It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So while everyone talks about sexual misconduct, here are some policies-Kavanaugh

page: 1
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:15 PM
link   
I have no idea what this dude did in high-school, and no one else does either. We have allegations which could be false, exaggerated and unfair, or completely true. We don't know until we see everything people bring forward, but I digress.

I read an article that makes me dislike him as a Justice, and dispose the democrats for not bringing up while they were disruptive rather than arguing about content.

Seems like Kavanaugh was one of the "geniuses" who helped lay groundwork for Citizens United.


As a federal appellate judge for the past dozen years, Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh has played a central role in building the nation's system of campaign finance laws. It's a system that voters hold in low esteem in recent polls.



Kavanaugh has been on the U.S. Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, a frequent destination for cases involving the Federal Election Commission. His decisions have effectively pulled the campaign finance system rightward, letting in more money with less regulation.


He helped set the stage for saying an advocacy group had the right to raise unlimited funds which eventually helped in the case of Citizens United.


Bopp said he considers a different campaign finance decision as Kavanaugh's best; it involved the liberal women's group EMILY's List. Kavanaugh ruled that EMILY's List could set up a nonprofit wing to raise unlimited funds for issue advocacy. This was in 2009, the year before Justice Kennedy wrote the Supreme Court's Citizens United decision, which reached a similar conclusion.



The reasoning behind EMILY's List, Citizens United and even the foreign money case is that unregulated money raised for issue advocacy cannot be corrupting, because candidates are not directly involved with issue advocacy.



It also suggests the Kavanaugh might be ready to go further down that trail as a Supreme Court justice.
NPR

I decided to look into his policy, and I don't like it. I believe money is the number one problems in our politics.

Take your stance on it, I understand some people might be in favor of these advocacy groups, but IMO, as a whole it's flawed.

I put this in mudpit to be easy on the mods, but let's take a dig into policy, and have some mature discussions and set the allegations aside. You all know where I stand, so fire away.




posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:23 PM
link   
Maybe reading the actual case would be helpful to the discussion.

Emily's List v. FEC



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:27 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
Maybe reading the actual case would be helpful to the discussion.

Emily's List v. FEC


Full disclosure, I'm going off the article, I'm no lawyer and I'm not reading 74 pages.

If something is in there that shows OP is wrong, throw it at me, I'll gladly eat crow.

That said, NPR has rarely done me wrong so I feel semi confident.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:29 PM
link   
You could take that a step further. It’s not money itself, but what the career politicians have morphed our legislators (at all levels) into...practically lifetime appointments when the founding fathers were originally all volunteers with their own other sources of income.

If we went back to no pay and no benefits for legislators (just cover expenses for transportation/lodging when in session), we would see true patriots interested in success of the USA.

As you, I don’t like citizens united, but the career politicians have put so much crap into political donations, I don’t think it really matters. I mean, really? A $5k plate dinner to get around the individual donation limits...are those any better?
edit on 24/9/2018 by Lab4Us because: Spelling

edit on 24/9/2018 by Lab4Us because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:33 PM
link   
a reply to: Lab4Us

I'm fully with you except for the no pay part.

That would only attract those who can afford four years salary free. If they have kids and are putting them through college, that only leaves the rich. I don't think that would be fair representation.

That's just an opinion though, and I think all of your other points were spot on.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:34 PM
link   
Citizens United.

Yet Trump beat Clinton and her's was the most powerful and the most well funded political Campaign in history.

What difference does it make.

💥😎💥



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:42 PM
link   
No pay may be a tad harsh, but the pay shouldn’t lead to becoming millionaires or provide lifetime benefits for just 4 or 6 years of service.

Maybe no higher that civil service executive level? To be honest, it could be time to consider online meetings. How many millions/billions would that save if Senators/Congress people telecommuted except maybe 2 full 30 day sessions a year? Didn’t use to be that sitting legislators all resided in DC...they travelled for sessions.

Heck, they might even interact with their constituents outside of pandering for votes!



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:44 PM
link   
a reply to: Lab4Us

I think you certainly bring up conversations that need to be had to reform that system.

I agree too many millionaires are made from a career in only politics.... Showing up only half the time, what a shame.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:49 PM
link   

originally posted by: xuenchen
Citizens United.

Yet Trump beat Clinton and her's was the most powerful and the most well funded political Campaign in history.

What difference does it make.

