Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on March 10, 2010, 10:58:27 AM
-
He's right.
Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
Tuesday, 09 Mar 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says the scene at this year's State of the Union address by President Obama was "very troubling," and he wonders if justices should attend in the future.
Obama chided the court during his speech for its decision that corporations and unions could freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.
Editor's Note: Watch video at bottom of article.
Obama said the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests to spend without limit in elections.
Roberts told law students at the University of Alabama that anyone is free to criticize the court, but he was troubled the remarks came during that setting. Roberts says the State of the Union address has "degenerated to a political pep rally."
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Supreme-Court-Roberts/2010/03/09/id/352155
-
He's right.
Roberts: Scene at State of Union 'Very Troubling'
Tuesday, 09 Mar 2010
U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts says the scene at this year's State of the Union address by President Obama was "very troubling," and he wonders if justices should attend in the future.
Obama chided the court during his speech for its decision that corporations and unions could freely spend money to run political ads for or against specific candidates.
Editor's Note: Watch video at bottom of article.
Obama said the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests to spend without limit in elections.
Roberts told law students at the University of Alabama that anyone is free to criticize the court, but he was troubled the remarks came during that setting. Roberts says the State of the Union address has "degenerated to a political pep rally."
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Supreme-Court-Roberts/2010/03/09/id/352155
It was childish. Imature, and show's what an elitist Obama is.
-
I completely agree. That was quite poor.
-
By the way,Obama isn't worthy to tie the shoes of Roberts.He isn't in the same league with him intellectually.
-
By the way,Obama isn't worthy to tie the shoes of Roberts.He isn't in the same league with him intellectually.
What do you mean?? Obama is a legend in his own mind...
-
you goddamn pussies.....he's the president of the United States for crying out loud...he's basically king of the world ...he can criticize anyone he wants to at any time he chooses....
Justice Roberts is just crying like a bitch..if he doesn't like it..QUIT..otherwise, STFU
-
you goddamn pussies.....he's the president of the United States for crying out loud...he's basically king of the world ...he can criticize anyone he wants to at any time he chooses....
Justice Roberts is just crying like a bitch..if he doesn't like it..QUIT..otherwise, STFU
No he is not king! He is a part of the 3 equal branches of Govt. and Chief Executive.
If you want a King, go to The Vault in Chelsea on the lower west side of NYC and go find one with a leather mask and bend over.
For the rest of us, Obama is no king, but a 4 year mistake at best who temporarily heads the executive branch.
-
No he is not king! He is a part of the 3 equal branches of Govt. and Chief Executive.
If you want a King, go to The Vault in Chelsea on the lower west side of NYC and go find one with a leather mask and bend over.
For the rest of us, Obama is no king, but a 4 year mistake at best who temporarily heads the executive branch.
so says another Palin Booster
-
See I figured the andreisdaman post we being sarchastic so I ignored it.
But if that is what you really think, seek professional help immediatly
-
you goddamn pussies.....he's the president of the United States for crying out loud...he's basically king of the world ...he can criticize anyone he wants to at any time he chooses....
Justice Roberts is just crying like a bitch..if he doesn't like it..QUIT..otherwise, STFU
Wow,incredible!!!Hey jerkoff there are THREE EQUAL branches of government.Three EQUAL branches.You obviously are an idiot.Obama is a filthy liitle coon crying like a bitch that the supreme court took money out of the scum bag unions hand and put it back into Americans hands in elections!!!Roberts bitch slapped that coon and ass raped him with that decision.By the way,notice the courts TRUMP the president BITCH!!!!!!!!
-
No he is not king! He is a part of the 3 equal branches of Govt. and Chief Executive.
If you want a King, go to The Vault in Chelsea on the lower west side of NYC and go find one with a leather mask and bend over.
For the rest of us, Obama is no king, but a 4 year mistake at best who temporarily heads the executive branch.
October 29, 2002
If Only I Were A King Dictator, by George W. Bush
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
--Governing Magazine 7/98)
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," said Bush
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
-
October 29, 2002
If Only I Were A King Dictator, by George W. Bush
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
--Governing Magazine 7/98)
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," said Bush
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
Whats your point? Oh thats right we are going to play the lets quantify everything with GWB who by the way hasn't been POTUS for a year now ::)
Nice try bloomin' onion.
