- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: "The Legacy of the Roberts Court"
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:09 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:09 pm to TenWheelsForJesus
quote:
. Allowing a single CEO to use the collective wealth of a corporation to push his own political agenda is retarded.
How else do you want to regulate political speech?
quote:
The CEO has all the rights as an individual to donate to whom he wants. Allowing corporations to donate eliminates the point of a democracy
Citizens United isn't about campaign contributions to candidates. A common misconception of the Left.
0
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:10 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
"American Thinker" is a New Yorker article??
"his" = American Thinker.
Go back to the article and click the link discussing the ruling and observe a New Yorker article as his citation.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:26 pm to lake chuck fan
The bottom line of Roberts is that he is an institutionist. He believes in protecting the government from radical changes and from opening “judicial floodgates”.
There are a lot of decisions that he made where the opposite result would have triggered tons more lawsuits due to creating a whole new issue for courts to decide. In those instances, he chose the option that prevented increasing litigation.
While it’s easy to look back on citizens united as this obviously evil decision granting corporations outsized influence in politics, siding with the dissenting opinions would have created a serious constitutional crisis regarding exactly what is and is not free speech, generating truly preposterous amounts of litigation to decide that. Citizens United was about an independent filmmaker purchasing air time to show their movie, and that rationale was used to justify corporations buying up ad space to sell preferred candidates. Roberts took the side which was overly permissive and protected the court.
Roberts has also largely protected government regulatory bureaucracies from being checked by litigation or shut down by executive orders. Roberts sees consistency, predictability, and integrity of the institutions as a priority, rather than examining what those institutions are actually doing, and whether that falls within their mandate from Congress or their elected/appointed executive department leaders.
These are reasons why I frequently clash with Roberts, but he is not without principles. His priorities and mine are simply very different.
There are a lot of decisions that he made where the opposite result would have triggered tons more lawsuits due to creating a whole new issue for courts to decide. In those instances, he chose the option that prevented increasing litigation.
While it’s easy to look back on citizens united as this obviously evil decision granting corporations outsized influence in politics, siding with the dissenting opinions would have created a serious constitutional crisis regarding exactly what is and is not free speech, generating truly preposterous amounts of litigation to decide that. Citizens United was about an independent filmmaker purchasing air time to show their movie, and that rationale was used to justify corporations buying up ad space to sell preferred candidates. Roberts took the side which was overly permissive and protected the court.
Roberts has also largely protected government regulatory bureaucracies from being checked by litigation or shut down by executive orders. Roberts sees consistency, predictability, and integrity of the institutions as a priority, rather than examining what those institutions are actually doing, and whether that falls within their mandate from Congress or their elected/appointed executive department leaders.
These are reasons why I frequently clash with Roberts, but he is not without principles. His priorities and mine are simply very different.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:29 pm to lake chuck fan
quote:
Roberts is a 2005 appointee of Republican George W. Bush, who is a staunch globalist like his predecessor Bill Clinton and successor Barack Obama.
I would add elder Bush. He’s the one who proudly proclaimed the dawn of a “new world order” upon succeeding Reagan. Sounded rather benign at the time back in the day …but that old professional spook knew exactly what he was signaling.
This insidious nonsense has been slow baking for decades throughout the U.S. and Western society as a whole.
Perhaps a reminder for anyone who gets peeved why certain things DJT is trying to tackle don’t yield results right away. He is literally taking on an entire system that is infested and entrenched from A to Z with “globalists”.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:33 pm to GatorOnAnIsland
quote:
We got Obama care because this idiot said it was a tax even though it wasn’t presented as a tax.
SFP loves Obamacare... You know, like a "true conservative," should.
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:37 pm to BTROleMisser
quote:
SFP loves Obamacare
Why lie?
Posted on 4/23/25 at 12:50 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
"his" = American Thinker.
Go back to the article and click the link discussing the ruling and observe a New Yorker article as his citation.
There are 3 links in the Campaign Finance story.
One is a link to The New Yorker.
Was anything in the New Yorker article incorrect?
Page 2 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News