Where are the no ledgislation from the bench crowd

[Light]

Today the 5 right wing Judges reversed a law that has been in effect for 102 years. Corporations are now allowed to use corporate funds in unlimited amounts of money for political adds.
I thought right wingers were against judges legislating from the bench. The right wing radio nuts are hailing this as good law. Oh my how the right flip flop.

[scotty]

Link ? Resource ? References ?

[scotty]

[n david]

Light ... news flash ... the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act is NOT 102 years old.

I know McCain looks old ... but seriously. It's from 2002, not 1908.

This is a good thing. The CFR was a hit against free speech. Also, get the facts straight ... they didn't legislate from the bench.

In a broad 5-4 decision in Citizens United vs. FEC, the Court found unconstitutional provisions in the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act that prevented corporate and labor union money from funding some kinds of political communication. Under the ruling these groups may now fund political advertisements out of their general treasuries.

This was done because a non-profit group wasn't allowed to show "Hillary: the Movie," and sued the CFR.

Again, this wasn't legislating from the bench, it was overturning an unconstitutional part of the CFR.

Source

[Light]

Originally Posted by n david

Light ... news flash ... the McCain/Feingold Campaign Finance Reform Act is NOT 102 years old.

I know McCain looks old ... but seriously. It's from 2002, not 1908.

This is a good thing. The CFR was a hit against free speech. Also, get the facts straight ... they didn't legislate from the bench.



This was done because a non-profit group wasn't allowed to show "Hillary: the Movie," and sued the CFR.

Again, this wasn't legislating from the bench, it was overturning an unconstitutional part of the CFR.

WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Samuel Alito didn't like what he was hearing from President Barack Obama.

The president had taken the unusual step of scolding the high court in his State of the Union address Wednesday. "With all due deference to the separation of powers," he said, the court last week "reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests _ including foreign corporations _ to spend without limit in our elections."


Alito made a dismissive face, shook his head repeatedly and appeared to mouth the words "not true" or possibly "simply not true."

A reliable conservative appointed to the court by Republican President George W. Bush, Alito was in the majority in the 5-4 ruling.

Senate Democratic leaders sitting immediately behind Alito and other members of the high court rose and clapped loudly in their direction, with Sen. Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., leaning slightly forward with the most enthusiastic applause.

The court did upend a 100-year trend that had imposed greater limitations on corporate political activity. Specifically, the court, in a 5-4 decision, said corporations and unions could spend freely from their treasuries to run political ads for or against specific candidates.

In his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens said the court's majority "would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans."

Obama said corporations can "spend without limit in our elections." However, corporations and unions are still prohibited from contributing directly to politicians.

Alito's head-shaking, though only two rows directly in front of Obama, wasn't the "You lie!" moment that brought the president's last speech to Congress to a screeching halt. In fact, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., who shouted it, was stonefaced throughout Obama's latest speech, even rising a few times to applaud.

Even though the number of years was a typo in my first post it seems this morning I was closer to the truth than those those that made fun.

[Nitehawk013]

Um...you want me to believe that in 1908 there was a great amount of outcry for the courts to stop Corporations form throwing money into political campaigns?

I bet those TV ads Taft was runnign against Bryan were just too scathing and they had to do something about it right?

[n david]

Originally Posted by Nitehawk013

Um...you want me to believe that in 1908 there was a great amount of outcry for the courts to stop Corporations form throwing money into political campaigns?

I bet those TV ads Taft was runnign against Bryan were just too scathing and they had to do something about it right?

Light's so filled with hate and malice against what he calls "right wing wackos" and republicans that he'll report anything as true.

[Light]

Originally Posted by n david

Light's so filled with hate and malice against what he calls "right wing wackos" and republicans that he'll report anything as true.

Just a little information in order to let the so ill informed know who this man is and the truth of the matter. I think Mr Ginsberg a republican knows what the truth is and is better informed of the facts than n-david.

