I saw some of his quotes in this morning's paper. Yep. He wasn't in agreement with the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by LkwdSteve
By the way, I am confused by the title of this thread. Activist? Spitting on democracy??
Printable View
I saw some of his quotes in this morning's paper. Yep. He wasn't in agreement with the court.Quote:
Originally Posted by LkwdSteve
By the way, I am confused by the title of this thread. Activist? Spitting on democracy??
That's the part I don't understand. Some of his main contributors were banks and he was quoted as saying that this decision helped them and he didn't like that. He also said it would lead to a stampede of special intrest money in our politics. Isn't that what labor unions are? And isn't the money already there? Both sides are on the take with special intrest groups and this will just make it more annoying to the public because of all of the political ads we will have to endure.
When a court makes a ruling you don't like it means they're activists.Quote:
Originally Posted by LkwdSteve
It was an activist ruling. Even John McCain agrees.
The Obama contributors were also buttressed by the millions of individuals who reached into their pockets as were contributed by corporations.
Compare the amount of individal contributors and the $ total and it doesn't come remotely close to McCain/Palin.
The reality is that corporations rule the roost for both sides. It's disgusting on many levels. Just look at the health insurance lobby during the protracted HCR negotiations. Do you think Lieberman was open minded about the public option? His wife is in the industry and he took huge $ from the Conn based corporations.
There is no such thing as competition anymore. Hell, my huge company is almost as bad with the $ they throw around.
Quote:
Originally Posted by washed up wrestler
You make my point. That is why I can't understand why this ruling even matters, except for us having to watch more commercials than usual. Obama saying that he doesn't agree with the ruling is as hypocritical as anyone else saying the same thing.
I agree with the Supreme Courts' action to quash the limit on "corporate political speech." I don't like embellished political attack ads but did not like bill limiting the speech either. I see the decision as reasonable and logical.
Quote:
Originally Posted by washed up wrestler
It isn't a surprise McCain disagrees; didn't the decision strike down provisions of his own finance reform bill (McCain-Feingold).
The First Amendment requires 10 words for a sufficient stipulation: "Congress shall make NO LAW...abridging the Freedom of Speech."
It is my belief that the Constitution must be interpreted based upon the spirit in which it was written, not the literal meaning of the words. The founding fathers did not anticipate people entering public places with assault rifles gunning down everyone in sight, the easy access and pervasive influence of the internet, or foreign corporations using the media to influence the will of the American people. Laws must keep up with society in order to be effective. This doesn't mean ignoring the Constitution, it means allowing it to grow while preserving its basic intent: protecting the individual from oppressive government.