Remember, Gorsuch believes Corps. are "people" and religiosity is a "right"

[GaryDog]

As the Dixie Chicks sang, I'm not ready to play nice,.......

Filibuster is the voice of the senate minority. USE IT !!!

Corporations are legal persons, that's been established in federal statute for over 200 years.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If you disagree on either point, you are an idiot.

LMAO, bullshit. You know as much about the law as you do about using the internet to sign up for healthcare.

 

[Blackrook]

As the Dixie Chicks sang, I'm not ready to play nice,.......

Filibuster is the voice of the senate minority. USE IT !!!

Corporations are legal persons, that's been established in federal statute for over 200 years.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If you disagree on either point, you are an idiot.

LMAO, bullshit. You know as much about the law as you do about using the internet to sign up for healthcare.

So you deny reality, and live in a fantasy world. I really don't care, you're a lunatic.

 

[g5000]

Please cite direct evidence that this man believes "corps are people". Be specific now.

Regarding religion, are you suggesting having a strong religious feeling or belief is NOT a right? You saying government should be able to restrict someone's religious belief...just because? What the fuck are you saying?

On the first point, do you believe that Gorsuch fully back the Citizen United decision...THAT horrible decision basically states that Corporations ARE just like individuals...

You are regurgitating a left wing invention about Citizens United, not the Supreme Court.

Really? How does the "regurgitation" differ, materially?

Can you show us in Citizens United where the US Supreme Court said corporations are people?

It should also be noted that decision also applies to the electioneering communications of labor unions, not just corporations. So the media-created term to explain Citizens United as "corporations are people" is inaccurate on several levels.

I bet none of you parrots have ever actually read the decision for yourselves.

 

[GaryDog]

Please cite direct evidence that this man believes "corps are people". Be specific now.

Regarding religion, are you suggesting having a strong religious feeling or belief is NOT a right? You saying government should be able to restrict someone's religious belief...just because? What the fuck are you saying?

On the first point, do you believe that Gorsuch fully back the Citizen United decision...THAT horrible decision basically states that Corporations ARE just like individuals...

You are regurgitating a left wing invention about Citizens United, not the Supreme Court.

Really? How does the "regurgitation" differ, materially?

Can you show us in Citizens United where the US Supreme Court said corporations are people?

It should also be noted that decision also applies to the electioneering communications of labor unions, not just corporations. So the media-created term to explain Citizens United as "corporations are people" is inaccurate on several levels.

By handing First Amendment free-speech rights to corporations.

I don't care what it did for unions, I object wholesale to unfettered cash flowing into politics.

 

[g5000]

CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

 

[Blackrook]

The laws of the United States hold that a legal entity (like a corporation or non-profit organization) shall be treated under the law as a person except when otherwise noted. This rule of construction is specified in 1 U.S.C. §1 (United States Code),[14] which states:

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;

 

[g5000]

Please cite direct evidence that this man believes "corps are people". Be specific now.

Regarding religion, are you suggesting having a strong religious feeling or belief is NOT a right? You saying government should be able to restrict someone's religious belief...just because? What the fuck are you saying?

On the first point, do you believe that Gorsuch fully back the Citizen United decision...THAT horrible decision basically states that Corporations ARE just like individuals...

You are regurgitating a left wing invention about Citizens United, not the Supreme Court.

Really? How does the "regurgitation" differ, materially?

Can you show us in Citizens United where the US Supreme Court said corporations are people?

It should also be noted that decision also applies to the electioneering communications of labor unions, not just corporations. So the media-created term to explain Citizens United as "corporations are people" is inaccurate on several levels.

By handing First Amendment free-speech rights to corporations.

I don't care what it did for unions, I object wholesale to unfettered cash flowing into politics.

So you can't show us where the Supreme Court said "corporations are people". Just as I already knew. Because it isn't there. Anti free speech assholes made that up.

As for "unfettered cash", are you deliberately ignoring that George Soros found ways to contribute millions of dollars to Obama and to organizations trying to defeat Bush BEFORE Citizens United?

18 million dollars in 2004.

2004.

Are the words "Citizens United" some kind of magic spell that makes liberals blind to facts?

 

[g5000]

Citizens United does not affect the amount of money a person or association (corporation, union, etc) can donate directly to a candidate. Direct campaign cash limitations were not affected.

Citizens United was a decision which stated if a person, or an association of persons, or a union, or a corporation, wanted to spend their own money making political speech, they could not be banned from doing so.

The First Amendment is a beautiful thing.

 

[Moonglow]

As the Dixie Chicks sang, I'm not ready to play nice,.......

Filibuster is the voice of the senate minority. USE IT !!!

Corporations are legal persons, that's been established in federal statute for over 200 years.

Freedom of religion is enshrined in the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.

If you disagree on either point, you are an idiot.

LMAO, bullshit. You know as much about the law as you do about using the internet to sign up for healthcare.

So you deny reality, and live in a fantasy world. I really don't care, you're a lunatic.

Corporations were granted individual status in the 1880's.. The Founders refused to give them that status..

 

[g5000]

Again, corporations are affected by our laws. You assholes would tie their hands and not allow them a voice in the laws which affect them.

