Supreme Court rulings

[redandguilty]

Most of the Arizona immigration law has been struck down, but a key part was upheld. Police can stop and question people if they have a reason to suspect them, but they cannot hold them.

Still waiting on the health care ruling.

 

[redandguilty]

Healthcare ruling won't be 'til Thursday.

 

[cheeno]

Not revisiting Campaign finance reform either.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...n-corporate-spending-20120625,0,1240460.story

 

[Michchamp]

Not revisiting Campaign finance reform either.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...n-corporate-spending-20120625,0,1240460.story

no need to... the Roberts court delivered what they were told to deliver in the citizens united ruling, and it's still the law of the land. Billionaires are happy.

 

[redandguilty]

Not revisiting Campaign finance reform either.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politic...n-corporate-spending-20120625,0,1240460.story

No surprise, but it's still crap.

 

[mhughes0021]

companies are people too! wait....wtf?! How does that make any fucking sense? oh....cause its a republican ideology.

 

[tsmith7559]

companies are people too! wait....wtf?! How does that make any fucking sense? oh....cause its a republican ideology.

since Unions have been people too(for many years) were just getting up to speed with ya

 

[Mitchrapp]

since Unions have been people too(for many years) were just getting up to speed with ya

Good one.

 

[byco42]

I suppose it matters little that both parties and presidential candidates have their snouts in some of the same corporate troughs. They like to hedge their bets, these corporations.

 

[TheVictors]

Top 10 Contributors to the 2008 McCain and Obama campaigns were identical aside from TWO contirbutors on each side.

As the resident expert on politics and retired so he has nothing but time on his hands to perform Google searches, you know tstupid has the answer ... What were the TWO contributors to each campaign that differed from the other EIGHT identical names?

 

[Michchamp]

I suppose it matters little that both parties and presidential candidates have their snouts in some of the same corporate troughs. They like to hedge their bets, these corporations.

it matters a lot. the two-party system is a false dichotomy... the amount of Super PAC corporate money flowing into the system has essentially drowned out everything else. the only politicians with a hope of being elected are those that have been carefully vetted by corporations (and their lobbyists in DC) to ensure they don't have any sort of conscience whatsoever, OR are in a race with a low enough profile that there is no big money behind it. Those are few and far between these days. Maybe the occasional school board election, or small town mayoral race are the only places you can consider this still a representative democracy...

 

[Mitchrapp]

it matters a lot. the two-party system is a false dichotomy... the amount of Super PAC corporate money flowing into the system has essentially drowned out everything else. the only politicians with a hope of being elected are those that have been carefully vetted by corporations (and their lobbyists in DC) to ensure they don't have any sort of conscience whatsoever, OR are in a race with a low enough profile that there is no big money behind it. Those are few and far between these days. Maybe the occasional school board election, or small town mayoral race are the only places you can consider this still a representative democracy...

Well yeah, lol.

As a kid we all heard the same thing, "Anyone can become President". Heh, as long as you're filthy rich.

 

[Michchamp]

since Unions have been people too(for many years) were just getting up to speed with ya

you have no idea what you are talking about. this is the worst kind of spin; absolutely no factual basis for it.

the idea that unions were contributing so much money to political races prior to 2010 that they skewed the results unfairly is not only WRONG, it's completely disproven by the elections of Reagan, Bush, Clinton's support for NAFTA which the unions uniformly opposed, & Bush Jr., not to mention every GOP congressman or senator elected in a union state during this same time.

and nevermind the fact that if anything this decision would allow more union money to flow into elections... take it from John McCain:

Republican Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the party's 2008 presidential nominee, said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns". McCain was "disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions" but not surprised by the decision, saying that "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA."

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe opined that "Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country."
​

but in the end, it doesn't matter. outside of a handful of places, unions really don't have much power, or money, especially compared to the real players these days: wall street, banks, the defense industry, and all sorts of pro-business associations and lobbyists, like the Business Roundtable, Heritage Foundation, US Chamber of Commerce, etc. this decision was just bad all around. Bad legal reasoning, bad procedure (borders on shady acts from Roberts in having the majority opinion sent back and re-written), and bad results.

the Montana Supreme Court was brave to rule as they did, in light of the sleaziness of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Futile act on their part, but at least they're keeping this decision in the news. the more bad press it gets, the better.

