"F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>"Frank McCoy" <mccoyf@millcomm.com> wrote in message
>news:96fqv850qadfaemhusjstdak0h5kedpb1t@4ax.com...
>> Justin Thyme <abuse@localhost.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 3 Aug 2013 09:18:55 -0400, "F. Brown" <fredbrown@nowhere.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>I follow the Electronic Frontier Foundation and their battles against
>>>>censorship
>>>>and restrictions on free speech. Many of the appellate rulings they win
>>>>contain the
>>>>phrase, "would have a chilling effect on free speech." Makes me think
>>>>that
>>>>the
>>>>appellate courts understand SCOTUS's position on free speech.
>>>>
>>>
>>>Seems to me that the Bush court has the view that free speach only
>>>applies to corporations.
>>
>> ... And government politicians ... Those belonging to the particular
>> party in-power at the moment, of course.
>
>Which is why the Citizens United decision infuriates them, although they
>incorrectly blame Citizens for lifting the monetary restrictions imposed
>by McCain-Feingold. Speech Now Org sued the FEC and won over those
>restrictions. While Citizens was decided by SCOTUS, Speech Now
>ended at the DC appellate court, the Justice Dept deciding not to appeal.
>
Um ... I might point out that the ruling allowing unlimited monetary
spending by corporations FAVORS by huge amounts the party and people
in-power at the moment, and NOT those trying to kick the current SOB's
out!
It's always FAR easier for incumbents to raise money and support,
especially by and from corporations than those trying to take their
places.
Thus your argument fails.
It was the BUSH administration that had the most to gain (at that
time) by Citizens United; that most-likely being why the Justice Dept.
THEN didn't appeal. Those in-power at the time didn't WANT an appeal.
NOW, of course, with Democrats more in-power, the situation and ruling
backfired on the Republicans.
That tends to happen all the time with rules intended to help keep the
current SOB's in and the opposing party out. When the out-party
complains, the in-party just sneers ... until THEY are out, and said
rules are used against them. THEN they complain, and point-out that
the new in-party USED to complain, so why do they now support and USE
those same rules?
Turn-About it seems, is NOT considered "fair play" in politics.
The soapbox is empty.
NEXT!
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
|
| Follow-ups: | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 | 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 | 28 | 29 |
| 30 | 31 | 32 | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 |
|