💥😎💥


I didn't expect you to chime in with anything more than a Pundit deflection from a perfectly good question on something plaguing this country.

Run along now, I hear the Q-tips are dropping like little floods of dopamine.




posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker


originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Full disclosure, I'm going off the article, I'm no lawyer and I'm not reading 74 pages.

If something is in there that shows OP is wrong, throw it at me, I'll gladly eat crow.

That said, NPR has rarely done me wrong so I feel semi confident.


The fact you think it's ok to NOT inform yourself directly before rendering judgement on the topic says much about why we are at this level of dysfunction in our politics in this country.

You and others like you are just asking to be manipulated. And yet on this topic you complain about the manipulative use of money.

Bravo.

edit on 24-9-2018 by loam because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:55 PM
link   
X does have a point. HRC spent a billion. If I remember, Trump was under a million (could be wrong). Doesn’t seem to have made a difference by spending money. I will stick with there are a lot more issues than citizens united.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

He helped set the stage for saying an advocacy group had the right to raise unlimited funds


Personally, I think he got that one right.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: CriticalStinker


originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Full disclosure, I'm going off the article, I'm no lawyer and I'm not reading 74 pages.

If something is in there that shows OP is wrong, throw it at me, I'll gladly eat crow.

That said, NPR has rarely done me wrong so I feel semi confident.


The fact you think it's ok to NOT inform yourself directly before rendering judgement on the topic says much about why we are at this level of dysfunction in our politics in this country.

You and others like you are just asking to be manipulated. And yet on this topic you complain about the manipulative use of money.

Bravo.


I have a full time job and other stuff to do.

I read between the lines, and like everyone else, don't read each full law that gets passed.

Got any comments regarding the law since you seem to be a professional on the matter?



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 05:59 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Isn't it obvious why neither side is bringing this up? Kavanaugh would allow so much more corporate money into D.C. it is fantastic for all the politicians. He's been talking about political donations, corporate and private, being free speech for two decades now.

Democrats may only be putting up a show for us all and then they'll let him slide through, because they all get a pay raise if they do.

All the world's a stage.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:01 PM
link   

originally posted by: Lab4Us
X does have a point. HRC spent a billion. If I remember, Trump was under a million (could be wrong). Doesn’t seem to have made a difference by spending money. I will stick with there are a lot more issues than citizens united.


Fair enough, one presidential winner didn't have the most money, but what about the law makers?

The campaign with the most money usually wins.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

He helped set the stage for saying an advocacy group had the right to raise unlimited funds


Personally, I think he got that one right.


You're entitled to think that way.

I personally don't think corporate entities should be able to turn super pacs into their personal pocket liners for politicians.

To each their own.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:04 PM
link   
a reply to: Kharron

Interesting take on it.

Not like Dems want wall street and silicone valley taken away from their cash trains.

Bernie wanted to reform that, look what happened to him.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: Bone75

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

He helped set the stage for saying an advocacy group had the right to raise unlimited funds


Personally, I think he got that one right.


You're entitled to think that way.

I personally don't think corporate entities should be able to turn super pacs into their personal pocket liners for politicians.

To each their own.




I find it interesting one can have a stance like that then complain about a corporation ( like twitter) censoring people...



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:06 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker

originally posted by: loam
a reply to: CriticalStinker


originally posted by: CriticalStinker

Full disclosure, I'm going off the article, I'm no lawyer and I'm not reading 74 pages.

If something is in there that shows OP is wrong, throw it at me, I'll gladly eat crow.

That said, NPR has rarely done me wrong so I feel semi confident.


The fact you think it's ok to NOT inform yourself directly before rendering judgement on the topic says much about why we are at this level of dysfunction in our politics in this country.

You and others like you are just asking to be manipulated. And yet on this topic you complain about the manipulative use of money.

Bravo.


I have a full time job and other stuff to do.

I read between the lines, and like everyone else, don't read each full law that gets passed.

Got any comments regarding the law since you seem to be a professional on the matter?


Full time job posting on ATS all day? Hope the pay is satisfying as the work can't be that rewarding having to be negative about every single thing.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:08 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
a reply to: Kharron

Interesting take on it.

Not like Dems want wall street and silicone valley taken away from their cash trains.

Bernie wanted to reform that, look what happened to him.


This is probably the Dems' toughest act yet -- they have to pretend not to like Kavanaugh.




top topics



 
10
<<   2  3 >>

log in

join