Supreme Court Doubles Down On Citizens United

[boutons_deux]

BREAKING: Supreme Court Doubles Down On Citizens United

The Supreme Court just announced a 5-4 decision striking down Montana’s ban on corporate money in elections. The decision was handed down without hearing oral argument on the case, meaning that the five conservative justices were not even open to hearing arguments that their election-buying decision in Citizens United might have been wrongly decided.

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2012/06/25/505558/breaking-supreme-court-doubles-down-on-citizens-united/

Repugs/VRWC bitching about "states' rights"? :lol :lol

America is fucked and unfuckable.

[boutons_deux]

2 Texas billionaires give $20M to super PACs

Two Texas billionaires are now the largest donors to active federal super PACs, or political action committees, together giving more than $20 million in support of presumptive Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney and the GOP since the fall of 2010 through May 31.

Harold Simmons of Dallas — owner of Contran Corp., a holding company — is the largest contributor nationwide to give to super PACs still active in the 2012 presidential election. Simmons and his company gave $13 million to pro-Republican group American Crossroads and $800,000 to pro-Romney Restore Our Future, federal campaign finance reports show.

House builder Bob Perry of Houston comes in second for GOP-related campaign contributions. Perry gave $2.5 million to American Crossroads and $4 million to Restore Our Future.

http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/local_news/article/2-Texas-billionaires-give-20M-to-super-PACs-3659438.php#ixzz1yob9U6QP

[FromWayDowntown]

On the same morning, the Court (with Justice Kennedy writing for the mostly liberal majority) strikes down most of the Arizona immigration law, but ultimately upholds the allowance for police to seek identification when reasonable suspicion exists as to the detainee's immigration status.

Seems more like the law is upheld in the most substantive way, from a red team perspective; having most provisions of the law struck down is a positive outcome for the blue team.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, however, would have wholly upheld the Arizona law.

[boutons_deux]

"liberal majority"

?? not for decades to come.

[FromWayDowntown]

"liberal majority"

?? not for decades to come.

"mostly"

in this particular case, the majority is Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. That particular majority is "mostly liberal."

[ElNono]

I expect both red/blue teams to spin any ruling into 'victory' in these high profile cases (that includes Barrycare)...

[elbamba]

On the same morning, the Court (with Justice Kennedy writing for the mostly liberal majority) strikes down most of the Arizona immigration law, but ultimately upholds the allowance for police to seek identification when reasonable suspicion exists as to the detainee's immigration status.

Seems more like the law is upheld in the most substantive way, from a red team perspective; having most provisions of the law struck down is a positive outcome for the blue team.

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, however, would have wholly upheld the Arizona law.

This deserves its own thread. This was a huge win for the Obama administration. Most red-staters who believe this was a win for Arizona do not realize that police alredy had the authority to check immigration status, that is the only reason that this provision was not overruled.

[boutons_deux]

"mostly"

in this particular case, the majority is Kennedy, Roberts, Ginsberg, Breyer, and Sotomayor. That particular majority is "mostly liberal."

"just balls n strikes, ma'am" Roberts ain't in no way liberal. He's a classic top-down, pro-institution, hyper-conservative Catholic papist authoritarian.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, however, would have wholly upheld the Arizona law.
:lol what a surprise that is

Those three are as nuts as it gets.

[boutons_deux]

...

[cheguevara]

corporations are people too :cry

they have feelings :cry

[boutons_deux]

U.S. Supreme Court justices struck down the majority of Arizona's strict immigration enforcement law today, but upheld the most controversial provision that allows police to seek proof of immigration status.

The court ruled the federal government has broad, undoubted power over immigration law and the status of immigrants.

Justice Anthony Kennedy, writing for the majority, said “the federal power to determine immigration policy is well settled.”

But the ruling allows police to stop, detain and question a person believed to be in the country illegally — a provision opposed by Latino and immigration rights groups.

“The truth is, ‘show me your papers' laws harm citizens and noncitizens alike,” said Krystal Gomez with the American Civil Liberties Union in Brownsville. “It's impossible to enforce these laws without racial profiling.

