Obama Vows to Fight Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision - Polidicks

[QUOTE] President Obama on Saturday promised to fight a Supreme Court decision easing limits on political donations by corporations and unions, saying he couldn't "think of anything more devastating to the public interest." In its 5-4 decision this week, the high court overturned two decisions and threw out parts of a 63-year-old law that said companies and unions can be prohibited from using their own money to produce and run campaign ads that urge the election or defeat of particular candidates by name. The case involved a film by conservative group Citizens United, which criticized then-presidential candidate Hillary Clinton during the 2008 Democratic presidential primary campaign. Supporters called the decision a big win for free speech. But in his weekly radio and Internet message Obama said it was unacceptable. "This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy," the president said. "It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way -- or to punish those who don't." Obama said that means public servants who stand up to Wall Street banks, oil companies, health insurers and other powerful interests could find themselves under attack when election time rolls around. "The last thing we need to do is hand more influence to the lobbyists in Washington or more power to the special interests to tip the outcome of elections," he said. Senate Republican Leader Mitch McConnell disagreed, calling the ruling a "monumental decision" that restores First Amendment rights to those who want to "express themselves about political candidates." "Our democracy depends upon free speech, not just for some but for all," he said in a statement. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce, AFL-CIO, National Rifle Association and other groups also sided with Citizens United in calling for a loosening of restrictions. "This is a victory for Citizens United, but even more so for the First Amendment rights of all Americans," said Citizens United President David Bossie. "The fault line on this issue does not split liberals and conservatives or Republicans and Democrats. Instead, it pits entrenched establishment politicians against the very people whom they are elected to serve." The court issued its ruling just as crucial midterm election campaigns are getting under way and as Obama's Democratic Party feels the pressure from a string of losses in New Jersey, Virginia and in Massachusetts, where this week Republican Scott Brown came from behind to win a Senate seat Democrats had held for decades. Obama said the decision will make it harder to enact financial reforms, close tax loopholes, promote energy independence and protect patients from insurance company abuses -- key elements of his domestic agenda. "We don't need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans," he said. "And we don't intend to." He said he has instructed his administration to work with Congress to "fight for the American people" and develop a "forceful bipartisan response" to the decision. "It will be a priority for us until we repair the damage that has been done," Obama said.[/QUOTE] Source: [url]http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/01/23/obama-vows-fight-supreme-court-campaign-finance-decision/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fpolitics+%2528Text+-+Politics%2529[/url] How the hell can the president go to "fight" a Supreme Court ruling? :confused:

Maybe he should do a Roosevelt and add 6 more members of the Supreme Court, that'll get his decisions through. :smug:

Obama can't trump the Supreme Court. If the fucking SUPREME COURT deems something unconstitutional, neither the Executive nor Congress can reenact it. The Supreme Court has the FINAL say.

[QUOTE=radioactive;19804228]Maybe he should do a Roosevelt and add 6 more members of the Supreme Court, that'll get his decisions through. :smug:[/QUOTE] I was just learning about that, GSCE History :downs: Yeah, but it didn't work did it. The opposition went crazy, and accused him (probably partially within their rights) of trying to become a dictator.

This is not gonna be good for him...

[QUOTE=Lankist;19804350]Obama can't trump the Supreme Court. If the fucking SUPREME COURT deems something unconstitutional, neither the Executive nor Congress can reenact it. The Supreme Court has the FINAL say.[/QUOTE] obama can have fema send all the conservative justices to their camps in the midwest so that he can appoint liberal judges to overturn the decision [editline]09:10PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Bredirish123;19805950]This is not gonna be good for him...[/QUOTE] Only if the GOP/conservatives manage to spin this as "obomber is anti-free speech", which they will likely do. If they (the White House/progressive members of Congress) are able to frame the issue before the GOP, the public will probably support Obama. given how things have gone I'd say the former will take place rather than the latter, democrats have been pretty terrible at framing the debate/going on the offensive

Bad move on Obama's part.

To appoint justices for political gain is grounds for immediate impeachment.

Best of luck to him. Seems like this ruling and the Brown thing have finally caused Obama's testicles to drop. Hopefully he'll back it up with some kind of action.

