Three things not discussed on this board

1. SCOTUS continuing to uphold Citizens United in a case brought by the state of Montana.

2. The decision on Stolen Valor.

3. Eric Holder being held in contempt of congress.

 

I held holder in contempt long before congress voted on it.

 

That 'stolen valor' made it to the SC is a joke. What a nothing of a case. I've known two men who had military medals (one silver star, one bronze). In both cases, I didn't know until they'd died. It would seem that valor is pretty much its own reward.

 

I loved Montana's law limiting the spending on campaigns. If we can't limit who spends the money, perhaps it would be constitutionally sound to limit how much one campaign can spend. Idea: No more than $1 per registered voter in the election the candidate is partaking in. That will allow for big spending in national elections and much smaller spending in the state/local elections, regardless of how wealthy the candidate - or its financial backers - are.

 

I read somewhere that the fastest way to tell if someone isn't actually a Green Beret, or a Navy Seal, or any part of any elite squad is if they talk about it constantly, especially bragging.

 

This would make a fun discussion here, if for no other reason than the House Dems staged a massive walkout rather than participate in the vote. If the House side of Congress allowed filibusters like Senate, I could definitely picture someone filibustering that vote.

 

Did I count wrong or could the Dems have made a close vote of the thing had they decided to stay and vote?

 

Hmm... the vote was 255-67. 17 Dems voted against Holder. Are there still 435 voting representatives? If so, the closest the vote could have been, with 255 yea, would be 180 nay if my math is right.

So, depends on what you mean by "close."

I think it reflects poorly on Congress to stage a walkout, but when you no longer have the majority, perhaps this is how you feel your opinion will be heard.

 

You are correct. I had mentally thrown the senate's numbers in there as well. Damn work is distracting me

 

Citizens United decision was/is the most blatant political decision
that the court has done in my lifetime. I can't think of or find one
remotely close. It has screwed up the electoral process for the
forseeable future. Only if the court will revisit and overturn it
will sanity prevail.

 

Obamacare says hello. A penalty being a tax says hello. But of course, that one you agree with so no harm no foul.

 

You weren't alive in 2000?

My sole thoughts I'll share about the current batch of decisions:

It appears that the Roberts Court may be the most First Amendment friendly Court we've had in long time, and I like it.

 

The fact that so many democrat politicians would walk out rather than voting for contempt, shows what a sad state we're in.
Frankly, if anyone says that think Holder is innocent, I call you a blatant liar. You have zero integrity. And you're a minion for your party. People like you are destroying this country.

This is the sort of stuff that is killing us. We let criminals walk free as long as they wear a label we like. The democrats are guilty here. But the Republicans have been guilty too.

In either case, how can we expect there NOT to be corruption in government when we basically fight to defend corruption when the criminal is on our side?

The people in the democrat party need to contact there representatives and point out that there are literally MILLIONS of Americans who can do Holder's job who have more integrity than he does and are NOT criminal. Like... any of our neighbors. These people would be easy to replace. So why do we defend them???

 

Speaking of agreeing, triple L, look in the mirror!

 

Speaking of agreeing, triple L, look in the mirror!

 

Oops, double post, sorry.

 

Froz, I thot about 2000 but that was "fixable" in 2004, which didn't happen,
but Citizens ain't fixable until the "robes" revisit, which means someone,
somewhere has to challenge. Montana's argument wasn't persuasive
enuf, so I guess we'll have to wait and see. Any sensible thinking person
HAS to see that unlimited funds buys whatever those funds want, it don't
matter who's doin' it.

 

I don't really have that much a problem with Citizens United now that I've read the opinion and understand the reasoning. Probably not the way I would have voted on it, but I can understand why it fits with First Amendment jurisprudence. The Montana case was DOA; they're not overturning something that's just a couple of years old without signaling it's ripe for review.

As for Citizens United being "fixed" by the Supreme Court, I doubt it happens in our lifetime without amendment.

 

Badger,
Those cross-over vote numbers are much higher than when Peeloski or Harry the Body Reiod would go on TV joyous about having "bipartisan agreement"!

But, the loud mouth Dems are hiding on this one!
Thank GOD some of the Dems have some courage and conviction....voted for "conviction".

 

Issa is an idiot....politically speaking. By holding Holder in contempt and getting congress to vote on it effectively shuts down the case. Nothing will happen to Holder and now Issa has nowhere to turn. If he wanted to make a campaign issue of F&F well he just got rid of it 5 months before the election. Bad move.