WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

[Intense]

As for the other stuff...stop regurgitating talking points. My son just secured insurance for hmself for $3700 a year. Great plan? Nope. Solid? Yep. Affordable? Very.
There are many "organic food" retailers in any city...so I can buy whatever food I want with whatever additives.

Your son pays more than $308 a month for a shitty insurance plan? Wow, congratulations. You just proved my point. What about someone making $10 an hour? That's an entry level wage, you know.

As for the other references, I was merely stating that corporations can and do get away with murder without regulation in order to raise the most profits - which obviously benefit very, very few Americans. We have sold this country to the highest bidder and I cannot for a minute believe that anyone would be "okay" with this. Do you not realize that what little pipsqueak of a voice we had left is gone?

Not for an instant!

 

[code1211]

Here's some 'nuance' for you to chew on...

The Supreme Court has handed a new weapon to lobbyists. If you vote wrong, a lobbyist can now tell any elected official that my company, labor union or interest group will spend unlimited sums explicitly advertising against your re-election.

“We have got a million we can spend advertising for you or against you — whichever one you want,’ ” a lobbyist can tell lawmakers, said Lawrence M. Noble, a lawyer at Skadden Arps in Washington and former general counsel of the Federal Election Commission.
More...

-------------------------------------------------

A very large percentage of U.S. corporations are owned by foreign persons or entities. In 2006, USA Today reported: "Nearly one in five U.S. oil refineries is owned by foreign companies. Foreign companies also have a sizable presence in running power plants, chemical factories and water treatment facilities in the United States." It was also reported that, "Roads and bridges built by U.S. taxpayers are starting to be sold off, and so far foreign-owned companies are doing the buying." In 2008, it was reported that foreign ownership of U.S. companies "more than doubled" between 1996 and 2005. To get a fix on the spending power, consider this: "The total receipts of foreign-owned companies were $1.7 trillion in 1996 and just $39 billion in 1971."
More...
===========================

So another 'nuance' of this radical activist ruling is that foreigners now have a 'vote' in who represents We, the people...

AGAIN...WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right?

As with most campaign finance laws, the teeth were missing in McCain Feingold due to what? The First Amendment.

Any corporation or labor union or neighborhood or church could hire an ad on any topic at any time in any campaign to make a point. The narrator could allow the pictures or the soundtrack to make a point and then end up by saying, "Call Senator Brown and tell him to...".

The "tell him to" makes this a policy ad and not a campaign ad. We have all heard these. After this ruling, the ads will no longer say call senator brouwn and tell him to do whatever. They will say vote for Senator Brown.

The difference is so subtle as to be unnoticed and for most of us it will be unnoticed.

For the distractors in Washington terrified that we will find out they are thieves who know little and do less, this is a good bone to throw to the people. Does nothing, means nothing, sounds high minded and is pointless.

 

[Oldandtired]

As for the other stuff...stop regurgitating talking points. My son just secured insurance for hmself for $3700 a year. Great plan? Nope. Solid? Yep. Affordable? Very.
There are many "organic food" retailers in any city...so I can buy whatever food I want with whatever additives.

Your son pays more than $308 a month for a shitty insurance plan? Wow, congratulations. You just proved my point. What about someone making $10 an hour? That's an entry level wage, you know.

As for the other references, I was merely stating that corporations can and do get away with murder without regulation in order to raise the most profits - which obviously benefit very, very few Americans. We have sold this country to the highest bidder and I cannot for a minute believe that anyone would be "okay" with this. Do you not realize that what little pipsqueak of a voice we had left is gone?

And at 308 a month, the insuirance company makes at best 4% profit while employing thousands of Americans.

Seems to me that maybe the issue is not the greed of the insurance companies. Maybe we should find out what it is?

I suggest you look at profit as a percentage and not fall for the crap you hear about profit in dollars.

To make a billion in porfit, but eaRNING ONLY 5% profit means you are employing thousands of Americans with a return on your money equal to what you can get safely investing it and employing none.

I suggest you think about that before you chastise them for making profit.

 

[Bfgrn]

Only an asshole would use the dead children of mothers to spin what someone else was saying...all in an effort to win a debate with anonymous participants.

You are surely an asshole...who probably jerks off to the thought of those dead children.