I agree their decision was wrong but he can't do anything about it.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19806111]Best of luck to him. Seems like this ruling and the Brown thing have finally caused Obama's testicles to drop. Hopefully he'll back it up with some kind of action.[/QUOTE] The President doesn't get a say over Supreme Court rulings. He would be violating his constitutional powers as president and would be violating the law in several ways. If he tries to do anything about this he will have corrupted the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the People's forum for grievances, not a plaything for the president to manipulate or ignore. The Supreme Court is OURS, not HIS. This is why they get the final say, they are the PEOPLE'S method of which we can trump the President AND Congress. It is effectively the most powerful branch in practice because WE, THE PEOPLE are the ones being addressed.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806109]To appoint justices for political gain is grounds for immediate impeachment.[/QUOTE] no it isn't, presidents appoint justices for legacy/agenda reasons all the time

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806154]The President doesn't get a say over Supreme Court rulings. He would be violating his constitutional powers as president and would be violating the law in several ways. If he tries to do anything about this he will have corrupted the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court is the People's forum for grievances, not a plaything for the president to manipulate or ignore. The Supreme Court is OURS, not HIS.[/QUOTE] No, the Supreme Court belongs to conservative corporate interests at this point. I didn't vote for them, I didn't get a say, they got appointed by Democrat or Republican presidents to serve their agendas. What he can do is lean on Congress for legislation to control the effects of this ruling, which is already in progress.

To fight this would be a giant Fuck You on his part to all of us citizens. [editline]04:20PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806158]no it isn't presidents, presidents appoint justices for legacy/agenda reasons all the time[/QUOTE] Uhh, no, they do not appoint new justices on the grounds that the old ones defied him.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806189]To fight this would be a giant Fuck You on his part to all of us citizens.[/QUOTE] oh please

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19806188]No, the Supreme Court belongs to conservative corporate interests at this point. What he can do is lean on Congress for legislation to control the effects of this ruling, which is already in progress.[/QUOTE] Yes the Conservative Corporate Interests. Except the people who won this case were fucking AMATEUR FILM MAKERS

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806189]To fight this would be a giant Fuck You on his part to all of us citizens. [editline]04:20PM[/editline] Uhh, no, they do not appoint new justices on the grounds that the old ones defied him.[/QUOTE] that's not what I mean, they appoint justices based on ideological reasons in order to affect future public policy. it's a big part of presidential legacies

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806198]oh please[/QUOTE] You realize the reason such cases as Brown v. The Board of Education were successful was for the very reason I just explained. The Supreme Court is not a tool of politics, it is a forum to address the grievances of the people. [editline]04:23PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806237]that's not what I mean, they appoint justices based on ideological reasons in order to affect future public policy. it's a big part of presidential legacies[/QUOTE] They may do that on a subtle level but they need legitimate and provable justification for their choices aside from that. They cannot appoint someone solely for political reasons, and there is NO reason to reappoint anyone because of this case. [editline]04:23PM[/editline] Bitch please you don't even know how the Supreme Court works.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806215]Yes the Conservative Corporate Interests. Except the people who won this case were fucking AMATEUR FILM MAKERS[/QUOTE] [url]http://www.citizensunited.org/[/url] they look an awful lot like a pac to me, even if their shtick is filmmaking even if they aren't a pac they still are a lobbying group: [quote]American Sovereignty Project ("ASP") is the grassroots lobbying arm of Citizens United that works to protect American sovereignty and security. ASP's major objectives include complete U.S. withdrawal from the United Nations, defeat of the treaty to establish a permanent U.N.-controlled International Criminal Court, and rejection of one-world government.[/quote]

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806281][url]http://www.citizensunited.org/[/url] they look an awful lot like a pac to me, even if their shtick is filmmaking[/QUOTE] Oh so now groups of politically minded individuals cannot be addressed in the Court? They aren't a corporation, they are activists. And they were legally DENIED the right to air their film. That IS a violation of the First Amendment. Maybe you're one of these idiots that thinks Free Speech is only good when you agree with it, but the rest of us sane people aren't.

btw i don't think anyone is advocating to impeach/remove any justices

Also Lobbying is protected by the First Amendment. Everyone has the right to air their grievances to Congress. The fact that they have a lobbying group does not validate blatant censorship. [editline]04:28PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806347]btw i don't think anyone is advocating to impeach/remove any justices[/QUOTE] That would be the only way to overturn this ruling. The Supreme Court defines what is and is not Constitutional. The President and Congress CAN NOT defy that definition. Fight all they want, they cannot disobey this ruling any more than they could reenact Seperate But Equal policy.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806300]Oh so now groups of politically minded individuals cannot be addressed in the Court? They aren't a corporation, they are activists. And they were legally DENIED the right to air their film. That IS a violation of the First Amendment. Maybe you're one of these idiots that thinks Free Speech is only good when you agree with it, but the rest of us sane people aren't.[/QUOTE] cut out the histrionics; the underlying issue here is not free speech (yes this is a case about free speech so there is no need to point that out) but the concept of corporate personhood