That is the very definition of tyranny.

 

[GaryDog]

On the first point, do you believe that Gorsuch fully back the Citizen United decision...THAT horrible decision basically states that Corporations ARE just like individuals...

You are regurgitating a left wing invention about Citizens United, not the Supreme Court.

Really? How does the "regurgitation" differ, materially?

Can you show us in Citizens United where the US Supreme Court said corporations are people?

It should also be noted that decision also applies to the electioneering communications of labor unions, not just corporations. So the media-created term to explain Citizens United as "corporations are people" is inaccurate on several levels.

By handing First Amendment free-speech rights to corporations.

I don't care what it did for unions, I object wholesale to unfettered cash flowing into politics.

So you can't show us where the Supreme Court said "corporations are people". Just as I already knew. Because it isn't there. Anti free speech assholes made that up.

As for "unfettered cash", are you deliberately ignoring that George Soros found ways to contribute millions of dollars to Obama and to organizations trying to defeat Bush BEFORE Citizens United?

18 million dollars in 2004.

2004.

Are the words "Citizens United" some kind of magic spell that makes liberals blind to facts?

This is the reason we'll never agree: You think it's relevant to bring up big Democratic donors. You literally DON'T know what you're arguing over. I'm against all huge donors.

And yes, if corporations can give unlimited amounts of dark money because of "Free Speech" laws, then you're handing individual constitutional rights to non-human entities. That's LITERALLY their ruling.

 

[NightFox]

I'm a minarchist libertarian,

Actually you're just another right wing hack who tries to cover his inanities with "libertarian" labels.

*YAWN* about what I expected; your propaganda soaked brain is incapable of formulating a coherent response and thus the only option available to you is an inane attempt at deflection.

"When all else fails put on a costume and sing a silly song" -- Sam Walton

 

[g5000]

It kills me how liberals give more and more power to the central government, and then whine when that power is captured by special interests.

STOP MAKING IT EASY FOR THEM, YOU DUMB FUCKS!

The more you centralize power, the more easy it is to capture.

You dumb shits are treating the symptom instead of the disease. You think the problem is MONEY when it is POWER.

Despite half a century of campaign finance "reforms" by our courts and our legislature, the re-election rate of the American Politboro is COMPLETELY UNCHANGED.

In the House, an incumbent who chooses to run for re-election has a 98 percent chance of winning. In the Senate, it's 90 percent.

American Politboro.

I pointed out Soros to demonstrate that no matter what kind of fucking campaign finance reform you have ever had, it had ZERO effect on money in politics, and had ZERO effect on the Politboro.

You want instant campaign finance reform? It's so fucking simple, even a child can figure it out.

TAKE. POWER. AWAY. FROM. THE. FEDERAL. GOVERNMENT.

I talk about tax expenditures all the time. Deductions, credits, exemptions. Corporations pay HUGE amounts of money to lobbyists and politicians to give them deductions, credits, and exemptions which make the playing field unlevel.

What do you suppose would happen if you took away a politician's ability to give a special interest a tax carve out?

Exactly! You just took away the incentive to bribe the motherfucker!

And yet you IDIOTS never figure this out. You keep giving federal government more and MORE POWER.

And you unbelievably stupid motherfuckers gave them power over your very HEALTH during the Obama regime.

Goddam. The stupidity is so thick on the ground, it's unbearable sometimes.

 

[g5000]

Take away a politician's power, you take away the incentive to buy him.

So fucking simple, and yet the idiots never figure that out.

Stop treating the symptom, and stop feeding the disease.

 

[LeftofLeft]

As the Dixie Chicks sang, I'm not ready to play nice,.......

Filibuster is the voice of the senate minority. USE IT !!!

Of course it is. You people love filibuster It's the obstruction weapon of choice when you are losing. When you are winning, you use the IRS.

 

[nat4900]

Since our laws affect corporations, they must be allowed to have a voice in the process which creates those laws, asshole.

Freedom of religion is a right. Read the Constitution some time.

Wrong on BOTH counts......

Corporations already have a very LOUD "voice" in the processes....Heck, they bribe enough politicians to do their bidding.

Second, I'm not disputing "freedom of religion" moron....I AM disputing the introduction of religiosity when MAKING judicial decisions.

When you leran the difference, please do come back.

 

[Avatar4321]

So he thinks people have a right to political speech no matter how they organize themselves and that they have the right to express and exercise their religion as they choose?

And that's controversial to you? All of those things are protected by the first amendment.

You don't know this, yet we should listen to you talk about his qualifications?

 

[Avatar4321]

Really? 'Freedom of Religion' is considered in curt cases, as are all other Rights.
Many of our laws are arguably derived from 'religious values' (10 Commandments).

Then have the Pope as a nominee for the SCOTUS

That's your retort?

 

[Avatar4321]

Many of our laws are arguably derived from 'religious values' (10 Commandments).

Including capital punishment??????

Yes.

 

[nat4900]

Can you show us in Citizens United where the US Supreme Court said corporations are people?

Citizen United gave corps. PERSON-HOOD......

Ergo, if an individual donates $10 to a candidate while a corporation gives that same candidate $1 million, want to guess WHO the candidate is more beholden to?.