|
Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
 Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:02 am Post subject: |
 |
|
Apparently, this is the most unpopular Supreme Court dec'n since Kelo v. New London
Americans: 80% opposed, 65% strongly opposed
Wow, even most conservatives don't like the right-wing judicial activism in this case.
| Quote: |
| The bipartisan nature of these views is striking in these largely partisan times. The court�s ruling is opposed, respectively, by 76, 81 and 85 percent of Republicans, independents and Democrats; and by 73, 85 and 86 percent of conservatives, moderates and liberals. Majorities in all these groups, ranging from 58 to 73 percent, not only oppose the ruling but feel strongly about it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Apparently, this is the most unpopular Supreme Court dec'n since Kelo v. New London |
Unpopular? It's the Supreme Court, not a marketing firm.
Reminds me of the old saying-
What's popular isn't always right.
What's right isn't always popular.
I have to wonder how many of the respondents who are opposed actually took the time to read the decision rather than just listen to the banter in the media about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 9:44 am Post subject: |
|
|
| kiknkorea wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Apparently, this is the most unpopular Supreme Court dec'n since Kelo v. New London |
Unpopular? It's the Supreme Court, not a marketing firm.
Reminds me of the old saying-
What's popular isn't always right.
What's right isn't always popular.
I have to wonder how many of the respondents who are opposed actually took the time to read the decision rather than just listen to the banter in the media about it. |
I agree 100%. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 3:57 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kiknkorea wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Apparently, this is the most unpopular Supreme Court dec'n since Kelo v. New London |
Unpopular? It's the Supreme Court, not a marketing firm.
Reminds me of the old saying-
What's popular isn't always right.
What's right isn't always popular.
I have to wonder how many of the respondents who are opposed actually took the time to read the decision rather than just listen to the banter in the media about it. |
I can't speak for anyone else, but given I actually posted the decision itself on these forums in one of the topics about it in order to draw a quote from it, I find it strange that you'd suggest this.
You're making a total non-argument here. Sure, what's popular isn't always right, and what's right isn't always popular. This is just both unpopular and wrong. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
The Happy Warrior
Joined: 10 Feb 2010
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kiknkorea wrote: |
| The Happy Warrior wrote: |
| Apparently, this is the most unpopular Supreme Court dec'n since Kelo v. New London |
Unpopular? It's the Supreme Court, not a marketing firm.
Reminds me of the old saying-
What's popular isn't always right.
What's right isn't always popular.
I have to wonder how many of the respondents who are opposed actually took the time to read the decision rather than just listen to the banter in the media about it. |
I don't know. I do know that 80% opposed is enough to sustain a Constitutional amendment. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:21 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| This is just both unpopular and wrong. |
The latter is 100% your opinion and not based in fact.  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 6:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| This is just both unpopular and wrong. |
The latter is 100% your opinion and not based in fact. |
No, the latter is based on the actual ruling in question. A judicial ruling which actively overturns previous precedent using a totally unsound rationale to the detriment of society is wrong by any conceivable measure.
If you really think a sound case could be made for the ruling, then make it, because it certainly wasn't made in the judicial opinion in question. Unlimited political contributions from foreign owned corporations will be an asset to our society rather than a detriment? Okay, let's see you defend it, and yes, that's what this ruling results in. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:14 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
No, the latter is based on the actual ruling in question. A judicial ruling which actively overturns previous precedent using a totally unsound rationale to the detriment of society is wrong by any conceivable measure. |
The latter part of this statement, once again, IS YOUR OPINION. The first part of the statement is a valid argument. Another strong argument against the SC's decision is they were activists and made a ruling that surpassed the case at hand.
| Quote: |
| If you really think a sound case could be made for the ruling, then make it, because it certainly wasn't made in the judicial opinion in question. Unlimited political contributions from foreign owned corporations will be an asset to our society rather than a detriment? Okay, let's see you defend it, and yes, that's what this ruling results in. |
I really cannot fully support the ruling because the SC went beyond the scope of the actual case. It is hypocritical of the majority since they all disavow "judicial activism".