 

[byco42]

it matters a lot. the two-party system is a false dichotomy... the amount of Super PAC corporate money flowing into the system has essentially drowned out everything else. the only politicians with a hope of being elected are those that have been carefully vetted by corporations (and their lobbyists in DC) to ensure they don't have any sort of conscience whatsoever, OR are in a race with a low enough profile that there is no big money behind it. Those are few and far between these days. Maybe the occasional school board election, or small town mayoral race are the only places you can consider this still a representative democracy...

I guess my sarcasm was not communicated effectively.

 

[Michchamp]

I guess my sarcasm was not communicated effectively.

no, the part about it "mattering little" ... I got it. I just felt strongly enough about the topic that I replied more seriously.

starting thinking about the 2000 election... I watched a documentary on Ralph Nader's career, and it had live footage of the county sheriff & deputies threatening to arrest him on the spot if he even tried to attend the Presidential Debate between Gore and Bush as an audience member. "We have been instructed to arrest you for trespassing if you set foot on these grounds..." at the time he was polling well over the 5% threshold to be invited to debate, according to network rules. He was refused a spot in the debate without comment or reason, and denied even the ability to attend, despite the fact that other supporters who had tickets to the debate gave them to him.

the cracks in the facade...

 

[byco42]

I know. The political process has never been more corrupted or played out in advance. I don't care who wins in 2012; the rotten core will not be extracted.

 

[TheVictors]

Agreed

 

[Thumb]

I know. The political process has never been more corrupted or played out in advance. I don't care who wins in 2012; the rotten core will not be extracted.

Politics has always been about who you think was the lesser of two evils, nothing has changed since Adams / Jefferson.

It's the people behind the people running for office who have always been the problem, it's just modernized now.

 

[tsmith7559]

you have no idea what you are talking about. this is the worst kind of spin; absolutely no factual basis for it.

the idea that unions were contributing so much money to political races prior to 2010 that they skewed the results unfairly is not only WRONG, it's completely disproven by the elections of Reagan, Bush, Clinton's support for NAFTA which the unions uniformly opposed, & Bush Jr., not to mention every GOP congressman or senator elected in a union state during this same time.

and nevermind the fact that if anything this decision would allow more union money to flow into elections... take it from John McCain:

Republican Senator John McCain, co-crafter of the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act and the party's 2008 presidential nominee, said "there's going to be, over time, a backlash ... when you see the amounts of union and corporate money that's going to go into political campaigns". McCain was "disappointed by the decision of the Supreme Court and the lifting of the limits on corporate and union contributions" but not surprised by the decision, saying that "It was clear that Justice Roberts, Alito and Scalia, by their very skeptical and even sarcastic comments, were very much opposed to BCRA."

Republican Senator Olympia Snowe opined that "Today's decision was a serious disservice to our country."
​

but in the end, it doesn't matter. outside of a handful of places, unions really don't have much power, or money, especially compared to the real players these days: wall street, banks, the defense industry, and all sorts of pro-business associations and lobbyists, like the Business Roundtable, Heritage Foundation, US Chamber of Commerce, etc. this decision was just bad all around. Bad legal reasoning, bad procedure (borders on shady acts from Roberts in having the majority opinion sent back and re-written), and bad results.

the Montana Supreme Court was brave to rule as they did, in light of the sleaziness of Roberts, Scalia, Thomas, and Alito. Futile act on their part, but at least they're keeping this decision in the news. the more bad press it gets, the better.

along with Obama's close to $800 Mill he raised in 2008, Unions contributed another $400 Million to his campaign...funny...I didnt here much bitching from libs 4 yrs ago

 

[byco42]

Politics has always been about who you think was the lesser of two evils, nothing has changed since Adams / Jefferson.

It's the people behind the people running for office who have always been the problem, it's just modernized now.

Took a little longer for the real inside deals to transpire. 24 years after the election of 1800. Most Americans, and especially the founders, never expected the republic to last longer than their own lives.