POL! POL! POL!

I'm sorry but it does matter. People and government take accountablility for the actions and change they are responsible for installing. I am not suggestig the SUpreme Court ruling was corrupt. I'm saying it wasn't unanimous. And I am noting our country is worse off for it and the people who championed it and ruled in favor of it should be held accountable. And our elected leaders that cheered it on should be held accountable. And the population should take note of the leaders who cheered it on and those who did not. To try and blur all those leaders together is simply denying the disposition of the people in charge of running our country.

The Supreme Court changed abortion laws forever with Roe-V-Wade. How many pro-life people do you know blur the justices together on that decision, or the two parties that fought for and against that case, or the their dispositon against it today? Just because the court rules a certain way doesn't mean you have to like it.
And you better believe people hold those leaders accountable when it comes election time. And you and I both know Roe-V-Wade is a litmus test both parties use when looking a new SC Justice.

Thats all that is happening here. Citizens United ruled in favor of special interest money. There were leaders who fought for it and leaders who fought against it. . There were justices that ruled for it and justices that ruled against it. And to suggest that our elected leaders hisotrical position on the issue is irrelevant is beyond outrageous. Its at the center core of the issue. Nobody put a gun to Citizens United's head and forced them to go to court. Nobody waterboarded Mitch McConnell to support the effort. And Nobody but Justice Stevens is responsible for his own ruling. And you better believe people will remember who came down where on this issue - and it will be very relevant come election time.

My point is it is irrelevent in determing the standing under the law. You yourself point out Roe vs Wade. Many feel this is an abomination. The courts, especially the Supreme Court do not rule on those points but rather rights under the law. To advocate different undermines the very essence of the judiciary. Would you like it if a Justice found that a woman does have the right, under the law, to an abortion yet they find against the law because the Justice see the consequence of such a ruling what they perceive as an unconscionable act?

The Supreme Court did NOT rule for or against special interests. They determined, under constitutional law, if Citizen's United rights of free speech were violated and found it was so.

For those who forget this wasnt even about an ad. It was about a documentary that Citizens United produced during the Democratic primary critical of Senator Clinton which they were looking to air on commercial tv or other outlets. The ruling was that this was poltical speech by a group within 30 days of a primary. Of interest, and on point, Citizens United brought a case in 2004 against Michael Moore and his Fahrenheit 9/11 (which was critical of President Bush's handling of events following 9/11). The film and its trailers were released within 30 days of the Republican convention and 60 of the general election. The film also expressly called for the defeat of President Bush. The FEC dismissed this complaint and one filed in 2005.

Further this case did not open the sewer, it was already wide open. Does no one else remember the attack ads aired by Senator Obama and Sentor Clinton's staffs at the time? They had no restraints imposed on them except by how much money they could raise to air such ads. So should we limit candidates as well? Is it not hypocrisy to allow the candidate with the most money to air 3 or 4 times the amount of ads yet place limits on private citizens, corporations or labor unions?

The problem is with the original draft of the law. Regardless of its purpose it violated the Constitution of the United States and was found so by the Supreme Court. To blame Citizens United is like blaming the victim of a mugging. Like or not their message they had a right to state it. Should we ban ads by the Sierra Club during primary and election season? Like it or not special interests still enjoy a right of free speech. It is not based on the popularity of their message nor the amount of money they have or dont have but rather on a basic freedom under the First Amendment.

Yes, Marc, more justices than not agreed that Freedom of Speech trumped canmpaign finance laws that previously blocked the PAC money that is now legal. That doesn't mean every Justice on the court agreed with that ruling. Justice Kagan's ruling was polar oppositte to Justice Stevens. Stevens based his ruling on the idea that corporations are in fact people. Kagan based her decision on the idea that corporations most certainly are not people. The majority rules and the decision is what it is - that doesn't mean all justices are equally responsible for it. And thats all I'm saying. I am not questioning legality - I am simply noting accountability.

When it comes time to vote for a president voters will ask if they want another Justice Kagan or another Justice Stevens on the bench....because as Citizens United proved those judges do not judge the same way.

- Oh...and regarding your comments about Citizens United not making much difference...yes, it most certainly does. It is all a question of scale and disclosure. For the first time campaign money raised directly by the RNC and DNC will be massively dwarfed by undisclosed and unlimited PAC money. For every ad you see Obama and Mitt put on the air you will see 3 from their respective PACS. The scale is much, much larger...and even Republicans now agree the results from Citizens United are an unmitigated disaster.

Actually that hasnt been the case. In Florida the candidates outspent their PACs by 3 to 1.

As to undisclosed that isnt true. PACs are still governed by the FEC and have reporting requirements to include their receipts and disbursements, they are hardly unregulated!
https://www.fec.gov/ans/answers_pac.shtml

As to picking Justices this has always been up to the President to pick though his picks must be confirmed. On this count would say the Republicans less doctrinaire then Democrats. For example retired Justice Stevens a liberal was nominated by President Ford and Justice Souter, another liberal was nominated by President Bush. Can you name a single, solitary conservative nominated by a Democratic President in modern times?

Discussion probably has run its course and we will again agree to disagree but thank you again for an interesting, passionate, but civil exchange.

I wonder if PJ would have the same tune if his boy wasn't looking to raise $500+m and didn't need PAC's.

I am sure come the fall he will be defending soros, seiu, teamsters, afl/cio, and whatever hollywood pac surfaces

You dont have to wait till the fall...I've already denounced Soros on this thread.

And, Marc, Pacs are not required to publicly disclose their contributors anymore...and those contributors can be anyone from a corporation, to a labor union, to a foreign dictator. That is something that Citizens United changed that did not exist prior.

"You dont have to wait till the fall...I've already denounced Soros on this thread."

But there will be other pacs supporting bama

...........
When it comes time to vote for a president voters will ask if they want another Justice Kagan or another Justice Stevens on the bench....because as Citizens United proved those judges do not judge the same way. ..............................................................

Ummm,i highly doubt that this will have any impact whatsoever,save for the small percentage of people who keep themselves informed of current events. Unfortunately most people don't have a clue as to what judge voted for what and i'd go a step further that most can't even come close as to who's currently sitting on the SC.\ let alone who appointed them. Remember,individuals may be intelligent,people are stupid.

I'll venture to guess to guess that all the masses will know and say is "WTF? I never remember this many ads on tv during elections." It will become overwhelming and its a total shame that our elections are going to be further decided by how much money is spent. I never saw any but from what i've read all the slime ball ads during the rep caucases so far have been succesfull in swaying the voters. What a shame.

As nov. draws nearer i'm afraid its going to be really bad and yet another indicative sign on what a downward spiral we're on.

JOHN

Dont worry...there will be plenty of PAC ads pointing it all out.

it's not the least bit surprising to me that hoops2 regards President Obama as someone's "boy".

Not in the least.