Obama Vows to Fight Supreme Court Campaign Finance Decision - Polidicks

[QUOTE=Lankist;19809719]You are confusing legal equality with tangible equality.[/QUOTE] Elaborate. Regardless of any 'confusion' I am having my point still stands.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;19810244]Contrary to the name, "Non-profit" organizations can legally make a profit. They are just taxed differently than "For-profit" organizations, like businesses. How else do you think they get people working for them? Their employees are not full time volunteers.[/QUOTE] Yep. They are also allowed to make a profit if they turn around and invest all that money in expanding the business. That's why so many non-profit hospitals always seem to be building massive expansions, "wellness centers", and shit like that. They charge like for-profits, but spend the money in-house so it's not shown as a profit. Also, like you said, their employees are all fully paid. [editline]08:13PM[/editline] [QUOTE=JDK721;19808879]You really like to blame EVERYTHING on the Republicans.[/QUOTE] Yes, I do. The principal does apply to Democrats or Independants as much as Republicans, but it's the GOP that unquestionably has the support of the largest business interests in the land.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;19810244]Contrary to the name, "Non-profit" organizations can legally make a profit. They are just taxed differently than "For-profit" organizations, like businesses. How else do you think they get people working for them? Their employees are not full time volunteers.[/QUOTE] It's not profit if it's used to pay wages

[QUOTE=Pvt. Ryan;19805963]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] 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[/QUOTE] Its not free speech if its slander. And many attack ads are.

[QUOTE=cyanide101;19811696]Its not free speech if its slander. And many attack ads are.[/QUOTE] Uh slander means fabricated claims that have no supporting evidence that are meant to disparage an individual. Political ads only make claims that they have something to cite for, though they often twist the facts. [editline]09:01PM[/editline] Also lying is free speech in most contexts. It is only illegal when it is a direct attack meant to harm another, or when it is meant to circumvent the law.

[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] Congress has amendment power, so if they amend the constitution against the Supreme Court's decision, then THAT's final. It's their check and balance to the Supreme Court. However, I highly, highly doubt that congress would touch something like this.

[QUOTE=Detective P;19812768]Congress has amendment power, so if they amend the constitution against the Supreme Court's decision, then THAT's final. It's their check and balance to the Supreme Court. However, I highly, highly doubt that congress would touch something like this.[/QUOTE] That's extremely hard and desperate.

[QUOTE=Detective P;19812768]Congress has amendment power, so if they amend the constitution against the Supreme Court's decision, then THAT's final. It's their check and balance to the Supreme Court. However, I highly, highly doubt that congress would touch something like this.[/QUOTE] The Supreme Court has to ratify the amendment. They can refuse to acknowledge and interpret it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;19804209] How the hell can the president go to "fight" a Supreme Court ruling? :confused:[/QUOTE] "John Roberts has made his decision, now let him enforce it!" ???

[QUOTE=Lankist;19806635]The president has less power than a citizen. The Supreme Court cannot be violated. At all. Ever. [/QUOTE] Well, actually, the Supreme Court was violated once by Andrew Jackson, who famously said, "[B]John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it![/B]" (which I believe was not actually said by him, but the quote kicks ass anyways.) This was a rebuttal by Jackson after the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Georgia cannot force the Cherokee nation out or redraw their borders. The result? The Trail of Tears. The President has a lot of power on his own than you think, but he's mostly put in check by Congress and the Supreme Court. He's called Commander-in-Chief for a reason, since he doesn't have to listen to Congress for a sixty-day grace period after declaring war, is in control of foreign relations, nominates the justices to the Supreme Court when seats are vacant, and has executive privilege. Not to mention, a lot of the best Presidents we had has violated the law and Constitution in the past. For example, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, put several Confederate sympathizers in jail without the right to a fail trial, and used war funds before Congress could decide on it. Sometimes, these steps are necessary to do certain actions. So stop pulling bullshit out of your ass saying the President has no power whatsoever.

