PDA

View Full Version : Legal Another lie B.O. said last night


The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 04:22 PM
When B.O. called out the Supreme Court, he said that they "overturned 100 years of precedence"---

McCain-Feingold isn't 100 years old.

What a lying scumbag. Where are his stooges to defend his slimy ass?

banyon
01-28-2010, 04:25 PM
It's "precedent". And the comment (obviously) didn't refer to McCain-Feingold. It referred to the legal concept of corporations as persons which was established (with limitations) in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394. (1886). You will note that the date is over 100 years ago.

And even if it had, it would be mistake, not a lie. But you don't understand that distinction, of course.

The Mad Crapper
01-28-2010, 04:28 PM
It's "precedent". And the comment (obviously) didn't refer to McCain-Feingold. It referred to the legal concept of corporations as persons which was established (with limitations) in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394. (1886). You will note that the date is over 100 years ago.

And even if it had, it would be mistake, not a lie. But you don't understand that distinction, of course.

No stooge, B.O. specifically aluded to foriegn corporations. So either he is a moron for saying what he said, or he's a diabolical piece of shit, and you defacto are either a moron for defending him, or you are a diabolical piece of shit. Don't step to with your shingle and your government hack lawyer job and try to call Judge Alito ignorant.

BigRedChief
01-28-2010, 04:58 PM
It's "precedent". And the comment (obviously) didn't refer to McCain-Feingold. It referred to the legal concept of corporations as persons which was established (with limitations) in Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, 118 U.S. 394. (1886). You will note that the date is over 100 years ago.

And even if it had, it would be mistake, not a lie. But you don't understand that distinction, of course.forget arguing that Railroad case. The neo cons say BS. Nothing to do with the recent ruling.

banyon
01-28-2010, 05:22 PM
No stooge, B.O. specifically aluded to foriegn corporations. So either he is a moron for saying what he said, or he's a diabolical piece of shit, and you defacto are either a moron for defending him, or you are a diabolical piece of shit. Don't step to with your shingle and your government hack lawyer job and try to call Judge Alito ignorant.

Well, your "analysis", if it can be called that, of course does nothing to refute the fact that he was indeed referencing the case that set the legal precedent (and its progeny) regarding the scope of corporate personhood. Whether the corporations are foreign or not, is irrelevant to whether they have corporate rights. The ruling applies to all corporations and the concern about foreign corporations with rights to operate in the U.S. is simply a sub topic of the ruling.

Perhaps before you go off on an irrelevant juvenile rant you should make yourself literate on the topic.

banyon
01-28-2010, 06:06 PM
The Court today rejects a century of history when it treats the distinction between corporate and individual campaign spending as an invidious novelty born of Austin v. Michi-gan Chamber of Commerce, 494 U. S. 652 (1990). Relying largely on individual dissenting opinions, the majority blazes through our precedents, overruling or disavowing a body of case law including FEC v. Wisconsin Right to Life, Inc., 551 U. S. 449 (2007) (WRTL), McConnell v. FEC, 540 U. S. 93 (2003), FEC v. Beaumont, 539 U. S. 146 (2003), FEC v. Massachusetts Citizens for Life, Inc., 479 U. S. 238 (1986) (MCFL), NRWC, 459 U. S. 197, and California Medical Assn. v. FEC, 453 U. S. 182 (1981).

Where in the hell would Obama get an idea like it was overruling 100 years of precedent? I don't know, how about from the f*cking opinion itself, as stated by Justice Stevens.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

Well, Justice Stevens is probably lying too, right? I mean since we're just going to wing partisan commentary on this important case.

The Mad Crapper
01-29-2010, 05:14 AM
Perhaps before you go off on an irrelevant juvenile rant you should make yourself literate on the topic.


ROFL

You're just a hack with a shingle. I'll defer to the people who actually are authorities on constitutional law, you stooge.

Dottefan
01-29-2010, 07:46 AM
When B.O. called out the Supreme Court, he said that they "overturned 100 years of precedence"---

McCain-Feingold isn't 100 years old.

What a lying scumbag. Where are his stooges to defend his slimy ass?


ROFLROFL..DId you vote for Bush ..twice? if so you know the saying.."those that live in glass houses"

BucEyedPea
01-29-2010, 08:07 AM
forget arguing that Railroad case. The neo cons say BS. Nothing to do with the recent ruling.

There are BAD precedents. This may be one.* It doesn't sound based on the language of the Constitution which needs restoration.
This new ruling is comparable to the Dred Scott case being overturned, imo.



* I'd have to read this whole case in context.( not going to do that either right now) I am posting in general. This new ruling threw out a 20 year old precedent based on that 100 year old ruling, and then only a portion of MF.

BucEyedPea
01-29-2010, 08:11 AM
ROFLROFL..DId you vote for Bush ..twice? if so you know the saying.."those that live in glass houses"

I didn't. And I think the ruling is a wonderful enforcement of the US Constitution.

patteeu
01-29-2010, 10:26 AM
Just to clear up the confusion here, Stevens isn't refering to that Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad when he tries to mislead us with the 100 year BS. That ruling is not affected by this one AFAICS. The 100 year remark refers to a statute called the Tillman act that limited corporate campaign contributions to candidates. The problem with Obama's statement is that this ruling doesn't overturn Tillman at all. Tillman has been eclipsed by newer legislation, but even after this ruling, corporations are still limited on how much they can donate to campaigns, so I grade this Obama statement as a lie.

The oldest case law that has been contrdicted here came from the 1980s and the actual statute that's been overturned is only a few years old.

The Mad Crapper
01-29-2010, 10:34 AM
Just to clear up the confusion here, Stevens isn't refering to that Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad when he tries to mislead us with the 100 year BS. That ruling is not affected by this one AFAICS. The 100 year remark refers to a statute called the Tillman act that limited corporate campaign contributions to candidates. The problem with Obama's statement is that this ruling doesn't overturn Tillman at all. Tillman has been eclipsed by newer legislation, but even after this ruling, corporations are still limited on how much they can donate to campaigns, so I grade this Obama statement as a lie.

:clap:

Inspector
01-29-2010, 02:09 PM
ROFLROFL..DId you vote for Bush ..twice? if so you know the saying.."those that live in glass houses"

You forgot to tell everyone to read your signature.

I know, it's easy to overlook things sometimes. I'm just trying to help out.