Only someone without conscience would resort to dismissing the fact that some tragic consequences CAN'T be controlled by shallow actions like turning off a TV or voting for someone else. Consequences like the death of a child or any family member due to carcinogens dumped into our air, water, soil and working environment by corporations.

Yet, if I put PCBs in my pool and let the neighborhood kids go for a swim I would be put in prison. I wouldn't have a team of lawyers and connected CEO's to negotiate a fine or a plea bargain. I would be ostracized and called a monster that should be publicly drown in my pool of PCBs...You lost this argument when I exposed that you have no patriotism based on fellow Americans. I can live with being an asshole, I pity that you have to live with being uncivilized and crass...

Camus would never mistake you for a thinking man...

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Why dont we address all of the wrongs in the world while we are at it. We were in a debate and you brought up something to counter my sentiments that is related, yes, but a stretch to the crux of the debate.
As for intentional and deadly polluting of our environment, I do not see things any differently than you do..and nowhere did I imply otherwise. Your issue is with the legal system that certainly favors those with money..such as large corporations...large unions...large spoecial interest groups. You and I , for example, will fare not nearly as well as ACORN or IBM in a court of law.
But you see...I am a thinking man. Crass? Usually not. Yes, I most certainly was with you, but I doubt you will ever find a post of mine in the past that was crass as my most recent one to you. I am embarrassed. Dont know what got me to that point....but I take full responsibility and I apologize...and retract.

As for the debate at hand...look at my posts. I do not in any way applaud the ruling nor do I favor it. However, I support it as it supports the way I interpret the constitution...and I have learned over my 50 years that you must take the good with the bad...and in no way should you ever compromise your convictions for personal gain.

Thanks for the beratement. It was deserved.

OK, let's reset...no need for an apology, but I do appreciate it and reciprocate.

I can see the freedom of speech argument of the debate, but I see this ruling as an attack on other parts of our freedoms. You and I are contemporaries, I am a little older, but we've both witnessed that abuses unfortunately do occur.

The abuses that do occur caused by greed and irresponsibility will never cease, but I can see where this ruling could metastasize those abuses. The power and intimidation that could be wielded in irresponsible hands is a real concern on my end.

I worked for corporations and called on thousands of them over the years. Some are huge polluters, some build roads and bridges, some specialize in remedial cleanup some are municipal. I have many friends that own corporations. I believe most of them are upstanding people. But, I have also witnessed where the apparatus of a corporation removes personal responsibility from the individual. I've seen people DO things they would never do to their own neighborhood or afflict on their own family. Often it is a worker or supervisor motivated by pressure to cut costs, achieve praise and/or upward mobility for adding to the profit margin or peer pressure to look the other way.

Our founding fathers were much more suspicious of corporation and much more controlling....

...the Constitution's authors left control of corporations to state legislatures (10th Amendment), where they would get the closest supervision by the people. Early corporate charters were explicit about what a corporation could do, how, for how long, with whom, where, and when. Corporations could not own stock in other corporations, and they were prohibited from any part of the political process. Individual stockholders were held personally liable for any harms done in the name of the corporation, and most charters only lasted for 10 or 15 years. But most importantly, in order to receive the profit-making privileges the shareholders sought, their corporations had to represent a clear benefit for the public good, such a building a road, canal, or bridge. And when corporations violated any of these terms, their charters were frequently revoked by the state legislatures.
Abolish Corporate Personhood

I have high hopes and expectations of my country and I want to leave a better country for my children. But I find it ironic and distressing that now America is the only first world country that gives this much power to corporations. And we also lead the world in incarcerating human beings.

I don't see any way this ruling makes America better country or works to the benefit of the common man. It was our parents 'Greatest' generation that toiled to build her. I see this ruling as a benefit to the powers that could dismantle our democracy and make us all beholden to corporations. I hope that will not be the outcome...

I am always skeptical, but this ruling causes cynicism...

Here are some words that capture my beliefs...