-
October 29, 2002
If Only I Were A King Dictator, by George W. Bush
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
--Governing Magazine 7/98)
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," said Bush
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
And? GWB deserves the scron he gets for his tin ear.
What about MAObama?
-
October 29, 2002
If Only I Were A King Dictator, by George W. Bush
"You don't get everything you want. A dictatorship would be a lot easier." Describing what it's like to be governor of Texas.
--Governing Magazine 7/98)
"I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," said Bush
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
"A dictatorship would be a heck of a lot easier, there's no question about it, " [Bush] said.
-- Business Week, July 30, 2001
WOW youre a piece of shit first off I think all would agree that given our govt it would be easier to get shit done if you were a dictator...obama would certainly agree given that he is trying to ram shit down our throats that america doesnt want ::)
second the 2nd quote was a joke "I told all four that there are going to be some times where we don't agree with each other, but that's OK. If this were a dictatorship, it would be a heck of a lot easier, just so long as I'm the dictator," Bush joked.
-- CNN.com, December 18, 2000
I like how you replaced joked with said ::)
most philosophers agree that a benevolent dictatorship is the best form of govt...
-
Didn't Bush 1 and 2 and Reagan also criticize SC decision in various State of the Union addresses.
Let's not forget that 4 justices voted against the decision too and in essence Obama was supporting them.
Personally, I think it was a horrible decision and will have disasterous results for our country
-
Obama said the Supreme Court reversed a century of law to open the floodgates for special interests to spend without limit in elections.
http://newsmax.com/InsideCover/US-Supreme-Court-Roberts/2010/03/09/id/352155
Aside from that, What does everyone think about this law that's been reversed?
-
"Didn't Bush 1 and 2 and Reagan also criticize SC decision in various State of the Union addresses."
I call bullshit. Obama was the first one to do this. No way a repub could be that fvcking disrepectful.
-
Aside from that, What does everyone think about this law that's been reversed?
The first amendment allows freedom of speech,something Obama is only comfortable with when it comes to dems.There are already laws on the books banning foreign interests from giving money for elections in this country.Obama=liar!
-
Aside from that, What does everyone think about this law that's been reversed?
It is the final nail in everyman's coffin, forever to silence his political voice.
-
It is the final nail in everyman's coffin, forever to silence his political voice.
No,its the final nail in filthy unions coffin as they steal money from members and give it to pieces of shit like Obama when the member doesnt want them to.
-
It is the final nail in everyman's coffin, forever to silence his political voice.
Oh please. Campaign Finance Reform is about protecting politicians' jobs, not you.
This was a good ruling and I really wonder why you want the govt regulating free speech.
-
No,its the final nail in filthy unions coffin as they steal money from members and give it to pieces of shit like Obama when the member doesnt want them to.
Allowing corporations to be individuals when it comes to political contributions means your voice will never be heard again. Best you can hope for is corporations or the insanely wealthy have an agenda consistent with a few of your values.
This is bigger than partisan politics but people are too wrapped up in their own BS to realize the Supreme Court just sold us out.
-
Allowing corporations to be individuals when it comes to political contributions means your voice will never be heard again. Best you can hope for is corporations or the insanely wealthy have an agenda consistent with a few of your values.
This is bigger than partisan politics but people are too wrapped up in their own BS to realize the Supreme Court just sold us out.
No its not, if Obama decides to target my S Corp to make a political statement , shouldnt the entity be able defend itself and donate to his opposition or opponent?
CFR has been unconstitutional from day one.
-
No its not, if Obama decides to target my S Corp to make a political statement , shouldnt the entity be able defend itself and donate to his opposition or opponent?
CFR has been unconstitutional from day one.
We'll just have to agree to disagree, bro. This has far reaching effects and ultimately our political process will be controlled by corporations which will further allow offshore interests to dictate the political process.
I'm personally for eliminating lobbyists and only allowing individual contributions up to a certain dollar amount. Only certain Americans can afford free speech as it is, this change shuts them up for good because they'll never have any means to speak louder than corporations.
Look at all the crap we have now with lobbyists.
-
We'll just have to agree to disagree, bro. This has far reaching effects and ultimately our political process will be controlled by corporations which will further allow offshore interests to dictate the political process.
I'm personally for eliminating lobbyists and only allowing individual contributions up to a certain dollar amount. Only certain Americans can afford free speech as it is, this change shuts them up for good because they'll never have any means to speak louder than corporations.
