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

[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

[deacon blues]

Light, you do understand that the Federal Election Commission lawyer answered a question from Justice Scalia who said that if a book had an endorsement of a candidate written in it, the government could ban the book. Where does it end? Do you really want the government banning books? You also realize the ACLU, the AFL-CIO and other liberal groups teamed up with Citizens United to bring this issue to the Supreme Court? This was far from a right-wing conspiracy.

The following is an article about the case from CU's website. I think it puts things into perspective:

BOSSIE: 'Congress shall make no law . . .'
David N. Bossie

Writing for the Supreme Court of the United States in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission yesterday, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy noted that campaign-finance laws required that "a speaker wishing to avoid criminal-liability threats and the heavy costs of defending against FEC enforcement must ask a governmental agency for prior permission to speak." Think about that for a moment: Citizen of the United States needed to seek permission from a government agency before speaking about a politician who ostensibly is a representative of the people. Not only that, but a citizen who spoke without government permission was at risk of a prison sentence.

In 2007, Citizens United Productions released a film entitled "Hillary The Movie."Naturally, we wanted to advertise our film and distribute it to those who wished to see it via cable "on-demand." In an unconscionable violation of our First Amendment rights, the government restricted us from doing so because the film and the advertisements that I produced referenced a candidate for federal office. I was stunned by the government's decision. I believe that, above every other category of speech, political speech must be the most protected. If our right to political speech can be denied by the government, how are we to hold our representatives to that government accountable for their actions? If we are not permitted to speak about our own government, can it truly be considered "our" government?

From Thomas Paine's publication of "Common Sense" before the American Revolution, to the ratification debate featuring John Jay, Alexander Hamilton and James Madison memorialized in the Federalist Papers, to the editorial writers of today, advocacy of political causes through popular media is inextricably intertwined with the fabric of this country. It is no coincidence that in the Bill of Rights, the right to freedom of speech is both first and absolute.

Over the last hundred years, however, Congress and the courts have decided that "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people ... to petition the Government for a redress of grievances" does not mean what any citizen reading those words for the first time would reasonably think. For the last hundred years, progressively more restrictive laws have been passed encroaching on our right to free speech. Each time a new law is passed, it is done incrementally and under the guise of "good government" so as not to frighten us. But as soon as we have grown accustomed to the previous law, another is passed that takes away just a little more of our freedom.

This process came to a head last March, when the deputy solicitor general of the United States, representing the official position of the government in front of the nine justices of the Supreme Court, declared that the government had the constitutional authority to ban the publication of a book if Congress passed such a law. That comment crystallizes the dangers of a hundred years of campaign-finance "reform." It is inconceivable that a learned man like the deputy solicitor general in such august company as the justices of the Supreme Court would have made that comment a hundred years ago. It is only because Congress and the courts have quietly stolen away small pieces of our First Amendment rights over the course of a century that such a position could be taken.

There can be honest disagreements about the role of money in politics. But I would hope that, whether Republican or Democrat, liberal or conservative, we can all agree that any attempt by the government to silence a citizen should be met with a stern rebuke. This is not an issue that is easily categorized as "conservative" or "liberal." In our case, the ACLU joined with the NRA, and the AFL-CIO joined with the Chamber of Commerce in support of Citizens United and the First Amendment. We were fighting as much for the rights of filmmakers like Michael Moore as we were for our own right to produce, advertise and distribute films.

Thankfully, the Roberts Court has put the brakes on a slide down a very slippery and very dangerous slope. With yesterday's ruling, so-called "reformers" have been put on notice that, as Justice Kennedy said in the opinion of the court, "when Congress finds that a problem exists, we must give that finding due deference; but Congress may not choose an unconstitutional remedy."

[Light]

Originally Posted by deacon blues

Light, you do understand that the Federal Election Commission lawyer answered a question from Justice Scalia who said that if a book had an endorsement of a candidate written in it, the government could ban the book. Where does it end? Do you really want the government banning books? You also realize the ACLU, the AFL-CIO and other liberal groups teamed up with Citizens United to bring this issue to the Supreme Court? This was far from a right-wing conspiracy.

Tell me which book has been banned? Do you have the title?

deacon do you realize for the first time foreign corporations who own business in the US have free reign to spend as mush as they desire to elect those that will do their bidding.
I believe it was Pre. Lincoln who said we didn't have to worry about another country defeating the US, that we would be destroyed from within. You and others have repeatedly voiced concern that Obama would ruin the country, well 5 right wing republican judges have just given those that would see the down fall of the US permission with their idiotic action. Money all way's wins. Those with the money control. You know that!!!!

[ChTatum]

Seriously concerned over your reading comprehension skills, Light. NO one said a book had been banned, he merely pointed out the scenario of what COULD happen.

If "those with the money control", that would explain Obama being president now, what with the backing of George Soros.