Justice Defends Ruling on Finance

Gordon Shumway · #1 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 08:15 PM

Justice Thomas Defends Campaign Finance Ruling - NYTimes.com

Quote:

“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

censor corporations; except them...

Quote:

“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.”

mean ol' repub corporations favored them there black folks...oh so bad...let's censor them...

Quote:

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.

Citizens collectively exercising their first amendment right: how does that become a cause for restricting said right?

off the porch · #2 (**permalink**) 02-04-2010, 11:23 PM

Justice Stephens throws down a case against "We the Corporations" if you have patience to read it...I mean, it's really long!
CITIZENS UNITED v. FEDERAL ELECTION COMM’N

Anywhoo, he answers your question much better than I ever could.

saltwn · #3 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 04:31 AM

Our SC (at least some members) were bought off and now politicians can be owned. Plain simple.
Oh thank you Thomas for throwing a race card in there. That is why you have your job, Sir. There must be other laws on the books that were instituted for the sake of pure demographic partisan play that were still good laws when applied across the board.
Uncle Tom.

MrLiberty · #4 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 07:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Our SC (at least some members) were bought off and now politicians can be owned. Plain simple.
Oh thank you Thomas for throwing a race card in there. That is why you have your job, Sir. There must be other laws on the books that were instituted for the sake of pure demographic partisan play that were still good laws when applied across the board.
Uncle Tom.

salty you keep saying that the SC was "bought off" meaning they were bribed so could you please provide a link to your insane rant, otherwise you're just libeling the SC because you disagree with their ruling.

saltwn · #5 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 07:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrLiberty

salty you keep saying that the SC was "bought off" meaning they were bribed so could you please provide a link to your insane rant, otherwise you're just libeling the SC because you disagree with their ruling.

I am calling it as i see it. No ethical judge in his right diddley damned mind would have said "O.K., folks! Allow corporations and unions to buy elections!"
C'mon, Mr. Liberty, you have a brain. Make it think for itself and figure it out.
If not just apply the old standard...Walks like a duck...looks like a duck...
see? It's easy if you give it a try.

MrLiberty · #6 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 08:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

I am calling it as i see it. No ethical judge in his right diddley damned mind would have said "O.K., folks! Allow corporations and unions to buy elections!"
C'mon, Mr. Liberty, you have a brain. Make it think for itself and figure it out.
If not just apply the old standard...Walks like a duck...looks like a duck...
see? It's easy if you give it a try.

So in other words, you're just spewing out the liberal mantra of the conservative judges are evil and stupid I get it.

Corporations are made up of people and they don't give up their first amendment rights because they belong to a group, you know the first amendment, or do all liberals hate that as well?

Michael1 · #7 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 10:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Our SC (at least some members) were bought off and now politicians can be owned. Plain simple.
Oh thank you Thomas for throwing a race card in there. That is why you have your job, Sir. There must be other laws on the books that were instituted for the sake of pure demographic partisan play that were still good laws when applied across the board.
Uncle Tom.

You're not even reasonable any longer.

Why stop at throwing around baseless accusations of bribery and racism. Just call everyone who doesn't agree with you a Nazi and be done with it.

I've been trying to tell you for some time now that you're going off the deep end but I think you're officially gone now.

faithful_servant · #8 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 10:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

Our SC (at least some members) were bought off and now politicians can be owned. Plain simple.
Oh thank you Thomas for throwing a race card in there. That is why you have your job, Sir. There must be other laws on the books that were instituted for the sake of pure demographic partisan play that were still good laws when applied across the board.
Uncle Tom.

Now THAT'S racist...

Get'em off the liberal "plantation" and actually thinking for themselves and not comforming to your bigoted ideas of how "black folks" should act and they are now "Uncle Tom"...

off the porch · #9 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by saltwn

I am calling it as i see it. No ethical judge in his right diddley damned mind would have said "O.K., folks! Allow corporations and unions to buy elections!"
C'mon, Mr. Liberty, you have a brain. Make it think for itself and figure it out.
If not just apply the old standard...Walks like a duck...looks like a duck...
see? It's easy if you give it a try.

I'm not sure I believe they were coerced or otherwise influenced...but I can't quite figure out why in the world they would invite MORE $$ into our politics...DIDDLEY DAMMIT!

jabbo · #10 (**permalink**) 02-05-2010, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by off the porch

I'm not sure I believe they were coerced or otherwise influenced...but I can't quite figure out why in the world they would invite MORE $$ into our politics...DIDDLEY DAMMIT!

Diddley dammit? Are you channelling an angry Ned Flanders?

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to off the porch For This Useful Post:
DownSouth, Spencer Collins

The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
DownSouth, off the porch, Spencer Collins

The Following User Says Thank You to saltwn For This Useful Post:
off the porch

The Following User Says Thank You to faithful_servant For This Useful Post:
Michael1

The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to off the porch For This Useful Post:
foundit66, Spencer Collins