Look at all the crap we have now with lobbyists.
And then the media will have full sway.
What is wrong with the NRA donating money to candidates?
-
And then the media will have full sway.
What is wrong with the NRA donating money to candidates?
What's wrong with Israel getting $20 in aid for every $1 donated to politicians?
-
What's wrong with Israel getting $20 in aid for every $1 donated to politicians?
Tip of the iceberg.
I would cut all foreign aid but thats a different discussion.
Again - I belong to the NRA and pay like $30 a year, knowing they donate money to candidates. What is the problem since the voice of the NRA, and the millions of its members, have a stronger voice for gun owners combined, than my $30.00 can to one candidate here or there?
-
The first amendment allows freedom of speech,something Obama is only comfortable with when it comes to dems.There are already laws on the books banning foreign interests from giving money for elections in this country.Obama=liar!
Ok, but what do you think about that law being reversed? Do you think its good that companys can spend unlimited amounts of money towards a candidate campaign?
-
Ok, but what do you think about that law being reversed? Do you think its good that companys can spend unlimited amounts of money towards a candidate campaign?
Why not if there is full disclosure?
I can see also if they want to allow unlimited personal contributions with full disclosure.
Why should the media and govt get all the power over the election process?
-
Why not if there is full disclosure?
I can see also if they want to allow unlimited personal contributions with full disclosure.
Why should the media and govt get all the power over the election process?
You're a third of the way there, 33.
You've gone from Obama is the problem to his supporters. In time you'll figure out the process itself is flawed. :)
-
Why not if there is full disclosure?
I can see also if they want to allow unlimited personal contributions with full disclosure.
Why should the media and govt get all the power over the election process?
Do you think full disclosure will stop anyone (group) from buying an election? Are you comfortable with an election being decided or at least heavily influenced by which candidate gets the most money from corporations?
-
Do you think full disclosure will stop anyone (group) from buying an election? Are you comfortable with an election being decided or at least heavily influenced by which candidate gets the most money from corporations?
I believe the is problem that people like 33 want to believe huge numbers of people would share their opinion if adequately informed. Coming at it from this perspective makes it hard to see they wouldn't be able to afford as much free speech as corporations and foreign interests.
This ruling essentially makes free speech unaffordable to a majority of Americans.
-
Ok, but what do you think about that law being reversed? Do you think its good that companys can spend unlimited amounts of money towards a candidate campaign?
Elections are already being bought by unions and groups like ACORN.Finally these groups will be muted by coportations which have much more money.I cant wait to see the next election cycle and all those groups Obama attacks getting their revenge with an onslaught of ads against him.
-
Elections are already being bought by unions and groups like ACORN.Finally these groups will be muted by coportations which have much more money.I cant wait to see the next election cycle and all those groups Obama attacks getting their revenge with an onslaught of ads against him.
I'm guessing the Bush/Obama bailout will create a lot of corporate goodwill, LOL!
-
Elections are already being bought by unions and groups like ACORN.Finally these groups will be muted by coportations which have much more money.I cant wait to see the next election cycle and all those groups Obama attacks getting their revenge with an onslaught of ads against him.
Are you comfortable with that when it works both ways? Sure, Obama may get stung by it, but so can a good Conservative candidate in the future. In other words, It's seems the election process is getting worse by this decision, not better.
-
I believe the is problem that people like 33 want to believe huge numbers of people would share their opinion if adequately informed. Coming at it from this perspective makes it hard to see they wouldn't be able to afford as much free speech as corporations and foreign interests.
This ruling essentially makes free speech unaffordable to a majority of Americans.
This is what I'm worried about and that it creates an uneven playing field skewed to giving the advantage to the candidate with the most money from other interests.
-
Are you comfortable with that when it works both ways? Sure, Obama may get stung by it, but so can a good Conservative candidate in the future. In other words, It's seems the election process is getting worse by this decision, not better.
Yes,if EVERYONE has access to it its fine.I dont have a problem with money pouring in from everywhere,as long as everyone has a chance to pour it in.The more freedom the better.
-
Yes,if EVERYONE has access to it its fine.I dont have a problem with money pouring in from everywhere,as long as everyone has a chance to pour it in.The more freedom the better.
You don't think that gives corporations with more money greater control over the outcome of an election? For example: These "green" companies. What if these corporations who stand to profit greatly from "green" legislature out spend everyone else and elect a authoritarian liberal who goes all nazi on us?
