Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Shannyn Moore taking names and kicking ass today

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:10 PM
Original message
Shannyn Moore taking names and kicking ass today
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 03:17 PM by Blue_In_AK
on KUDO. http://lightningstream.surfernetwork.com/Media/player/view/kudo4.asp?call=kudo&title=Listen Live&skin=KUDO


Can You Say President Palin? http://shannynmoore.wordpress.com/2010/01/21/can-you-say-president-palin/



The Supreme Court of the United States has just ruled that corporations, both foreign and domestic, can SUPERFUND their candidate. If you live in London, you can’t vote here. But if you’re a multinational corporation based in London, welcome to the voting booth. Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is perhaps the most devastating and JUDICIAL ACTIVIST RULING the K-RATS (Kennedy, Roberts, Alito, Thomas and Scalia) have ever made.

How hard did corporations have to march and fight and die for the right to vote? Oh wait, they didn’t. Today’s ruling is an activist decision that all freedom loving Americans-including Tea Baggers-ought to be up in arms over. This is exactly what happens when elections are stolen (TWICE) and the fascists are able to appoint corporatist activist judges like John Roberts and Samuel Alito.

Roberts added his two cents in the majority opinion:



CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, with whom JUSTICE ALITO joins, concurring.

The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporations—as themajor ones are. First Amendment rights could be confined to individuals, subverting the vibrant public discourse that is at the foundation of our democracy.

The Court properly rejects that theory, and I join its opinion in full. The First Amendment protects more than just the individual on a soapbox and the lonely pamphleteer.


Statement from President Obama:


With its ruling today, the Supreme Court has given a green light to a new stampede of special interest money in our politics. It is a major victory for big oil, Wall Street banks, health insurance companies and the other powerful interests that marshal their power every day in Washington to drown out the voices of everyday Americans. This ruling gives the special interests and their lobbyists even more power in Washington–while undermining the influence of average Americans who make small contributions to support their preferred candidates. That’s why I am instructing my Administration to get to work immediately with Congress on this issue. We are going to talk with bipartisan Congressional leaders to develop a forceful response to this decision. The public interest requires nothing less.


Here is a summary from the AP:



WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.

By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads. The decision, which almost certainly will also allow labor unions to participate more freely in campaigns, threatens similar limits imposed by 24 states.

It leaves in place a prohibition on direct contributions to candidates from corporations and unions.

Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.

“The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.

However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.”

Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.

The justices also struck down part of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.

Advocates of strong campaign finance regulations have predicted that a court ruling against the limits would lead to a flood of corporate and union money in federal campaigns as early as this year’s midterm congressional elections.


Now, The Corrupt Bastards Club would be legal! I guess they could call themselves The Bastards Club because buying candidates would no longer have to take place in room 604. It could happen in the halls of the capitol in the light of day. Pete Kott has been trying to get out of jail since before he headed to Sheridan. Perhaps his lawyers should argue that he did nothing wrong in light of today’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission Supreme Court ruling.

We’ll be talking about this on The Shannyn Moore Show today from 11am-2pm AST/3pm-6pm EST
Call the show 907.569.1080. Listen live here!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:13 PM
Response to Original message
1. Thanks - I forgot.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:18 PM
Response to Original message
2. Hmmm --- it is not working for me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:23 PM
Response to Reply #2
3. Sorry.
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 03:26 PM by Blue_In_AK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tabatha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:33 PM
Response to Reply #3
4. Thanks - I used the last URL and IE instead.
I usually use FireFox, but there seem to be a problem.

I am listening now via IE, will fix the FireFox later.

Thanks!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Armstead Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 03:49 PM
Response to Original message
5. Whoa -- She really is. It's refreshing to hear the real implications of the SCOTUS
It's refreshing to hear the real implications of the SCOTUS being discussed in the media -- re: issues of wealth and power, not just social issues.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Blue_In_AK Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 04:05 PM
Response to Reply #5
6. We're so glad she's back five days a week
on progressive radio; she had been relegated to a couple of hours Saturday afternoon on the same station as Rush, et al.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tech9413 Donating Member (294 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-21-10 05:08 PM
Response to Original message
7. Been listening to the show
She's really good and smart. I'll keep her on my list for things to listen to when Hartmann has his right wing douchebags on to "debate".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Thu Apr 18th 2024, 04:30 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion (1/22-2007 thru 12/14/2010) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC