The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: thundley4 on June 25, 2012, 02:13:12 PM
-
Ichingcarpenter (26,196 posts)
Supreme Court upholds Citizen United 5-4- .... breaking
High Court Says 'Citizens United' Applies To States
by THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
text size A A A June 25, 2012
The Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed its 2-year-old decision allowing corporations to spend freely to influence elections. The justices struck down a Montana law limiting corporate campaign spending.
By a 5-4 vote, the court's conservative justices said the decision in the Citizens United case in 2010 applies to state campaign finance laws and guarantees corporate and labor union interests the right to spend freely to advocate for or against candidates for state and local offices.
The majority turned away pleas from the court's liberal justices to give a full hearing to the case because massive campaign spending since the January 2010 ruling has called into question some of its underpinnings.
The same five justices said in 2010 that corporations have a constitutional right to be heard in election campaigns. The decision paved the way for unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions in elections for Congress and the president, as long as the dollars are independent of the campaigns they are intended to help. The decision, grounded in the freedom of speech, appeared to apply equally to state contests.
But Montana aggressively defended its 1912 law against a challenge from corporations seeking to be free of spending limits, and the state Supreme Court sided with the state. The state court said a history of corruption showed the need for the limits, even as Justice Anthony Kennedy declared in his Citizens United opinion that independent expenditures by corporations "do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption."
http://www.npr.org/2012/06/25/155704776/high-court-says-citizens-united-applies-to-states
More love for the USSC. (http://www.democraticunderground.com/1002854536)
L0oniX (13,639 posts)
4. I'd like to see those traitors thrown out of the country ...after being tar'd and feathered.
KeepItReal (5,043 posts)
5. 100 years of settled law in Montana upheld by State Supremes just thrown out
Someone lied to congress... And it ain't Eric Holder.
Well, Holder did, but so did Obama.
bluesbassman (8,572 posts)
10. I guess Kennedy didn't have his TV on during the Walker recall election.
Blatant partisan bullshit. I am not surprised.
State laws can not violate federal laws or the US Constitution.
-
I've noticed a trend (shades of Gnads!). When the DUmmies disagree with a decision and/or a statement from anyone, the ones with whom they disagree are called 'traitors'.
-
The decision paved the way for unlimited spending by corporations and labor unions...
The primitives should be happy that unions have unlimited spending. Now all they need to do is to increase their dues and spend away.
.
-
The primitives should be happy that unions have unlimited spending. Now all they need to do is to increase their dues and spend away.
.
The DUmmies feel that unions are "people" but that corporations are not "people".
I have yet to figure out how DUmmies can view a corporation as some thing that is not made up of people.
-
The DUmmies feel that unions are "people" but that corporations are not "people".
I have yet to figure out how DUmmies can view a corporation as some thing that is not made up of people.
You know I've never understood why corporations pay taxes but don't get representation and unions do NOT pay taxes but get unlimited representation.
-
So now their for state's rights.
In the Arizona case, they're against them.
Wish they would make up their minds.
-
So now their for state's rights.
In the Arizona case, they're against them.
Wish they would make up their minds.
Good luck with that.
-
Good luck with that.
I know, but a girl can dream, right?
-
I know, but a girl can dream, right?
Their collective "mind" is made up of two brain cells--each waving goodbye to the other.
-
So now their for state's rights.
In the Arizona case, they're against them.
Wish they would make up their minds.
It's easy to explain, if the state does something they like, it falls under state rights, if they don't like it then it doesn't. It's just like a repuke dictator would be bad, but 0bama governing as a dictator is something they love.
-
Response to Rambis (Reply #3)Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:13 PM
Puzzledtraveller (507 posts)
13. I get it, but that claim always come bouncing back.
Last edited Mon Jun 25, 2012, 03:15 PM USA/ET - Edit history (1)
It's because we never call them activists when it's positions we agree with. Furthermore, if we want to trot states rights than we may have to concede Arizona. We want to have our cake and eat it too.
My hat is off to Puzzledtraveller. That is one clever mole.
-
My hat is off to Puzzledtraveller. That is one clever mole.
I don't know that may have put this poster under MIRT scrutiny. Worse under, some self appointed and very good mole hunter(s).
MIRT=GESTAPO=NDVK. Fellow travelers.....due beer money.
-
I don't know that may have put this poster under MIRT scrutiny. Worse under, some self appointed and very good mole hunter(s).
MIRT=GESTAPO=NDVK. Fellow travelers.....due beer money.
If I know the mighty MIRT squad, they have had the wrecker and saboteur Puzzledtraveller under surveillance for about the last 500 posts--just waiting for the right moment to pounce/accuse.