That being said, political campaign contributions cannot get worse than they are right now. The more regulations you make, the more lawyers get paid to find those loopholes. By eliminating those regulations, you bring it all out in the open. It also lessens the need for lawyers, which is most definitely an asset to our society.
Fox, 2008 was the most expensive Presidential campaign in US history. That was AFTER McCain-Feingold was passed. As others have noted ON THIS THREAD, non-profit organizations were barred from giving money to political campaigns. Now they won't have that problem. Is that not a benefit to society?? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 7:35 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
No, the latter is based on the actual ruling in question. A judicial ruling which actively overturns previous precedent using a totally unsound rationale to the detriment of society is wrong by any conceivable measure. |
The latter part of this statement, once again, IS YOUR OPINION. The first part of the statement is a valid argument. Another strong argument against the SC's decision is they were activists and made a ruling that surpassed the case at hand. |
I wish people would stop using opinion as if it were the antonym of fact. Yes, it's my opinion. The fact that it's my opinion is totally irrelevent to its truth value. Either it's true, or isn't. We can discuss whether or not it's true if you like. Simply saying, "It's just your opinion," though, is totally meaningless; it's equivalent to saying, "Nuh uh." I don't think there's much benefit to be had from that kind of discourse.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| I really cannot fully support the ruling because the SC went beyond the scope of the actual case. It is hypocritical of the majority since they all disavow "judicial activism". |
Complete hypocrisy, yes. Going beyond the scope of the ruling in question, after essentially requesting the case be brought before them, and overturning previous judicial precedent to do so is very questionable.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| That being said, political campaign contributions cannot get worse than they are right now. |
Yes they can, unfortunately. The fact that they're bad now doesn't mean they can't get worse, and the fact that we can agree they're bad now means we should be moving towards a solution rather than exacerbating the problem. As things stand, the millions that politicians are able to benefit from from PACs and so forth stand to be completely trivialized. Right now, PACs still ultimately have to draw their funding from individual citizens. Corporate PACs are even more restricted, having to draw their money from individual employees and the families of employees; corporate money cannot be directly donated. Even if the method is currently imperfect, it's at least something.
How can the paltry millions PACs can put together compete against the potential billions that corporations can directly contribute if they wish? How can the middle and lower class retain any ability to impact elections with their contributions in light of such a situation? How can citizens retain the ability to impact elections with their contributions when they're now competing against Saudi Oil interests? In my eyes, this ruling reduces the ability of lower and middles class citizens to influence elections with their donations, and I see that as a problem.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox, 2008 was the most expensive Presidential campaign in US history. That was AFTER McCain-Feingold was passed. |
Yes, but US currency is worth less than it has been at any time in history, and it was a particularly historic election. Those two facts combined make me feel that it's not surprising at all that the figures would be the highest in US history. How does opening the flood gates to unlimited direct corporate contribution help fix that problem though? In my eyes, it's a move in the exact opposite direction of a resolution.
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| As others have noted ON THIS THREAD, non-profit organizations were barred from giving money to political campaigns. Now they won't have that problem. Is that not a benefit to society?? |
No, it's not a benefit in my eyes, because non-profit organizations -- like corporations and unions -- are non-citizen, non-human entities whose interests are vastly different than those of citizens. I might talk primarily about corporations (because they have the most money and thus will create the greatest impact), but I see union and non-profit direct donations as problematic as well. Government needs to be looking out for the interest of individual citizens and citizens collective, not the interests of corporations, unions, or even non-profit entities. As such, it is of paramount importance that citizen influence on election is primary, and corporate/union/etc influence is minimized. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 8:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
As an additional point, while you might not see any change, lobbying firm certainly do, and they're prepared to capitalize on those changes:
| Quote: |
Following the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the �floodgates� have opened for enhanced corporate spending on elections. As ThinkProgress has reported, foreign-owned subsidiaries and foreign shareholders in American corporations are preparing to pour their resources into defeating and electing candidates of their choice.
