Where are the no ledgislation from the bench crowd

[Neck]

Originally Posted by 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.

It is about making up laws such as abortion. It is all about the constitution. It is not legislation from the bench if they threw out Roe-vs-wade. All I know about what the Supreme Court did was throw out most of Mccain-Feingold campain/finance... which was unconstitutional.

[oletime]

Originally Posted by 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.

its called never let the facts get in the way of a allegedly good argument , thats what lite is all about !

[Light]

Originally Posted by 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.

That's the point the law was in affect yet no book's were ever banned!!!

You address what you think was a lack of comprehension skills on my part yet you fail to address the real issue. Foreign Governments allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money to influence an election if the own a co in the US. All a foreign country would have to do to contribute is buy a small chain of some sort.

Originally Posted by ChaTatum

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

So you are saying old George has more money than George Bush's kissing & holding hands buddy's, the Arabs?? Hey they own some company's here already don't they?

Originally Posted by neck

It is about making up laws such as abortion. It is all about the constitution. It is not legislation from the bench if they threw out Roe-vs-wade. All I know about what the Supreme Court did was throw out most of Mccain-Feingold campain/finance... which was unconstitutional.

Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
Lack of knowledge is a sad thing.

[Light]

Originally Posted by oletime

its called never let the facts get in the way of a allegedly good argument , thats what lite is all about !

Here is a fact for you if Obama had a back bone he would just appoint one more liberal justice to stop the right wing justices. Now before you all make a foolish post check the Law. Because there is president for it he can appoint two more but he doesn't have the nerve.

[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.

[crakjak]

Originally Posted by Light

Here is a fact for you if Obama had a back bone he would just appoint one more liberal justice to stop the right wing justices. Now before you all make a foolish post check the Law. Because there is president for it he can appoint two more but he doesn't have the nerve.

I don't think the American people will allow much more of Obama'a radical reaches, he's already in deep doo doo. A rabbit out of the hat to completely liberalize the supreme court isn't going to happen.

[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

[BeenThinkin]

Originally Posted by Light

That's the point the law was in affect yet no book's were ever banned!!!

You address what you think was a lack of comprehension skills on my part yet you fail to address the real issue. Foreign Governments allowed to contribute unlimited amounts of money to influence an election if the own a co in the US. All a foreign country would have to do to contribute is buy a small chain of some sort.


So you are saying old George has more money than George Bush's kissing & holding hands buddy's, the Arabs?? Hey they own some company's here already don't they?



Hosea 4:6 My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge:
Lack of knowledge is a sad thing.

Light are you intentionally ignoring the many many reports of how much foreign money was contributed to Obama's election (gifts which he refused to list publicly) or are you going to be ..... destroyed for lack of knowledge?

Your posts remind me of this guy just getting nowhere!

BeenThinkin

[n david]

Originally Posted by Light

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

Did I read this right? You complaining about me "be-littling?" You, who call Republicans "repugnants;" who takes any and every opportunity to point out failures - esp moral failures - of conservatives; who continually spews vomit and venom against "right wing wackos" .... you upset about "be-littling."



You conveniently ignore BHO's foreign donors and also ignore the Clinton's foreign donors from Hsu and another man.

[Light]

Originally Posted by BeenThinkin

Light are you intentionally ignoring the many many reports of how much foreign money was contributed to Obama's election (gifts which he refused to list publicly) or are you going to be ..... destroyed for lack of knowledge?

Your posts remind me of this guy just getting nowhere!

BeenThinkin

I thought I smell grass burning