-
You don't think that gives corporations with more money greater control over the outcome of an election? For example: These "green" companies. What if these corporations who stand to profit greatly from "green" legislature out spend everyone else and elect a authoritarian liberal who goes all nazi on us?
They already do and did! GE OWNS NBC!
-
They already do and did! GE OWNS NBC!
So how can anybody be OK with this decision?
-
So how can anybody be OK with this decision?
Because now there can be competing voices with NBC from giving their "green" propaganda by companies or individuals who will be harmed by it.
-
Because now there can be competing voices with NBC from giving their "green" propaganda by companies or individuals who will be harmed by it.
That's nice in principle, but then elections are still heavily influence and decided by those corporations who have the ability to throw more money out there, NOT on the basis of the candidates true platform. Companies simply make most of their decisions based on whether or not they will grow and profit from it. A company harmed by green legislature will adapt to profit from it or go out of business. Political ideology seems irrelevant in this.
This why i don't understand why you or anyone else doesn't have more of a problem with this and instead we are focused on Obama's comments about the SC. It's dumb IMO. The real issue is, the decision gives companies even more power to influence elections, and this can't be a good thing in the long term. It seems to strengthen the illusion of freedom rather preserving freedom its self.
I may be so off based on this, I'm no expert for sure. But this is just what I see. It may sound good now, but it cant' be good. This green crap isn't going away.
-
That's nice in principle, but then elections are still heavily influence and decided by those corporations who have the ability to throw more money out there, NOT on the basis of the candidates true platform. Companies simply make most of their decisions based on whether or not they will grow and profit from it. A company harmed by green legislature will adapt to profit from it or go out of business. Political ideology seems irrelevant in this.
This why i don't understand why you or anyone else doesn't have more of a problem with this and instead we are focused on Obama's comments about the SC. It's dumb IMO. The real issue is, the decision gives companies even more power to influence elections, and this can't be a good thing in the long term. It seems to strengthen the illusion of freedom rather preserving freedom its self.
I may be so off based on this, I'm no expert for sure. But this is just what I see. It may sound good now, but it cant' be good. This green crap isn't going away.
Because the 1st Amedment protects political speech first and foremost. Corporations have rights and are treated as individuals in many capacities, including this.
While I dont like the thought of GE shoving green nonsense down my throat 24/7, to me the bigger danger is a govt with more regulatory power over speech.
-
Because the 1st Amedment protects political speech first and foremost. Corporations have rights and are treated as individuals in many capacities, including this.
While I dont like the thought of GE shoving green nonsense down my throat 24/7, to me the bigger danger is a govt with more regulatory power over speech.
But in a way, hasn't government has created regulatory situation allowing BIG business to out spend everyone? Take for radio for example. Don't you need tens thousands if not millions to get a licensee to broadcast? In my mind that's a form of regulation. Same thing here. We are letting these corporations have huge amounts of influence. It's not about the free speech of an individual. It's allowing corporations to make individual free speech moot and ineffective.
-
But in a way, hasn't government has created regulatory situation allowing BIG business to out spend everyone? Take for radio for example. Don't you need tens thousands if not millions to get a licensee to broadcast? In my mind that's a form of regulation. Same thing here. We are letting these corporations have huge amounts of influence. It's not about the free speech of an individual. It's allowing corporations to make individual free speech moot and ineffective.
I dont agree - with the internet, etc, people have more of a voice than ever.
Just look at guys like Schiff and Celente. Literally with a youtube video or facebook posting they reach a huge amount of people.
I am not comfortable giving the govt power regulating politicial speech in any way whatsoever.
-
This why i don't understand why you or anyone else doesn't have more of a problem with this and instead we are focused on Obama's comments about the SC. It's dumb IMO. The real issue is, the decision gives companies even more power to influence elections, and this can't be a good thing in the long term. It seems to strengthen the illusion of freedom rather preserving freedom its self.
We can focus on both (Obama's comments and the actual decision). Obama's comments were inappropriate. Showed a lack of class/tact on his part.
Regarding the decision, I don't really have a problem with companies donating to political campaigns.
-
We can focus on both (Obama's comments and the actual decision). Obama's comments were inappropriate. Showed a lack of class/tact on his part.