While Democrats in Congress have already put forward proposals to develop clean elections, the GOP is largely championing the new status quo of limitless power for corporations. Guiding corporations into this new uncharted territory of election law, lobbyists and specialized law firms have stepped up to the plate. Among lobbying shops offering post-Citizens United assistance to corporate clients is a firm called King and Spalding, the firm of Indiana GOP Senate candidate Dan Coats. King and Spalding recently released a document promising to corporate clients:
| Quote: |
| New Opportunities for Corporations to Engage in Election Campaigns: [...] Citizens United provides corporations with the ability to engage in the political process in dynamic ways. [...] While not every corporation will want to buy advertisements that simply ask the public to vote for or against a candidate, every corporation should view the Citizens United decision as providing new tools to assist it in advancing policies and legislation that are in its shareholders� interests. |
As Zachary Roth reported yesterady, other firms are also pitching to clients to take advantage of the new system. K&LGates posted a similar document encouraging clients to seek their services in order to influence elections while avoiding �public scrutiny.�
Coats has come under fire for having lobbied for multinational corporations and financial institutions like Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and AMGEN. But he�s also lobbied for foreign governments, including India and Yemen. For perhaps the first time in history, a candidate for Congress like Coats can harness millions, or even billions, of dollars in corporate electioneering from multinational corporations from all over the world. Given the fact his own lobbying firm is positioning itself to be a conduit for such spending, it�s a definite possibility. |
And the lobbying firm who wrote the inset text is absolutely correct: Citizens United is an unprecedented opportunity for corporations to influence elections to the benefit of their shareholders, many of whom are foreigners whose interests in no way coincide with those of the American people, and who are generally upper class individuals. Said influence will come at the expense of middle and lower class influence (e.g. the influence of the majority), as political influence is ultimately zero sum.
I just don't see how anyone can paint this ruling as beneficial for the average American. It strongly favors the ultra-wealthy, corporate interests, and foreigners, and it actively harms middle and lower class citizens in the process by reducing the influence their political donations will have by comparison. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bacasper
Joined: 26 Mar 2007
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox, 2008 was the most expensive Presidential campaign in US history. That was AFTER McCain-Feingold was passed. |
|
Every presidential election is more expensive than the one before it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kiknkorea
Joined: 16 May 2008
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:18 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| I can't speak for anyone else, but given I actually posted the decision itself on these forums in one of the topics about it in order to draw a quote from it, I find it strange that you'd suggest this. |
I was talking about the respondents to the poll, not this forum (sorry for the ambiguity.)
I also posted the decision earlier in this thread, so I assume the Dave's current events crowd keeps informed better than the average poll respondent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Fox
Joined: 04 Mar 2009
|
| Posted: Thu Feb 18, 2010 10:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| kiknkorea wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
| I can't speak for anyone else, but given I actually posted the decision itself on these forums in one of the topics about it in order to draw a quote from it, I find it strange that you'd suggest this. |
I was talking about the respondents to the poll, not this forum (sorry for the ambiguity.) |
I see. Thanks for the clarification, I had misunderstood. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:07 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
As an additional point, while you might not see any change, lobbying firm certainly do, and they're prepared to capitalize on those changes:
| Quote: |
Following the Citizens United Supreme Court decision, the �floodgates� have opened for enhanced corporate spending on elections. As ThinkProgress has reported, foreign-owned subsidiaries and foreign shareholders in American corporations are preparing to pour their resources into defeating and electing candidates of their choice.
While Democrats in Congress have already put forward proposals to develop clean elections, the GOP is largely championing the new status quo of limitless power for corporations. Guiding corporations into this new uncharted territory of election law, lobbyists and specialized law firms have stepped up to the plate. Among lobbying shops offering post-Citizens United assistance to corporate clients is a firm called King and Spalding, the firm of Indiana GOP Senate candidate Dan Coats. King and Spalding recently released a document promising to corporate clients:
| Quote: |
| New Opportunities for Corporations to Engage in Election Campaigns: [...] Citizens United provides corporations with the ability to engage in the political process in dynamic ways. [...] While not every corporation will want to buy advertisements that simply ask the public to vote for or against a candidate, every corporation should view the Citizens United decision as providing new tools to assist it in advancing policies and legislation that are in its shareholders� interests. |
As Zachary Roth reported yesterady, other firms are also pitching to clients to take advantage of the new system. K&LGates posted a similar document encouraging clients to seek their services in order to influence elections while avoiding �public scrutiny.�
Coats has come under fire for having lobbied for multinational corporations and financial institutions like Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, and AMGEN. But he�s also lobbied for foreign governments, including India and Yemen. For perhaps the first time in history, a candidate for Congress like Coats can harness millions, or even billions, of dollars in corporate electioneering from multinational corporations from all over the world. Given the fact his own lobbying firm is positioning itself to be a conduit for such spending, it�s a definite possibility. |
And the lobbying firm who wrote the inset text is absolutely correct: Citizens United is an unprecedented opportunity for corporations to influence elections to the benefit of their shareholders, many of whom are foreigners whose interests in no way coincide with those of the American people, and who are generally upper class individuals. Said influence will come at the expense of middle and lower class influence (e.g. the influence of the majority), as political influence is ultimately zero sum.
