Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
United Against Supreme Court Decision.  
User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8873 posts, RR: 10
Posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1742 times:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1137


I wonder who agrees and who disagrees with this decision of the US Supreme Court concerning campaign contributions by Corporations and Unions. Polls seem to show a united front against the decision.


It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
6 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlinecpd From Australia, joined Jun 2008, 4879 posts, RR: 38
Reply 1, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1722 times:

Basically - any corporate funding to governments - of any sort, by lobbyists, etc should be on a public register for all to see.

Or, otherwise - it should be banned entirely - so that lobbyists are not allowed to meet with government except with witnesses (eg, Police present). There must be transparency in these matters.

Next step is to bring into law requirements that press reporting must be truthful - and that those who don't abide by the rules can get in trouble (eg, gaol time).


User currently offlineAirStairs From United States of America, joined Jul 2008, 487 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1711 times:

The thing is, it is meaningless to say you disagree with the Court's decision unless you are a legal professional of some sort and actually know the case law and constitutional questions. The Supreme Court isn't in the place of deciding right and wrong, only interpreting law. If you are unhappy with the way the law or constitution currently stands, work to change it. But unless you are calling into question the Court's jurisprudence (which most people are not qualified to do), you are just wasting your breath.

User currently offlineWarRI1 From United States of America, joined Sep 2007, 8873 posts, RR: 10
Reply 3, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1672 times:

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 2):
The thing is, it is meaningless to say you disagree with the Court's decision unless you are a legal professional of some sort and actually know the case law and constitutional questions. The Supreme Court isn't in the place of deciding right and wrong, only interpreting law. If you are unhappy with the way the law or constitution currently stands, work to change it. But unless you are calling into question the Court's jurisprudence (which most people are not qualified to do), you are just wasting your breath.

If you read the article, you would see that they are going to try to overturn the decison of the Supreme Court by congressional action. I hope they do with bi-partisan support. Is not the congress crooked enough? Just maybe we can find agreement on some issue on both sides of the aisle. It maybe a stretch to think they will try to stop the gravy train, we can hope. The poll shows all sides of the public do not support the decision.



It is better to die on your feet, than live on your knees.
User currently offlineLAXintl From United States of America, joined May 2000, 25183 posts, RR: 48
Reply 4, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1666 times:

There already is an existing thread on the decision.
Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding (by Mir Jan 21 2010 in Non Aviation)



From the desert to the sea, to all of Southern California
User currently offlineken777 From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 8227 posts, RR: 8
Reply 5, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 8 hours ago) and read 1653 times:

I doubt if the decision will be overturned. The SCOUS is rather strong (at times) on freedom of speech and privacy.

At the same time, taxing is at the pleasure of the Legislative Branch. It is far more effective to establish taxes (or disallow deductions) on political spending than it is to waste time and money trying to change a decision like this.

And I doubt if a public organization can challenge disclosure requirements of the SEC and Department of Labor. Strict disclosure will allow shareholders and members to see where their money is going. Personally I would be irritated to see a company I owned shares in spending money on politicians instead of R&D or other solid investments in the future.


User currently offlineSA7700 From South Africa, joined Dec 2003, 3431 posts, RR: 26
Reply 6, posted (4 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1618 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
HEAD MODERATOR

Kindly continue your discussion on this topic in the existing thread:

Scotus OKs Corporate Election Funding


Rgds

SA7700



When you are doing stuff that nobody has done before, there is no manual – Kevin McCloud (Grand Designs)
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Obama To Nominate Sotomayor For Supreme Court posted Tue May 26 2009 07:21:22 by Homer71
A Gay Supreme Court Nominee? posted Thu May 7 2009 04:57:38 by Dtwclipper
Justice Souter Retiring From US Supreme Court posted Thu Apr 30 2009 19:07:31 by LTBEWR
Iowa Supreme Court Strikes Down Gay Marriage Ban posted Fri Apr 3 2009 06:57:15 by NZblue
US Supreme Court Justice Ginsburg Hospitalized posted Thu Feb 5 2009 10:14:51 by JetBlueGuy2006
CA Supreme Court: MD's Can't Discriminate posted Mon Aug 18 2008 14:31:01 by Johnboy
US Supreme Court To Hear DC Gun Ban Case posted Tue Nov 20 2007 12:45:12 by D L X
MI Supreme Court Hears Gay Marriage Case! posted Tue Nov 6 2007 13:53:31 by Dtwclipper
Supreme Court To Decide Photo ID Voting Law posted Tue Sep 25 2007 23:03:45 by Cfalk
Supreme Court Bans School Integration In WA, KY posted Thu Jun 28 2007 17:45:20 by D L X