Regarding the decision, I don't really have a problem with companies donating to political campaigns.
I don't have problem with them donating either, but, unlimited? I don't think that's good.
-
Presidential comments are irrelevant in the bigger picture when compared to the capacity this decision has to change American. Unfortunately, people are so desperate for political power and control they're willing to believe outspending corporations is possible.
I guess "Every country has the government it deserves" holds true. :)
-
Presidential comments are irrelevant in the bigger picture when compared to the capacity this decision has to change American. Unfortunately, people are so desperate for political power and control they're willing to believe outspending corporations is possible.
I guess "Every country has the government it deserves" holds true. :)
Did you consider my NRA example above?
-
Did you consider my NRA example above?
Can you appreciate the difference between an individual citizen donating (their own money) and corporations advancing causes/candidates to advance their own greed? Making that corporation an individual essentially renders you voiceless.
Despite whatever people wish to hope or think, this ruling essentially says Americans only have whatever rights they can afford. Small government republicans (if there are any left) should be mortified at handing elections over to big business.
-
Can you appreciate the difference between an individual citizen donating (their own money) and corporations advancing causes/candidates to advance their own greed? Making that corporation an individual essentially renders you voiceless.
Despite whatever people wish to hope or think, this ruling essentially says Americans only have whatever rights they can afford. Small government republicans (if there are any left) should be mortified at handing elections over to big business.
The NRA in of itself is a corporation, as is PETA, Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, etc.
-
The NRA in of itself is a corporation, as is PETA, Riverkeeper, Sierra Club, etc.
Don't let semantics get in the way of common sense, LOL! There's a difference between corporations directly funded by citizen intent and those who divert profits to specific interests that advance corporate goals.
I wouldn't really want Heineken directly lobbying congressmen to lower the drinking age or drug companies deciding what side-effects are OK.
-
Don't let semantics get in the way of common sense, LOL! There's a difference between corporations directly funded by citizen intent and those who divert profits to specific interests that advance corporate goals.
I wouldn't really want Heineken directly lobbying congressmen to lower the drinking age or drug companies deciding what side-effects are OK.
Why not? They pay taxes and have as much a stake in the electoral process and outcome as anyone?
-
Why not? They pay taxes and have as much a stake in the electoral process and outcome as anyone?
You'd have no problem with Cap & Trade being solely decided by political contribution?
-
You'd have no problem with Cap & Trade being solely decided by political contribution?
I agree with 100% full disclosure immediately on the internet and seeing who is donating to who.
Crap & Tax so far has been halted by people through a lot of non-profits like CATO and Heritage Foundation, and other people getting involved, despite the monet spent by GE, NBC, GS, etc.
-
I agree with 100% full disclosure immediately on the internet and seeing who is donating to who.
Crap & Tax so far has been halted by people through a lot of non-profits like CATO and Heritage Foundation, and other people getting involved, despite the monet spent by GE, NBC, GS, etc.
What if NAMBLA (with full disclosure, of course) donated enough money to have consent laws changed?
This gives foxes keys to the hen house and will do more harm than good.
-
What if NAMBLA (with full disclosure, of course) donated enough money to have consent laws changed?
This gives foxes keys to the hen house and will do more harm than good.
If NAMBLA is supporting people, the bad press would grossly outweigh the effect of their donations to the legislators.
-
What if NAMBLA (with full disclosure, of course) donated enough money to have consent laws changed?
This gives foxes keys to the hen house and will do more harm than good.
Do you really believe that the average American citizen would stand by and let something like that happen? I don't have much faith in the public at large but when it comes to something like this, it would not stand.
-
Do you really believe that the average American citizen would stand by and let something like that happen? I don't have much faith in the public at large but when it comes to something like this, it would not stand.
People stand by and let many things happen. Obviously I was using an extreme example, LOL!