Read more: http://www.mysanantonio.com/news/article/Arizona-s-immigrant-status-checks-OK-d-3660767.php#ixzz1yp9ZhlmD

As if AZ, NV, TX, etc GAFF about harassing Brown-Americans.

[cheguevara]

tbh the most controversial part was making it a crime(felony?) for illegals to be in the state or for them to look for jobs. that was struck down

[boutons_deux]

My guess is the Arpaio and his goons will, in retaliaton, greatly increase harassing brownies.

[scott]

"just balls n strikes, ma'am" Roberts ain't in no way liberal. He's a classic top-down, pro-institution, hyper-conservative Catholic papist authoritarian.

Christ, how bad at reading comprehension are you?

[scott]

Court strikes down a state law... where are the "ACTIVIST JUDGE" cries?

[TeyshaBlue]

Court strikes down a state law... where are the "ACTIVIST JUDGE" cries?

lol.

[MannyIsGod]

Court strikes down a state law... where are the "ACTIVIST JUDGE" cries?

The judges were just fixing the actions of those activist legislators tbh.

[LnGrrrR]

Justice Scalia, joined by Justice Thomas and Justice Alito, however, would have wholly upheld the Arizona law.

Is there any doubt that Scalia has no principles whatsoever? Original intent my arse.

[boutons_deux]

Court strikes down a state law... where are the "ACTIVIST JUDGE" cries?

Applying clear federal law isn't being activist.

Overturning 100 years of stare decisis to call money protected free speech and accounting fictions "citizens" is extreme right-wing activism.

[scott]

Applying clear federal law isn't being activist.

Overturning 100 years of stare decisis to call money protected free speech and accounting fictions "citizens" is extreme right-wing activism.

Translation: "When my side does it, it's the right thing. When their side does it, it's activist judges"

Red and Blue teams, you aren't so different.

[boutons_deux]

Translation: "When my side does it, it's the right thing. When their side does it, it's activist judges"

Red and Blue teams, you aren't so different.

Applying clear federal law isn't being activist.

Overturning 100 years of stare decisis to call money protected free speech and accounting fictions "citizens" is extreme right-wing activism.

[scott]

Applying clear federal law isn't being activist.

Overturning 100 years of stare decisis to call money protected free speech and accounting fictions "citizens" is extreme right-wing activism.

1) You are aware that laws, even when Federal, and even when "clear", can be unconstitutional, right?

2) Clear to who? You?

[boutons_deux]

1) You are aware that laws, even when Federal, and even when "clear", can be unconstitutional, right?

2) Clear to who? You?

if they are unconstitutional, then annulling them is still not "activist."

clear to courts.

[boutons_deux]

...

[scott]

if they are unconstitutional, then annulling them is still not "activist."

clear to courts.

It was clear to the Supreme Court that Corporations are People. So I guess you don't mean clear to that court?

[boutons_deux]

"Supreme Court that Corporations are People."

not for 100+ years. Then the Repug JINOs got stuffed into the court, and JINO/VRWC politics superseded law and stare decisis.

[TeyshaBlue]

I see you've learned a new word with, apparently, only one viewpoint.

I offer a counter.

http://constitution.org/col/0610staredrift.htm

[boutons_deux]

constitution.org is part of the VRWC, as credible as Fox Repug Propaganda network

[TeyshaBlue]

Thanks for your completely empty response.

[boutons_deux]

Thanks for your completely empty response.

Thanks, stalker.

[boutons_deux]

After winning right to spend, political groups fight for secrecy


During their long campaign to loosen rules on campaign money, conservatives argued that there was a simpler way to prevent corruption: transparency. Get rid of limits on contributions and spending, they said, but make sure voters know where the money is coming from.

Today, with those fundraising restrictions largely removed, many conservatives have changed their tune. They now say disclosure could be an enemy of free speech.

High-profile donors could face bullying and harassment from liberals out to "muzzle" their opponents, Sen. Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said in a recent speech.

Corporations could be subject to boycotts and pickets, warned the Wall Street Journal editorial page this spring.