I just don't see how anyone can paint this ruling as beneficial for the average American. It strongly favors the ultra-wealthy, corporate interests, and foreigners, and it actively harms middle and lower class citizens in the process by reducing the influence their political donations will have by comparison. |
How does this ruling allow foreigners to make political campaign contributions? Did I miss something here? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
bucheon bum
Joined: 16 Jan 2003
|
| Posted: Fri Feb 19, 2010 8:18 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox wrote: |
No, the latter is based on the actual ruling in question. A judicial ruling which actively overturns previous precedent using a totally unsound rationale to the detriment of society is wrong by any conceivable measure. |
The latter part of this statement, once again, IS YOUR OPINION. The first part of the statement is a valid argument. Another strong argument against the SC's decision is they were activists and made a ruling that surpassed the case at hand. |
I wish people would stop using opinion as if it were the antonym of fact. Yes, it's my opinion. The fact that it's my opinion is totally irrelevent to its truth value. Either it's true, or isn't. We can discuss whether or not it's true if you like. Simply saying, "It's just your opinion," though, is totally meaningless; it's equivalent to saying, "Nuh uh." I don't think there's much benefit to be had from that kind of discourse. |
Because you went over the top in your response to my pithy response. I was merely being a smart ass (the fact remark). You seemed to be trying to counter me by saying, "no, it IS a fact!" Guess not.
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| That being said, political campaign contributions cannot get worse than they are right now. |
Yes they can, unfortunately. The fact that they're bad now doesn't mean they can't get worse, and the fact that we can agree they're bad now means we should be moving towards a solution rather than exacerbating the problem. |
And we disagree on the solution. We've added regulations, things have gotten worse. Why not try the opposite? It would also be interesting to see what other countries do.
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| Fox, 2008 was the most expensive Presidential campaign in US history. That was AFTER McCain-Feingold was passed. |
Yes, but US currency is worth less than it has been at any time in history, and it was a particularly historic election. Those two facts combined make me feel that it's not surprising at all that the figures would be the highest in US history. How does opening the flood gates to unlimited direct corporate contribution help fix that problem though? In my eyes, it's a move in the exact opposite direction of a resolution. |
That's your counter-argument? Currency is worth less than it has been in any time in history? So our purchasing power is lower now than at anytime in our history? Lower now than in the midst of the great depression?? Seriously?? You might as well just tell me, "It's inflation!" That would probably be more legit.
A historical election? Umm, you do know they said that in 2004 and 2000 right? As Bascapser noted, every election sets a new record.
| Fox wrote: |
| bucheon bum wrote: |
| As others have noted ON THIS THREAD, non-profit organizations were barred from giving money to political campaigns. Now they won't have that problem. Is that not a benefit to society?? |
No, it's not a benefit in my eyes, because non-profit organizations -- like corporations and unions -- are non-citizen, non-human entities whose interests are vastly different than those of citizens. I might talk primarily about corporations (because they have the most money and thus will create the greatest impact), but I see union and non-profit direct donations as problematic as well. Government needs to be looking out for the interest of individual citizens and citizens collective, not the interests of corporations, unions, or even non-profit entities. As such, it is of paramount importance that citizen influence on election is primary, and corporate/union/etc influence is minimized. |
And I am of the opinion of let them battle it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