[QUOTE=Flitchaye;19814641]Well, actually, the Supreme Court was violated once by Andrew Jackson, who famously said, "[B]John Marshall has made his decision, now let him enforce it![/B]" (which I believe was not actually said by him, but the quote kicks ass anyways.) This was a rebuttal by Jackson after the Supreme Court ruled that the state of Georgia cannot force the Cherokee nation out or redraw their borders. The result? The Trail of Tears. The President has a lot of power on his own than you think, but he's mostly put in check by Congress and the Supreme Court. He's called Commander-in-Chief for a reason, since he doesn't have to listen to Congress for a sixty-day grace period after declaring war, is in control of foreign relations, nominates the justices to the Supreme Court when seats are vacant, and has executive privilege. Not to mention, a lot of the best Presidents we had has violated the law and Constitution in the past. For example, Abraham Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, put several Confederate sympathizers in jail without the right to a fail trial, and used war funds before Congress could decide on it. Sometimes, these steps are necessary to do certain actions. So stop pulling bullshit out of your ass saying the President has no power whatsoever.[/QUOTE] You are citing the Trail of Tears as an example of the President's power to break the law? Really? Can you not find an example in which defying the Supreme Court has lead to something good? [editline]11:32PM[/editline] Yes let's allow President Obama to commit crimes against his nation because goddamnit you just don't like those conservatives. [editline]11:33PM[/editline] Also there is a big difference between the Supreme Court telling the Executive something is illegal and the Supreme Court telling the Executive that it CANNOT enforce something. To defy them would lead to a pretty flashy impeachment.

The president can't fight the Supreme Court, they are elected for life for a reason.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19814744]You are citing the Trail of Tears as an example of the President's power to break the law? Really? Can you not find an example in which defying the Supreme Court has lead to something good? [editline]11:32PM[/editline] Yes let's allow President Obama to commit crimes against his nation because goddamnit you just don't like those conservatives. [editline]11:33PM[/editline] Also there is a big difference between the Supreme Court telling the Executive something is illegal and the Supreme Court telling the Executive that it CANNOT enforce something. To defy them would lead to a pretty flashy impeachment.[/QUOTE] You totally missed what I said about the Trail of Tears. You said that the Supreme Court cannot be violated, but Andrew Jackson ignored their ruling, thus, he violated the Supreme Court. And I never said I wanted President Obama to commit "crimes against his nation" on this ruling. I was simply refuting your claim that the President has no power. Also, the Supreme Court once ruled that segregation was completely legal. In your terms, this should be completely adhered to and followed if this law was still around today. Just because the Supreme Court has the absolute decision in the end doesn't mean it's always right.

[QUOTE=Flitchaye;19814926]You totally missed what I said about the Trail of Tears. You said that the Supreme Court cannot be violated, but Andrew Jackson ignored their ruling, thus, he violated the Supreme Court. And I never said I wanted President Obama to commit "crimes against his nation" on this ruling. I was simply refuting your claim that the President has no power. Also, the Supreme Court once ruled that segregation was completely legal. In your terms, this should be completely adhered to and followed if this law was still around today. Just because the Supreme Court has the absolute decision in the end doesn't mean it's always right.[/QUOTE] Yes and when Andrew Jackson broke the law he caused a genocide. I don't see how you could possibly thing allotting that power to a president is a good thing. I said he can't, as in constitutionally and legally. I didn't say he couldn't become a corrupted criminal of a president. Also the Supreme Court was the body that then ruled that racial segregation was unconstitutional. Your point is null and void. If the Supreme Court does something unjust it is the Supreme Court that reverses it. And if they ignore the evidence and logic of their current era, as well as the case and logic of those pressing the case, they can be impeached and replaced. In THIS case, however, the logic is sound. [editline]11:43PM[/editline] Also: Brown vs. The Board of Education

[QUOTE=Lankist;19814964]Yes and when Andrew Jackson broke the law he caused a genocide. I don't see how you could possibly thing allotting that power to a president is a good thing. I said he can't, as in constitutionally and legally. I didn't say he couldn't become a corrupted criminal of a president. Also the Supreme Court was the body that then ruled that racial segregation was unconstitutional. Your point is null and void. If the Supreme Court does something unjust it is the Supreme Court that reverses it. And if they ignore the evidence and logic of their current era, as well as the case and logic of those pressing the case, they can be impeached and replaced. In THIS case, however, the logic is sound.[/QUOTE] If the Supreme Court rules unjustly, it doesn't guarantee that they will reverse it.

[QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;19815006]If the Supreme Court rules unjustly, it doesn't guarantee that they will reverse it.[/QUOTE] Especially when they start getting replaced by presidents who owe their victories to hundreds of millions of corporate dollars.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19814964]Yes and when Andrew Jackson broke the law he caused a genocide. I don't see how you could possibly thing allotting that power to a president is a good thing. I said he can't, as in constitutionally and legally. I didn't say he couldn't become a corrupted criminal of a president. Also the Supreme Court was the body that then ruled that racial segregation was unconstitutional. Your point is null and void. If the Supreme Court does something unjust it is the Supreme Court that reverses it.[/QUOTE] The point of the matter is, Andrew Jackson clearly violated the law, and caused a lot of Native Americans to die. This proves that the President can ignore the Supreme Court, if he really wanted to. (Although if he did it now, it would pretty much be political suicide.) The President already has more power than you think he has, but I was simply stating the facts of the extent of his power. I didn't say that alloting the President power was a good or a bad thing, for your information. The last question I posed was hypothetical, and I mentioned specifically if the law was still around and the Supreme Court has yet to reverse it, would it be right? The Supreme Court is not infallible, was all I was trying to say.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19815037]Especially when they start getting replaced by presidents who owe their victories to hundreds of millions of corporate dollars.[/QUOTE] Would you just give up the corporate conspiracy crap? At least for this thread? We're talking about the Supreme Court, now how Obama got elected.

[QUOTE=Used Car Salesman;19815037]Especially when they start getting replaced by presidents who owe their victories to hundreds of millions of corporate dollars.[/QUOTE] How many times? Direct Contribution: Illegal. Bribery: Illegal. Perjury: Illegal. Collaboration: Illegal. Sponsorship: Illegal. Non-Transparency: Illegal. Independent Expression of Political Ideologies: Legal. [editline]11:50PM[/editline] [QUOTE=Flitchaye;19815066]The point of the matter is, Andrew Jackson clearly violated the law, and caused a lot of Native Americans to die. This proves that the President can ignore the Supreme Court, if he really wanted to. (Although if he did it now, it would pretty much be political suicide.) The President already has more power than you think he has, but I was simply stating the facts of the extent of his power. I didn't say that alloting the President power was a good or a bad thing, for your information. The last question I posed was hypothetical, and I mentioned specifically if the law was still around and the Supreme Court has yet to reverse it, would it be right? The Supreme Court is not infallible, was all I was trying to say.[/QUOTE] You don't realize we are living almost two centuries after that. Jackson got away with it because not many people even knew what he did. In the age of mass media where a president can be impeached for getting his dick wet? Not so much

[QUOTE=Lankist;19815075] You don't realize we are living almost two centuries after that. Jackson got away with it because not many people even knew what he did. In the age of mass media where a president can be impeached for getting his dick wet? Not so much[/QUOTE] Touché.

[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] You can amend the Constitution. Not following the argument but just saying that it is possible to circumvent.

[QUOTE=RBM11;19815475]You can amend the Constitution.[/QUOTE] And the Supreme Court has to ratify the amendment.

Lankist seems more pissed then usual.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;19815515]Lankist seems more pissed then usual.[/QUOTE] You don't know the shit I seen.

[QUOTE=Canuhearme?;19815515]Lankist seems more pissed then usual.[/QUOTE] I'm not complaining. I'm learning and being entertained.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19815521]You don't know the shit I seen.[/QUOTE] Did any of it include Q-Beams glittering off a Tannhauser gate? [editline]12:14AM[/editline] [QUOTE=Emperor Scorpious II;19815527]I'm not complaining. I'm learning and being entertained.[/QUOTE] Same.

While this particular case should have been let through, others will also become eligible which will become very quickly problematic.

Bet ya this case gets re-reviewed in a couple months, and turned back over.

[QUOTE=R3mix;19816006]Bet ya this case gets re-reviewed in a couple months, and turned back over.[/QUOTE] No.

[QUOTE=Lankist;19807543]Politics 101: A Liberal ideology is one that is unafraid of taking risks and is willing to see its nation destabilized, all for the sake of protecting individual rights. A Conservative ideology is one that holds prosperity, security and stability above all else, and rights are purely secondary beneath national success. Communism, for instance, is a heavily CONSERVATIVE practice in its purest, Marxist sense. Capitalism, additionally, and a system of Free Market economy is a LIBERAL system of economy. Liberalism = Taking risks, i.e. what the word LIBERAL MEANS. Conservatism = safe practice and restraint, i.e. what the word CONSERVATIVE MEANS.[/QUOTE] :glomp: someone needs to help a niggah and his gay friends out am i right?