avatar
piece-itpete piece-itpete is offline
Possibly admin. Maybe ;)
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Location: Land of the burning river
Posts: 21,098
Quote:
Originally Posted by BlueStreak View Post
Where does the money come from, Pete? The employees are not part of the organization? Managers and shareholders generate all of that revenue on their own with help from no one?

On which planet does this fantasy take place?

Furthermore, your post exposes the root of many of our problems today, IMO.

The only folks that matter are the managers and shareholders, the rest of us are just parasites, feeding off of them?
That's the attitude that needs to go, IMHO.
Of course, that's not my argument, and not what I'm saying. I think you know that.

Pete
__________________
“How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.”
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:22 PM.



Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.