tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post4849095032730039306..comments2024-02-29T02:10:56.878-08:00Comments on J O S H U A P U N D I T: Democrats Move to Undercut Citizens United Ruling - And Inadvertantly Step In It AgainFreedom Fighterhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-16818382100945259742010-04-28T11:00:24.605-07:002010-04-28T11:00:24.605-07:00Rob,
As always, thanks for the reply to my post. ...Rob,<br /><br />As always, thanks for the reply to my post. Perhaps it was not the intent of the people passing this bill to curtail the activities of the "sacred cows" but I think it may well have been. After all, I think it is unlikely that everyone in the Democratic party is beholden to George Soros or other far left groups. <br /><br />You may be correct that this bill may be unconstitutional. After all, if you eliminate corporate contributions, you eliminate the ability of the people who work for these corporations or other stakeholders associated with these corporations to petition their government regarding grievences. This sounds like it could be unconstitutional. <br /><br />If the Democrats want the bill to be passed, they own the lower courts. As such, a court challenge by opponents of the bill will be unsuccessful at that level. Also, it will take some time for the challenges to wind there way through the courts. As I recall, Justice John Paul Stevens is retiring from the Supreme Court. He will be replaced by someone far more liberal than he is and the Moderates on the court, if there are any, will not want to run afoul of Obama right now. As such, a court challenge will be unsuccesful. <br /><br />Whether it is better to pass the bill or not the Republicans have no control over this process right now. This is entirely up to the Democrats. I predict the Democrats will "tie it up and let it collapse" becuase the leadership does not want the "obvious Dem financail benefactors" covered, as you put it.<br /><br />If given a choice, I would be tempted to say pass the bill. If George Soros and his ilk are covered, at least this might level the playing field some what. <br /><br />I respectfully disagree with the notion that the bill is "ridiculous." This bill, while it may be misguied and should not pass and if it does pass perhaps it should be struck down by the Supreme Court, appears to have been done by serious people who are attempting to address a serious problem.B.Posternoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-61449327117943242432010-04-27T13:01:03.833-07:002010-04-27T13:01:03.833-07:00Hello Poster,
I refer to the congressmen who dra...Hello Poster,<br /><br /> I refer to the congressmen who drafted this legislation as 'clowns' because while the purpose was to stop corporate giving, the people who will mainly be affected are the Democrats' sacred cows,George Soros and the far left groups he funds, the public employee unions, the trial lawyers and this was quite obviously NOT their intention.<br /><br />It is also blatantly unconstitutional as written, and should the Dems ram it through it will either be court challenged successfully or will have to eliminate the Dems main sources of funding under the equal protection clause of our Constitution.<br /><br />That's why, as I said, I'm undecided on whether it would be better to let it pass and then demand that the obvious Dem financial benefactors be covered by this ridiculous bill or to simply tie it up and let it collapse.<br /><br />Regards,<br />RobFreedom Fighterhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13649470110087808596noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16816866.post-91060219300438306742010-04-26T18:24:51.251-07:002010-04-26T18:24:51.251-07:00I think the legislation is actually designed to cu...I think the legislation is actually designed to curtail the actions of some of the "obvious players." Just because they are Democrats does not necessarily mean they are in the hip pockets of these "obvious players." <br /><br />Please understand that this is not meant as an endorsement of the legislation. It is simply to point something out that you may not be considering. That is that the Democrats and the Republican pushing this bill actually want the obvious players you mentioned covered under this legislation. <br /><br />Btw, a RINO is someone who is a true Conservative. For example someone like Rush Limbaugh or Sarah Palin would be a true RINO. Men like Mike Castle actually represent the beliefs and vaules of the Republican leadership.<br /><br />With regards to number three, I suspect there a number of Congressmen who would love to see organizations like CAIR shut down. I also, suspect there are a number of BOTH Democrats and Republicans who would be distressed by CAIR and others being shut down. <br /><br />I agree with the assessement you make in the last paragraph of the post. Is it better to let it pass and demand the obvious players be covered or tie it up in Congress. Clearly the people pushing the bill want to pass it and demand that these players be covered. If it is going to be tied up, the Republicans can't do it. They don't have the votes. The Democrats would have to decide to do it because they don't want the obvious players to be covered.<br /><br />Why are you referring to the people pushing this as "clowns?" While the bill may be misguided, it is a clear attempt to limit the influence of certain bad actors in the American political system. To call them clowns implies they are not serious. These appear to be very serious people indeed even if they might be misguided.B.Posternoreply@blogger.com