spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 06:08 PM
Original message |
??? does the supreme court ruling go into effect immediately??? |
BR_Parkway
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 06:09 PM
Response to Original message |
1. I would think so, but don't know for sure |
NoNothing
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 06:10 PM
Response to Original message |
mdmc
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #2 |
RC
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 06:14 PM
Response to Original message |
3. What Supreme Court ruling. I keep reading about one, but nothing is said about it is about.. |
sharesunited
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 06:19 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
5. It's a corporate personhood / free speech case. |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 06:20 PM by sharesunited
Strikes down the ban against election-purposeful issue advertising sponsored by corporations.
To wit, money equals speech.
Trying to censor messages from any source based on their economic power is unconstitutional.
|
spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 06:25 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
clear eye
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 06:26 PM
Response to Reply #3 |
8. SCOTUS in its ruling on Citizens United v. FEC, just declared corporate political advertising |
|
Edited on Thu Jan-21-10 06:31 PM by clear eye
for all candidates at any time "protected political speech" by corporate "persons". The decision was written by Justice Kennedy. It makes no distinction even if a large % of the corporation is owned by foreign citizens as long as it's headquartered and incorporated in the U.S. It says laws can be written to regulate disclosure, and part of McCain-Feingold has such a requirement for federal elections but the ruling itself doesn't contain any such requirement as of now, so Haliburton could run an ad in October for a gubenatorial candidate under the name "Americans for America", as Dylan Ratigan put it in his program today.
|
clear eye
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 06:18 PM
Response to Original message |
4. All court decisions go into effect immediately unless there is some event they are contingent upon |
|
like the end of a school term in a child cusody case, or unless it is unreasonable to expect something to be done immediately b/c it takes time. Decisions in lower courts can be delayed while under appeal, but of course that doesn't apply to the Supreme Court. Regarding a ruling overturning a law prohibiting something (say, like alcoholic beverages) once you can't prosecute someone for doing something b/c the law against it is overturned, they are free to do it.
|
spanone
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Thu Jan-21-10 06:25 PM
Response to Original message |
|
:fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot: :fistbump: :applause: :patriot:
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Thu May 09th 2024, 08:02 PM
Response to Original message |