Where are the no ledgislation from the bench crowd

[ChTatum]

Ideologues, on either side, are blinded to truth, except when it agrees with their opinion.

[Esther]

Originally Posted by n david

Even the New York Times - aka the Democratic Party Newsletter - agrees with me on this ...



The President and other liberals want the public to think that a century old decision was overturned, thereby hoping the public will freak out.

It's a LIE. A damnable, blatant and inexcusable LIE.

LIAR LIAR PANTS ON FIRE for anyone who pushes this myth that this new decision reversed a century old decision. It did not happen.

This is about McCain-Feingold.

The President should be ashamed of himself for doing what no President has ever done - publicly, on national television, criticise and condemn the SCOTUS .... and with a lie at that!

Source

Exactly.

[n david]

Justice Thomas was quoted in an article from the NYT. Great stuff on the SCOTUS' decision and ignorance of the democrats, specifically BHO on this issue.

A couple quotes:

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.

“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Seems BHO and the Dems should review the law they've been praising and instead of condemning the SCOTUS' action, they should work to close loopholes that allow foreign donations.

I like Justice Thomas' last quote about the First Amendment and how it relates to corporations.

Source