80% of American oppose recent Supreme Court ruling

It is my understanding that corporations are considered individuals and can contribute unlimited amounts to political campaigns. One thing I am unclear about. Does this mean that individuals (ones with skin) can also contribute an unlimited amount?

Diana

What is it about this decision that makes you wonder"... that individuals (ones with skin) can also contribute an unlimited amount?"?

a century of rulings including rulings by the Supreme Court itself. That's what offends people, that the Supremes are making new law; they're engaging in Judicial Activism on behalf of Corporations. Where is the precedent for that? "I say it's spinach, and I say the he!! with it." (old New Yorker cartoon)

Rob

That's what ruling something constitutional establishes, that it was always the law. Ruling it unconstitutional establishes that it was never law, not in truth.

I was amazed that the law stood as long as it did. BTW, it wasn't a century of rulings, more like 60 years of rulings NOT specificaklly on the law that was declared unconsititutional.

And that is NOT what "offends people"; very few even knew about it before the misinformation was put out by the left and few understand it today.

Free speech is free speech. her should not be a problem with that.

That was the talking points from the left wing sites.

after a first/landmark decision almost all rulings use "precedent".

That's the way the legal system works.

in his State of the Union address has no affect on you?

Why, exactly do you oppose it?

I doubt your understanding of the ruling is as good as you claim.

She said she wouldn't. That's something else. You jump to your own (unjustified) conclusion.

Kees

I say she can't. Not an unjustified conclusion at all, IMO.

So if this is an 'exclusive OR' you do?

Kees

I say you are wrong.

Past experience indicates I am probably right.

to discuss something, that indicates they have a valid point? Hmmm. Very odd "past experience."

In my experience when someone answer in such a snarky way that indicates they are flying by prejudice rather than reason. I find that to be true in general of Angeline's opinions. Usually when someone is a able to defend an opinion, they are willing to do so.

Just ask you?

Another exercise in futility.

Did not, did to, no I didn't, yes you did.

In my spoof of his state of the union speech. The truth hurt too much it seems. The Onion is OK here in SE, since that's left wing spoofing. Right wing spoofs not allowed.

possibly not the part that caused the whole to be removed.

"I don't believe capitalist should bankroll elections in a capitalist society, but rather socialist aligned organizations should be the
only ones allowed to do that. I'm going to try and subvert the Constitution as recently rediscovered by the Supreme Court and
make that my new political aim."

The Onion is usually linked to, so right wing spoofs would be OK if also linked to. Based on that understanding, here's a link to a spoof of State of the Union. This way it's not actually in Speakeasy and it's a choice if anyone goes elsewhere to read it.

http://www.glenburniemd.net/StateOfTheUnion2010.doc

Although I used CNET search yesterday in several attempts to locate it again, it wouldn't come up. Today it does. Found it.
http://forums.cnet.com/5208-6130_102-0.html?messageID=3234179#3234179

The President was grossly ignorant of the facts of the decision. It seems the President read about the Supreme Court decision on the same ill informed left wing website as many others did.

Let's just take a wander down "What If" lane. Let's suppose that this court decision did in fact allow foreign corporations the ability to donate unlimited funds to political campaigns. Congress could (if they wanted to) pass legislation within a week to correct that. So it seems that the people that are disparaging the Justices for this decision accept that if this law was not overturned, it criminalized political speech. Very strange thought process,huh?

he's not doing his job. He's supposedly a Constitutional scholar. Doesn't he do ANY research when writing an important speech?

Just how incompetent do you think he is?

Multiple choice??

...into our political process? Or just the ones who create the economic backbone of this country? This ruling not only will allow the capitalist forces in this country to give aid in political contests, but probably will free up other groups such as non profits and various foundations who have been hamstrung by rules that interfered with their rights to be a part of the political process. Far too long we've had bad laws passed by each side when in power trying to undercut the political financing of their opponents. This ruling is like the sword that cuts all those strings right down the middle and hopefully will stop the useless waste of time and resources spent trying to determine if someone else's speech was enhanced in some manner that was artificially impaired and for which they can then be punished. This ruling basically says "put up or shut up" to both sides of the aisle.