This morning Mr. Ginsberg appeared on national news saying that the supreme court had damaged the American political proses he believed beyond repair. When asked what congress could do he replied he didn't know of any thing other that amending the first amendment.This man is no liberal he was G. Bushes lawyer in 2000

Washington, DC 20037 T: 202-457-6405 F: 202-457-6315
bginsberg@pattonboggs.com
Education
● Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1982
● University of Pennsylvania, A.B., 1974
Bar Admissions
● District of Columbia
Benjamin Ginsberg represents numerous political parties, political campaigns, candidates, members of Congress and state legislatures, Governors, corporations, trade associations, vendors, donors and individuals participating in the political process.
In both the 2004 and 2000 election cycles, Mr. Ginsberg served as national counsel to the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign; he played a central role in the 2000 Florida recount. In 2008, he served as national counsel to the Romney for President campaign. He also represents the campaigns and leadership PACs

[n david]

Originally Posted by Light

Just a little information in order to let the so ill informed know who this man is and the truth of the matter. I think Mr Ginsberg a republican knows what the truth is and is better informed of the facts than n-david.

This morning Mr. Ginsberg appeared on national news saying that the supreme court had damaged the American political proses he believed beyond repair. When asked what congress could do he replied he didn't know of any thing other that amending the first amendment.This man is no liberal he was G. Bushes lawyer in 2000

Washington, DC 20037 T: 202-457-6405 F: 202-457-6315
bginsberg@pattonboggs.com
Education
● Georgetown University Law Center, J.D., 1982
● University of Pennsylvania, A.B., 1974
Bar Admissions
● District of Columbia
Benjamin Ginsberg represents numerous political parties, political campaigns, candidates, members of Congress and state legislatures, Governors, corporations, trade associations, vendors, donors and individuals participating in the political process.
In both the 2004 and 2000 election cycles, Mr. Ginsberg served as national counsel to the Bush-Cheney presidential campaign; he played a central role in the 2000 Florida recount. In 2008, he served as national counsel to the Romney for President campaign. He also represents the campaigns and leadership PACs

Who care who this guy is. You started a topic by stating that SCOTUS reversed a 102 year old law ... simply NOT TRUE.

Corporate political ads in 1908, are you serious?

SCOTUS ruled against and overturned an unconstitutional portion of the McCain-Feingold bill from 2002 ... a mere 8 years ago.

Mr. Ginsberg, regardless of who he's worked with, is an idiot if he thinks the First Amendment needs amending. Your posted bio of his also states he doesn't represent Republicans exclusively. In fact, it doesn't say which party he's registered with. Whoever gives him money and a message is who he represents.

Changing the First Amendment is NOT a Republican idea.

[Light]

Originally Posted by n david

Who care who this guy is. You started a topic by stating that SCOTUS reversed a 102 year old law ... simply NOT TRUE.

Corporate political ads in 1908, are you serious?

SCOTUS ruled against and overturned an unconstitutional portion of the McCain-Feingold bill from 2002 ... a mere 8 years ago.

Mr. Ginsberg, regardless of who he's worked with, is an idiot if he thinks the First Amendment needs amending. Your posted bio of his also states he doesn't represent Republicans exclusively. In fact, it doesn't say which party he's registered with. Whoever gives him money and a message is who he represents.

Changing the First Amendment is NOT a Republican idea.

A typo that I did not catch until someone else had re-posted it , so why change it. You got a laugh out of it. It gave you license to do your thing, to be-little.You care little for the subject as long as you can find something wrong so you can direct the subject the way you want it.

Just as all of the other posters on the AFF who post in the political section, you refuse to discuss the subject that FOREIGN GOVERNMENTS who can now spend unlimited amounts of money to influence our elections.

It is no longer "By the People, for the People" but it's now "By the Corporation for the Corporation!!! This was not done by Obama but 5 right wing republicans.

BTW I never said it was a republican idea to change the first Amendment, I said Mr Ginsberg who happens to be a Repugnant suggested it.

It would be a good thing if the first amendment was changed, MONEY IS NOT SPEECH