"Harry Truman once said, 'There are 14 or 15 million Americans who have the resources to have representatives in Washington to protect their interests, and that the interests of the great mass of the other people - the 150 or 160 million - is the responsibility of the president of the United States, and I propose to fulfill it.'"
President John F. Kennedy

 

[LibocalypseNow]

The Supreme Court seems to be a bit rigged at this point. Even when it was supposedly "Conservative" it still made some pretty bizarre Left Wing rulings. Like giving foreign Terrorists U.S. Constitutional Rights. That sure wasn't a Conservative or "Right Wing" decision. The Left celebrated that awful decision for months. I think they just play games with us at this point. The give one to the Right then they give one to the Left and so on and so on. I think we're just being played for suckers with that whole "Liberal Court" & "Conservative Court" thing. Look for a big decision to come down for the Left in the near future. I'm pretty sure i'm gonna be right on that prediction. As usual,we're just being duped. Give one to the Right then give one to the Left. That seems to be how the Supreme Court works at this point. Pretty sad stuff.

 

[Liability]

WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right? Reply to Thread?

Stupid post. Stupid thinking.

It is emphatically NOT "judicial activism" when the Court decides a case, as they did here, based on the clear and plain meaning of utterly unambiguous words actually written in the Constitution.

Justice Stevens is a dope.

 

[Bfgrn]

WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right? Reply to Thread?

Stupid post. Stupid thinking.

It is emphatically NOT "judicial activism" when the Court decides a case, as they did here, based on the clear and plain meaning of utterly unambiguous words actually written in the Constitution.

Justice Stevens is a dope.

Then Justice Stevens joins over one hundred years of 'dope', and it took George W. Bush to pick the genius...

Our enemies...never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we.
George W. Bush

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKgPY1adc0A]YouTube - Bush "Fool Me Once..."[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lj3iNxZ8Dww&feature=related]YouTube - Miss Teen USA 2007 - South Carolina answers a question[/ame]

 

[Liability]

WHERE are all the cries of judicial activism from the right? Reply to Thread?

Stupid post. Stupid thinking.

It is emphatically NOT "judicial activism" when the Court decides a case, as they did here, based on the clear and plain meaning of utterly unambiguous words actually written in the Constitution.

Justice Stevens is a dope.

Then Justice Stevens joins over one hundred years of 'dope'

He's not a recent convert to stupidity.

and it took George W. Bush to pick the genius...

Even great men make some mistakes. Stevens is wrong and he is a dope. And nominating an idiot like him WAS a mistake.

As for the pointless vids you added, you are beyond stale.

 

[Liability]

the icky sticky wiki dictionary definition is close enough to the actual mark:

judicial activism (uncountable)

(law, pejorative) the act of replacing an impartial interpretation of existing law with the judge's personal feelings about what the law should be

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/judicial_activism

How the hell can reading the literal words of the First Amendment be "replacing" an impartial interpretation?

A literal application of the clear and direct command of the First Amendment doesn't constitute ANY "interpretation." It has nothing to do with substituting a personal feeling.

I mean, sure: it's great that a guy like Justice Scalia's personal feelings happen to perfectly coincide with the clear directive of the Constitutional language. But that only makes it easier to abide by that command.

Thou shalt pass no law abridging the freedom of speech. Congress DID pass a law abridging the freedom of speech. Then, the Supreme Court nullified that "law" because it was passed in derogation of the Constitutional prohibition.

That's the antithesis of "judicial activism."

 

[Big Fitz]

mmmm... liberal fauxrage. Judicial activism was just ducky... as long as it went their way.

 

[Vast LWC]

Simple answer to this problem in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

Corporations will be racing out the door faster than you can say "Boo!" if we say that if they want the same rights as an individual, they will have to pay the same income taxes as an individual.

 

[Xenophon]

So, now 'activism' is throwing out blatently unconstitutional nonsense like McCain-Feingold.

What an odd definition of activism.

 

[Oddball]

Simple answer to this problem in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

Corporations will be racing out the door faster than you can say "Boo!" if we say that if they want the same rights as an individual, they will have to pay the same income taxes as an individual.

You've been getting you ass kicked in that thread...Why advertise it?

 

[MIPS]

Simple answer to this problem in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

Corporations will be racing out the door faster than you can say "Boo!" if we say that if they want the same rights as an individual, they will have to pay the same income taxes as an individual.

You've been getting you ass kicked in that thread...Why advertise it?

Give him a break Dude, he's paid for his right to free speech!

 

[ihopehefails]

Only an asshole would use the dead children of mothers to spin what someone else was saying...all in an effort to win a debate with anonymous participants.

You are surely an asshole...who probably jerks off to the thought of those dead children.

