Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Highlights
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page:  « First  ‹ Previous  1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (47 total)
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
gladhart1
10:05 AM on 06/28/2011
So scary that the SCOTUS has been stacked with corporate sponsors!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
laurieanichols
je pense donc, je suis
09:54 AM on 06/28/2011
It is of no surprise that Justice Roberts with his little gang of 4 would have ruled this way in light of Citizens United. And like the defenders of public campaign financing have stated thank goodness they did not go any farther. I wonder if Justice Kagan's written dissent can ever be used in the future to further the cause of proper public campaign reform via judicial or legislative channels. I believe her dissent summed it up best regarding our need to keep corruption at bay with private campaign financing.
photo
Intolerantcentrist
No thanks…I brought my own air.
10:07 AM on 06/28/2011
In your opinion, how would public financing prevent the problems that you see with the current process?
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jadeba
11:05 AM on 06/28/2011
Lord, by creating a level playing field and removing the possibility of conflict of interest in our representatives and the SCOTUS, as well. Under no other circumstances would an employee (and they are employees) be allowed to take basically bribes and our current ridiculous system of 2 or 3 or 4 year campaign seasons only promotes the need to take those funds.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:48 AM on 06/28/2011
Why do you think the Republicans want to make sure their wealthy contributors retain those tax cuts the greedy need money so they can control the middle class and poor, without money that would make them average citizens right there with the rest of us. Like Mel Brooks always said "it's good to be the king"............
09:49 AM on 06/28/2011
How do they use money to "control" people? Are poor people idiots who are easily brainwashed by TV ads?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
11:56 AM on 06/28/2011
Why don't you call the RNC and suggest that they save their money because campaign ads don't work, in your opinion.
12:16 PM on 06/28/2011
LOL Yes! ...but it's not just the poor people. Just look at the comments on this topic here.
10:04 AM on 06/28/2011
Our elected leaders are the rich. They don't want a tax increase.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:34 PM on 06/28/2011
But sister they don't want to give them up either!
09:44 AM on 06/28/2011
it resisted the temptation to gut the legal underpinnings that support provisions such as presidential matching funds. Full Report view at : http://bit.ly/iAin9h
photo
Intolerantcentrist
No thanks…I brought my own air.
09:53 AM on 06/28/2011
flagged for spam.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RoloT
09:42 AM on 06/28/2011
Hey, another 5-4 vote from our Supreme Partisan Court. I wonder why no one has any faith in the court when nearly every decision is 5-4?
09:50 AM on 06/28/2011
So if the other side had won this case by 5-4, you wouldn't trust it either?
photo
Intolerantcentrist
No thanks…I brought my own air.
09:55 AM on 06/28/2011
good point.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
RoloT
12:04 PM on 06/28/2011
I'll explain my comment for you. I didn't say I don't "trust" the decision. "Trust" is your word, not mine. My comment had nothing to do with who "won" the decision. My point was that, recently, there are way too many 5-4 decisions. Period. I believe that is an issue when the highest court in the land decides matters of huge importance nearly ALWAYS by one lousy vote.....no matter who wins the decision. This 5-4 stuff is a recent phenomena. How about the occasional 7-2 vote or, lord forbid, a unanimous decision.

Regarding the "good point" comment to your post. You weren't making a point, you were asking a question.
09:23 AM on 06/28/2011
And another example of the great minds on the supreme court.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
mikala
09:10 AM on 06/28/2011
Basically what this current Court is saying is that if you are not rich or a multinational corporation you shouldn't have any say in how this government is run. They are selling the vote to the highest bidder.
09:25 AM on 06/28/2011
and that is only the half of it.
09:31 AM on 06/28/2011
So this decision took away your freedom of speech and your right to vote? Wow.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
jadeba
11:09 AM on 06/28/2011
Are you paid to post this drivel?
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
12:01 PM on 06/28/2011
"Maraginalized" is the word for it. You know, like taking a snowball to a gunfight.
jokerdanny
my other bio is a macro
09:09 AM on 06/28/2011
i don't understand how money = speech.....give one politician a thousand dollars and give another politician a speech and you'll see what i mean
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
09:05 AM on 06/28/2011
"President Barack Obama became the first candidate in the history of federal funding to decline the matching money for the general election in 2008"

Can't HP afford an editor?
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
Cacey
Ignore rudeness, honor discussion
09:04 AM on 06/28/2011
The key part of this article is Kagan's dissent. She is the one standing firmly with the Constitution.
tjdwill01
more than distance divides Austin and Boston
08:50 AM on 06/28/2011
Take a good look at how the larger establishment of the Democratic Party really sees the labor movement and the concepts of worker solidarity and collective bargaining. Unions are fine, says the Democratic Party, as long as they are providing massive Democratic campaign contributions, and as long as not too many people join them for the purposes of negotiating for higher wages, taking on corporate power, etc. But once unions get too uppity - ie. bringing back membership levels from 30 years ago, challenging corporate power, etc. - then a Democratic governor looking to appease his corporate donors is more than willing to consider unilaterally repealing the basic laws that allow workers to even try to join a union.
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
08:47 AM on 06/28/2011
I noticed a lot of the same old right wing talking points on this post - kinda sad.
photo
Intolerantcentrist
No thanks…I brought my own air.
09:07 AM on 06/28/2011
If it weren’t for talking points, there wouldn’t be much here on HP…
09:32 AM on 06/28/2011
No kidding. This place is 95% empty liberal rants and 4% empty conservative rants, and 1% thoughtful substance (me, of course!)
Clevelandinwi
Progressive is good; regressive, not so much.
08:44 AM on 06/28/2011
"Money, Money" is the only song these five so-called judges listen to and understand.
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
Jeff081
Cass Tecnical H.S., Detroit, MI, (same h.s. Diana
08:33 AM on 06/28/2011
Fox just had a report on Media Matters, and has a link on Fox's website if anyone wants to complain to the IRS about Media Matters getting taxpayer money, when they're attacking Fox. Apparently, you can't use taxpayer money to influence an election. Great segment. Anyway, Media Matters is being investigated. Someone asked if Soros could be investigated. Soros investigated? Things are started to change, turn, aren't they?
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Greta42
Let's make the House tea-free in 2014
09:22 AM on 06/28/2011
This on the network whose head donated 1 Million dollars to the GOP in 2010! We need to start a movement to have the FCC remove Fox's license.
09:33 AM on 06/28/2011
So you want to lose another court decision on free speech grounds, huh?
10:08 AM on 06/28/2011
Fox is one big advertisement for the Republican candidates.

They only present the republican side of the issues.

The world would be so much better without Fox News.
bcunnin679
Political Correctness, the enemy of free speech
09:04 PM on 06/28/2011
And MSNBC
08:15 AM on 06/28/2011
The Constitution wins again.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
WM2
09:41 AM on 06/28/2011
are you joking or just plain stupid?