-
Wow,incredible!!!Hey jerkoff there are THREE EQUAL branches of government.Three EQUAL branches.You obviously are an idiot.Obama is a filthy liitle #### crying like a bitch that the supreme court took money out of the scum bag unions hand and put it back into Americans hands in elections!!!Roberts bitch slapped that #### and ass raped him with that decision.By the way,notice the courts TRUMP the president BITCH!!!!!!!!
at the prez of
wow...I am speechless...only a dumbass like you would have taken what I said literally!!!!...what I meant by the king of the world statement is the prez of the U.S. is the most powerful man in the world...without question...every decision he makes has global implications and affects people in other countries...as such he can criticize whomever he wants to...he's the bully on the block in this regard...if he can criticize world leaders why cant he criticize a judge???...Don't be stupid
-
I'm in total agreement with John Paul Stevens in his dissenting opinion
Corporations .... "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. "... They are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
-
Reagan criticized the court for its ruling on school prayer. In his 1988 State of the Union address, Reagan expressed his displeasure with the court's recent ruling on school prayer:
And let me add here: So many of our greatest statesmen have reminded us that spiritual values alone are essential to our nation's health and vigor. The Congress opens its proceedings each day, as does the Supreme Court, with an acknowledgment of the Supreme Being. Yet we are denied the right to set aside in our schools a moment each day for those who wish to pray. I believe Congress should pass our school prayer amendment.
Reagan directly attacked the Supreme Court for Roe v. Wade. In his 1984 State of the Union address, Reagan attacked the 1973 Supreme Court ruling in Roe v. Wade, during a discussion on abortion:
And while I'm on this subject, each day your Members observe a 200-year-old tradition meant to signify America is one nation under God. I must ask: If you can begin your day with a member of the clergy standing right here leading you in prayer, then why can't freedom to acknowledge God be enjoyed again by children in every schoolroom across this land?
During our first 3 years, we have joined bipartisan efforts to restore protection of the law to unborn children. Now, I know this issue is very controversial. But unless and until it can be proven that an unborn child is not a living human being, can we justify assuming without proof that it isn't? No one has yet offered such proof; indeed, all the evidence is to the contrary. We should rise above bitterness and reproach, and if Americans could come together in a spirit of understanding and helping, then we could find positive solutions to the tragedy of abortion.
Bush condemned "activist judges" who are "redefining marriage by court order." In his 2004 State of the Union address, Bush criticized "activist judges" who, according to him, were "redefining marriage by court order":
Activist judges, however, have begun redefining marriage by court order, without regard for the will of the people and their elected representatives. On an issue of such great consequence, the people's voice must be heard. If judges insist on forcing their arbitrary will upon the people, the only alternative left to the people would be the constitutional process. Our Nation must defend the sanctity of marriage.
The outcome of this debate is important, and so is the way we conduct it. The same moral tradition that defines marriage also teaches that each individual has dignity and value in God's sight.
-
I'm in total agreement with John Paul Stevens in his dissenting opinion
Corporations .... "have no consciences, no beliefs, no feelings, no thoughts, no desires. "... They are not themselves members of 'We the People' by whom and for whom our Constitution was established."
Except a corporation is treated like a person under federal law:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— . . . the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals . . . ."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000001----000-.html
Note how the words take on no added meaning if I fail to use supersize font. :)
-
People will be fine with this until someone with enough money buys away some of their rights.
-
People will be fine with this until someone with enough money buys away some of their rights.
Dude. Money already controls the system. It gets people a seat at the table. It determines legislative priorities. It has already corrupted the system.
-
Except a corporation is treated like a person under federal law:
"In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise— . . . the words 'person' and 'whoever' include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals . . . ."
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode01/usc_sec_01_00000001----000-.html
Note how the words take on no added meaning if I fail to use supersize font. :)
I'm well aware that a corporation is treated like a person under federal law and I'm sure that Justice Stevens does too
when did I say otherwise.
I don't agree with it just like you probably don't agree with legal abortion
I say if corporations are people then why can't they vote, why can't they run for office, why can they have lifespans longer than any human on the planet, why can't they get cancer or or have their health affected by polution, etc...
If corporations are "people" then they are the new master race
btw - this is what supersize font looks like
-
I'm well aware that a corporation is treated like a person under federal law and I'm sure that Justice Stevens does too
when did I say otherwise.
I don't agree with it just like you probably don't agree with legal abortion
I say if corporations are people then why can't they vote, why can't they run for office, why can they have lifespans longer than any human on the planet, why can't they get cancer or or have their health affected by polution, etc...
If corporations are "people" then they are the new master race
btw - this is what supersize font looks like
More nonsense.
Like I keep saying and I cant get an answer for, if Obama chooses to demonize my small Sub S. Corp. consisting of below 75 shareholders 60 days prior to an election, why should the entity be prohibited from defending itself publicly by donating money to his competitor and/or running television ads on TV against him?