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: 2
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: CADpro

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.


Eh, some days are slow, but I feel like most of my posts are light hearted takes on my opinions.

I've been known to roll around in the mud from time to time though. Cheers.




posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:13 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

But you have copious amounts of time posting on ats, regurgitating other people's opinions and whether you agree with them?

With respect to the case, it basically concerned whether the government can restrict your free speech rights for any reason beyond limiting corrupted purposes. The Court ruled the FEC imposed free speech limitations unrealed to the currupted purpose rationale that is otherwise largely accepted.

In simple terms, it comes down to how much control the government should be given to limit what you say and how you spend your money to say it.

But don't take my word for it. Educate yourself and then form an opinion. We'd be much better off in this country if more people would do that.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:14 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

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...


I've never complained about Twitter deciding what makes it on to their platform.

I'm more of a corporations should be able to decide how their product/service is used. If they don't want extremist groups using their platform to plan meetings, there are plenty more to choose from on a free market.

I don't think they should be able to pay for someone who would give them an edge just because they donated to a campaign.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree with you there, my previous comment was aimed at the member you replied to, even though I authored it to you.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:17 PM
link   
a reply to: loam



In simple terms, it comes down to how much control the government should be given to limit what you say and how you spend your money to say it.

But don't take my word for it. Educate yourself and then form an opinion. We'd be much better off in this country if more people would do that.


Weird, I got all of that from the article and still have the same opinion.

You have yours, I have mine, beauty of free speech.

Money isn't speech though, IMO, it's money.

Elections are supposed to make sure there is equal representation, our votes. I'd agree money wouldn't be too big of an issue until we see politicians vote in favor of donors, not citizens.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: hopenotfeariswhatweneed

No problem
.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:36 PM
link   
These "political money laws" violated the first amendment according to the supreme court. A supreme court justice is to uphold the constitution, which is the supreme law of the land. According to your article, the Supreme court affirmed Kavanaugh's ruling.
edit on 24-9-2018 by NiNjABackflip because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
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.


So why are you mad at the interpreter and not the legislature?



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
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.


So why are you mad at the interpreter and not the legislature?



I'm not, it's an opinion. I'm not mad, just trying to talk about the content of him rather than allegations.




posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:46 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

He doesn't get to write law. Only Congress can rectify citizens united. Judges twisting laws has itself become a problem.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

He doesn't get to write law. Only Congress can rectify citizens united. Judges twisting laws has itself become a problem.


Fair point, but judges are also part of the checks and balances, meant to check the politicians. It goes both ways, but I agree with you to a degree.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:48 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I Believe Self-Interest is the Number One Problem in American Politics , and the LAW is There to Correct it when it Rears it's Ugly Head . Judge Brett Kavanaugh Believes in Upholding the Constitution of the United States , You Have a Problem with that Sir ? ........Hmm........



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I agree with you there, my previous comment was aimed at the member you replied to, even though I authored it to you.


Well you're barking up the wrong tree. I don't recall ever expressing an opinion on the matter. Could you show me where I did? If not, I'd appreciate an apology.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:53 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Ultimately only Congress can fix citizens united.
No different than roe v wade.

Judicial patches are what got us into this mess.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: CriticalStinker

I Believe Self-Interest is the Number One Problem in American Politics , and the LAW is There to Correct it when it Rears it's Ugly Head . Judge Brett Kavanaugh Believes in Upholding the Constitution of the United States , You Have a Problem with that Sir ? ........Hmm........


I don't remember the part of the constitution that says corporations can be represented more than citizens.

I do remember us leaving a country where there wasn't equal representation for tax payers though.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Ultimately only Congress can fix citizens united.
No different than roe v wade.

Judicial patches are what got us into this mess.


I doubt that will happen.

At least some people agree with it, I don't though.

To each there own.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 06:59 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Hmm... and that Pertains to Judge Brett Kavanaugh in What Way >? ,,,,,,

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



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: Zanti Misfit
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Hmm... and that Ptrtains to Judge Brett Kavanaugh in What Way >? ,,,,,,


Layed it all out bud. You're not changing my mind. If you want to troll it's not working.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 07:02 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well you can vote for your reps; all you can do about noms is complain.



posted on Sep, 24 2018 @ 07:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: shooterbrody
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well you can vote for your reps; all you can do about noms is complain.


I vote for my reps, and I won't complain because at the end of the day it won't change anything. Just spit balling over here.




top topics



 
10
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join