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806189]To fight this would be a giant Fuck You on his part to all of us citizens. [/QUOTE] Dude, the Supreme Court just handed down the biggest Fuck You to common citizens in recent history. If they had even the slightest respect for the freedom of speech of the average citizen, they wouldn't have allowed corporate money to so completely drown us out. For fuck's sake, put away your idealistic technicalities about how government works and OPEN YOUR EYES. Look what is going on right in front of your face and how little it resembles how things are in law textbooks.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806359]Also Lobbying is protected by the First Amendment. Everyone has the right to air their grievances to Congress. The fact that they have a lobbying group does not validate blatant censorship. [editline]04:28PM[/editline] That would be the only way to overturn this ruling. The Supreme Court defines what is and is not Constitutional. The President and Congress CAN NOT defy that definition.[/QUOTE] i'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to etc etc i was just pointing out that they are a pac/lobbying group because you were saying they were just "amateur film makers" which is disingenuous

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806415]cut out the histrionics; the underlying issue here is not free speech (yes this is a case about free speech so there is no need to point that out) but the concept of corporate personhood[/QUOTE] Except this case was not fought by a corporation. This law violated the rights of individuals, not the corporate interest. No matter WHAT effect this may have on corporate interest, this law NEEDED to be struck down. It was affecting the individuals, and the rights of us are more important than the non-rights of them.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19806420]Dude, the Supreme Court just handed down the biggest Fuck You to common citizens in recent history. If they had even the slightest respect for the freedom of speech of the average citizen, they wouldn't have allowed corporate money to so completely drown us out.[/QUOTE] i'll admit that the fact unions will have the same capabilities as corporations might be a good thing, but in principle and practice it is a bad thing (unions won't be able to compete with corporate spending, etc)

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19806420]Dude, the Supreme Court just handed down the biggest Fuck You to common citizens in recent history. If they had even the slightest respect for the freedom of speech of the average citizen, they wouldn't have allowed corporate money to so completely drown us out. For fuck's sake, put away your idealistic technicalities about how government works and OPEN YOUR EYES. Look what is going on right in front of your face and how little it resembles how things are in law textbooks.[/QUOTE] Except this case wasn't fucking FOUGHT by corporations, it was fought by independent activists who were denied their First Amendment Rights! [editline]04:33PM[/editline] Knock off the conspiracy shit. This isn't a fucking video game, corporations aren't controlling the universe. They are more strictly enforced in this country than anything else. We have MULTIPLE branches of the FBI to handle corporate crime, we have enormous infrastructure to keep them in their place and they DO get kept in their place. [editline]04:34PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19806440]i'm not saying they shouldn't be allowed to etc etc i was just pointing out that they are a pac/lobbying group because you were saying they were just "amateur film makers" which is disingenuous[/QUOTE] They are independent, non-corporate interests. What I call them does not matter. Their rights were violated, the law had to go. What happened to them would have been the same as blocking an ad for the SPCA, or Greenpeace or any other political organization. Their voices were muted unconstitutionally.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806454]Except this case was not fought by a corporation. This law violated the rights of individuals, not the corporate interest. No matter WHAT effect this may have on corporate interest, this law NEEDED to be struck down. It was affecting the individuals, and the rights of us are more important than the non-rights of them.[/QUOTE] what's you're point about the case not being fought by a corporation, that's irrelevant based on the outcome. the case could have been argued by a single mother for all i care you should not focus on the "individual rights" so much as the practical and actual ramifications of this decision, unions and corporations will benefit far more from this decision than individuals, unless you agree with the concept of corporate personhood

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806359][B]That would be the only way to overturn this ruling.[/B] The Supreme Court defines what is and is not Constitutional. The President and Congress CAN NOT defy that definition. Fight all they want, they cannot disobey this ruling any more than they could reenact Seperate But Equal policy.[/QUOTE] Couldn't he present a case to the supreme court arguing that people are more easily influenced by flashly ads than actual facts? I mean, the president is also a citizen, isn't he?