Only someone without conscience would resort to dismissing the fact that some tragic consequences CAN'T be controlled by shallow actions like turning off a TV or voting for someone else. Consequences like the death of a child or any family member due to carcinogens dumped into our air, water, soil and working environment by corporations.

Yet, if I put PCBs in my pool and let the neighborhood kids go for a swim I would be put in prison. I wouldn't have a team of lawyers and connected CEO's to negotiate a fine or a plea bargain. I would be ostracized and called a monster that should be publicly drown in my pool of PCBs...You lost this argument when I exposed that you have no patriotism based on fellow Americans. I can live with being an asshole, I pity that you have to live with being uncivilized and crass...

Camus would never mistake you for a thinking man...

It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners.
Albert Camus

Why dont we address all of the wrongs in the world while we are at it. We were in a debate and you brought up something to counter my sentiments that is related, yes, but a stretch to the crux of the debate.
As for intentional and deadly polluting of our environment, I do not see things any differently than you do..and nowhere did I imply otherwise. Your issue is with the legal system that certainly favors those with money..such as large corporations...large unions...large spoecial interest groups. You and I , for example, will fare not nearly as well as ACORN or IBM in a court of law.
But you see...I am a thinking man. Crass? Usually not. Yes, I most certainly was with you, but I doubt you will ever find a post of mine in the past that was crass as my most recent one to you. I am embarrassed. Dont know what got me to that point....but I take full responsibility and I apologize...and retract.

As for the debate at hand...look at my posts. I do not in any way applaud the ruling nor do I favor it. However, I support it as it supports the way I interpret the constitution...and I have learned over my 50 years that you must take the good with the bad...and in no way should you ever compromise your convictions for personal gain.

Thanks for the beratement. It was deserved.

I assume that you against this decision because it could lead to something very immoral to happen therefore the constitution should not be held up. I think if we use that reasoning then we should not extend the first amendment to the KKK because they could pass out fliers advocating for black genocide. Clearly the social evil that could rise out of extending the first amendment to them means we have to negate it for them and only allow our rights when the government deems it is good for us to do so.

 

[ihopehefails]

Simple answer to this problem in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

Corporations will be racing out the door faster than you can say "Boo!" if we say that if they want the same rights as an individual, they will have to pay the same income taxes as an individual.

You've been getting you ass kicked in that thread...Why advertise it?

Whey can't we do that? Remove all corporate income taxes and just tax everyone working in that company the normal individual income tax.

That is a wonderful idea he came up with!

 

[Oddball]

Simple answer to this problem in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

Corporations will be racing out the door faster than you can say "Boo!" if we say that if they want the same rights as an individual, they will have to pay the same income taxes as an individual.

You've been getting you ass kicked in that thread...Why advertise it?

Whey can't we do that? Remove all corporate income taxes and just tax everyone working in that company the normal individual income tax.

That is a wonderful idea he came up with!

Because the income tax is an idiotic and communistic idea.

 

[ihopehefails]

You've been getting you ass kicked in that thread...Why advertise it?

Whey can't we do that? Remove all corporate income taxes and just tax everyone working in that company the normal individual income tax.

That is a wonderful idea he came up with!

Because the income tax is an idiotic and communistic idea.

I know but I was being funny since he wants to tax corp. like people.

 

[Vast LWC]

Simple answer to this problem in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

Corporations will be racing out the door faster than you can say "Boo!" if we say that if they want the same rights as an individual, they will have to pay the same income taxes as an individual.

You've been getting you ass kicked in that thread...Why advertise it?

So your definition of an "ass-kicking" is apparently a bunch of righties stating how bad they think an idea is?

That's an interesting interpretation.

 

[Oddball]

Simple answer to this problem in this thread:

http://www.usmessageboard.com/polit...ndividual-then-it-must-be-taxed-that-way.html

Corporations will be racing out the door faster than you can say "Boo!" if we say that if they want the same rights as an individual, they will have to pay the same income taxes as an individual.

You've been getting you ass kicked in that thread...Why advertise it?

So your definition of an "ass-kicking" is apparently a bunch of righties stating how bad they think an idea is?

That's an interesting interpretation.

My definition stems from the facts that you clearly have little to no idea what you are talking about, viz. corporate v. individual taxation, who really pays taxes, and adherence to general leftist ignorance of even the most basic of economic models.

I quit posting because it was just as amusing watching others slap your naïvete around as participating.