Democrats "want to intimidate people into not giving to these conservative efforts," said Republican strategist Karl Rove on Fox News. "I think it's shameful."

Rove helped found American Crossroads, a "super PAC," and Crossroads GPS, a nonprofit group that does not reveal its donors.

"Disclosure is the one area where [conservatives] haven't won," said Richard Briffault, an election law professor at Columbia Law School. "This is the next frontier for them."

A handful of conservative foundations, themselves financed with millions in anonymous funding, have been fighting legal battles from Maine to Hawaii to dismantle disclosure rules and other limits on campaign spending.

One group, the Center for Individual Freedom based in Alexandria, Va., has spent millions on attack ads against Democratic congressmen and state judicial candidates. It also has sued to block laws and court rulings that would have required disclosure of the source of the money for the ads.

A handful of conservative foundations, themselves financed with millions in anonymous funding, have been fighting legal battles from Maine to Hawaii to dismantle disclosure rules and other limits on campaign spending.

One group, the Center for Individual Freedom based in Alexandria, Va., has spent millions on attack ads against Democratic congressmen and state judicial candidates. It also has sued to block laws and court rulings that would have required disclosure of the source of the money for the ads.

http://mobile.latimes.com/p.p?m=b&a=rp&id=2327501&postId=2327501&postUserId=7&sessionToken=&catId=5219&curAbsIndex=2&resultsUrl=DID%3D6%26DFCL%3D1000%26DSB%3Drank%2523 desc%26DBFQ%3DuserId%253A7%26DL.w%3D%26DL.d%3D10%2 6DQ%3DsectionId%253A5219%26DPS%3D0%26DPL%3D3

=========

Pitiful, weak 1% and UCA, they don't want any Human-Americans to know how the are buying ads for Repugs who will fuck over Human-Americans, in case the H-As might vote back with their dollars.

[TeyshaBlue]

Thanks, stalker.

In your dreams, Sparky. :facepalm

[boutons_deux]

stalker

[scott]

What's particularly interesting about these cases is not so much that the court is ruling that Corporations protected by the 1st Amendment (which is predictable, quite frankly). The Government CAN restrict Free Speech if it can clearly demonstrate a Governmental Interest in doing so. I find it hard to believe that they've been unable to demonstrate that clear Governmental Interest, as it seems fairly obvious.

So either 1) the lawyers defending campaign finance laws aren't very good 2) the courts don't agree there is a Governmental Interest or 3) the courts don't care.

Let me provide your pre-records boutonbot reponse for you:


the courts don't care they are just a pawn of the VRWC and the UCA %1 prepug JINO buzzword buzzword buzzword

[Winehole23]

MI lame duck lege votes to criminalize disclosure of dark money:


By a vote of 25-12, the Republican-controlled Michigan Senate passed a bill on Nov. 29 that would make it a misdemeanor crime for public officials in Michigan to require nonprofit groups, including those that spend money on elections, to disclose their donors for government or public review.


Under the bill (https://www.legislature.mi.gov/documents/2017-2018/billengrossed/Senate/pdf/2018-SEBS-1176.pdf), which is sponsored by Republican Sen. Mike Shirkey, state and local agencies would no longer be allowed to request donor details from any 501(c) nonprofit without a warrant. In order to get a warrant, agencies would have to demonstrate “a compelling need” by providing clear and convincing evidence to the court. It would also ban agencies from requiring government contractors to disclose contributions they have made to nonprofits. Violations of the bill would be punishable by imprisonment for up to 90 days and/or a fine.
https://readsludge.com/2018/12/03/dark-money-michigan-senate-bill-disclosure-crime/

[boutons_deux]

MI lame duck lege votes to criminalize disclosure of dark money:

https://readsludge.com/2018/12/03/dark-money-michigan-senate-bill-disclosure-crime/

no law against it, they are THE lawmakers, no punishment, they will get away with their corruption by the oligarchy floating them in corrupt DarkMoney.

NEVER assume good faith from ANY Repug, it's All Politics All The Time, to maintain/increase power which means increase wealth.