LogFAQs > #904129914

LurkerFAQs, Active DB, DB1, DB2, Database 3 ( 02.21.2018-07.23.2018 ), DB4, DB5, DB6, DB7, DB8, DB9, DB10, DB11, DB12, Clear

Topic List	Page List: 1
Topic	Chris' political topic. Where Chris posts super casually about political stuff.
Suprak the Stud 06/28/18 1:34:21 PM #19:	DoomTheGyarados posted... Suprak the Stud posted... DoomTheGyarados posted... The problem isn't democrat vs republican it is the fact that much of both parties are bought and paid for. And sure, money talks 'fair' but... they aren't serving the American people :/ Well the case you're referring to broke 5-4 along ideological lines. I know people like to default to the "but both sides" thing, but this is one clear instance where one side is demonstrably worse than the other on the issue you're arguing for. Not that big money in politics isn't an issue on the democratic side as well, but it is just less of an issue at the moment. Yeah but I am not sure if the guy Obama would have appointed would have not made it 5-4 is all I am saying. https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html He joined a unanimous opinion in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 ruling from a nine-judge panel that allowed unlimited contributions to super PACs, nominally independent groups that support political candidates. The logic of the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United required the move, the appeals courts opinion said, transforming the political landscape. Citizens United concerned only independent spending by corporations and unions, not rich people. But it said that there was only one justification for restricting political spending: quid pro quo corruption akin to bribery. It added that independent spending could never satisfy that standard. While Judge Garland unhesitatingly extended Citizens United when he believed its logic compelled him to do so, he was unwilling to push further than it required. In July, writing for a unanimous 11-member panel in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, Judge Garland upheld a ban on campaign contributions from federal contractors, saying the interest in preventing corruption that survived Citizens United warranted the move. Interesting. Fair enough! He was extremely moderate and might've been slightly left of Kennedy but right of any of the liberal justices on the court. It isn't clear though from my brief search if he agreed with Citizens United or was merely ruling in regards to the previous Supreme Court decision though. He still would've been far more likely to reverse the decision than someone like, say, Gorsuch. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion." <cite>Suprak the Stud posted [p:904129914] in Chris' pol... [t:76758633]...</cite> <quote><cite>DoomTheGyarados posted...</cite> <quote><cite>Suprak the Stud posted...</cite> <quote><cite>DoomTheGyarados posted...</cite> <quote>The problem isn't democrat vs republican it is the fact that much of both parties are bought and paid for. And sure, money talks 'fair' but... they aren't serving the American people :/</quote> Well the case you're referring to broke 5-4 along ideological lines. I know people like to default to the "but both sides" thing, but this is one clear instance where one side is demonstrably worse than the other on the issue you're arguing for. Not that big money in politics isn't an issue on the democratic side as well, but it is just less of an issue at the moment.</quote> Yeah but I am not sure if the guy Obama would have appointed would have not made it 5-4 is all I am saying.</quote> https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/18/us/politics/merrick-garlands-record-and-style-hint-at-his-appeal.html <quote>He joined a unanimous opinion in SpeechNow.org v. Federal Election Commission, a 2010 ruling from a nine-judge panel that allowed unlimited contributions to super PACs, nominally independent groups that support political candidates. The logic of the Supreme Courts decision in Citizens United required the move, the appeals courts opinion said, transforming the political landscape. Citizens United concerned only independent spending by corporations and unions, not rich people. But it said that there was only one justification for restricting political spending: quid pro quo corruption akin to bribery. It added that independent spending could never satisfy that standard. While Judge Garland unhesitatingly extended Citizens United when he believed its logic compelled him to do so, he was unwilling to push further than it required. In July, writing for a unanimous 11-member panel in Wagner v. Federal Election Commission, Judge Garland upheld a ban on campaign contributions from federal contractors, saying the interest in preventing corruption that survived Citizens United warranted the move. </quote> Interesting. Fair enough! He was extremely moderate and might've been slightly left of Kennedy but right of any of the liberal justices on the court. It isn't clear though from my brief search if he agreed with Citizens United or was merely ruling in regards to the previous Supreme Court decision though. He still would've been far more likely to reverse the decision than someone like, say, Gorsuch. --- Moops? "I thought you were making up diseases? That's spontaneous dental hydroplosion."</quote> ... Copied to Clipboard!
Topic List	Page List: 1