Kennedy

Need any more evidence that judges at all levels make their decisions based on personal feelings then try to back it up with law? link ================================= Supreme Court Upholds Political Money Law By ANNE GEARAN, Associated Press Writer WASHINGTON - A sharply divided Supreme Court upheld key features of the nation's new law intended to lessen the influence of money in politics, ruling Wednesday that the government may ban unlimited donations to political parties Those donations, called "soft money" and totaling hundreds of millions of dollars,had become a mainstay of modern political campaigns, used to rally voters to the polls and to pay for sharply worded television ads. Congress may regulate campaign money to prevent the real or perceived corruption of political candidates, the court ruled in a 5-4 decision. That goal and most of the rules Congress drafted to meet it outweigh limitations on the free speech of candidates and others in politics, the majority said. At the same time, the court said the 2002 law will not stop the flow of campaign cash. "We are under no illusion that (the law) will be the last congressional statement on the matter. Money, like water, will always find an outlet. What problems will arise, and how Congress will respond, are concerns for another day," Justices John Paul Stevens (news - web sites) and Sandra Day O'Connor (news - web sites) wrote for the majority. The court also voted 5-4 to uphold restrictions on political ads in the weeks before an election. The television and radio ads often feature harsh attacks by one politician against another or by groups running commercials against candidates. Rep. Marty Meehan, D-Mass., a co-author of the law, called the decision a "major victory for American democracy." He acknowledged the law won't stop all forms of abuse in the system, but it ends the era when "special interest groups could control the national political parties and underwrite federal campaigns by writing unlimited checks." The justices struck down only two provisions of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act — a ban on political contributions from those too young to vote and a limitation on some party spending that is independent of a particular candidate. The law hasn't stopped the flow of big money, but it has changed its course. In the months since the law took effect, several partisan interest groups have popped up to collect corporate, union and unlimited individual donations to try to influence next year's elections, including several on the Democratic side focused on the presidential race. Supporters of the new law said the donations from corporations, unions and wealthy individuals capitalized on a loophole in the existing, Watergate-era campaign money system. "Soft money" is a catchall term for money that is not subject to existing federal caps on the amount individuals may give and which is outside the old law prohibiting corporations and labor unions from making direct campaign donations. Federal election regulators had allowed soft money donations outside those restrictions so long as the money went to pay for get-out-the-vote activities and other party building programs run by the political parties. Soft money allowed the three national Democratic Party committees to match their GOP rivals nearly dollar-for-dollar on get-out-the-vote and issue ad resources in the 2002 election. The Democratic committees raised about $246 million in soft money in the last election cycle, compared with $250 million for the Republicans. Supporters of the new law said that in practice, soft money was funneled to influence specific races for the House, Senate or the White House, and that donors, parties and candidates all knew it. In addition to Stevens and O'Connor, Justices David Souter (news - web sites), Ruth Bader Ginsburg (news - web sites) and Stephen Breyer (news - web sites) signed the main opinion. Chief Justice William H. Rehnquist and Justices Antonin Scalia (news - web sites), Anthony Kennedy (news - web sites) and Clarence Thomas (news - web sites) dissented on most issues. Swing voter Kennedy struck a compromise on one portion of the law. He said he would vote to uphold a soft money ban only as it applies to federal candidates and officeholders. The majority's ruling bars candidates for federal office, including incumbent members of Congress or an incumbent president, from raising soft money. The majority also barred the national political parties from raising this kind of money, and said their affiliates in the individual states may not serve as conduits for soft money. Without soft money, politicians and political parties may only take in donations that are already allowed in limited amounts, such as a private individual's small re-election donation to his or her local member of Congress. That means no more huge checks from wealthy donors, and no contributions from the treasuries of corporations or labor unions. The Supreme Court's 300-page ruling on the 2002 campaign finance overhaul settles legal and constitutional challenges from both the political right and the left. Although the reform effort was passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush (news - web sites), many politicians and others in the business of politics were leery of it. The law is often known as "McCain-Feingold" — named for its chief Senate sponsors, Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. McCain built his maverick 2000 presidential campaign largely around the assertion that the old system of political money laws was full of holes. The new rules have been in force during the early stages of preparation for the 2004 elections for president and Congress. The high court ruling means those rules remain largely untouched as the political seasons heats up. The first delegate-selection contests are just weeks away, in January. A lower court panel of federal judges had issued its own, fractured ruling on the new law earlier this year, but the Supreme Court got the last word. The justices cut short their summer vacation to hear an extraordinary four hours of oral arguments on the issue in early September. The court's regular term began a month later. The case marked the court's most detailed look in a generation at the complicated relationships among those who give and receive campaign cash. The case also presented a basic question about the wisdom of the government policing political give and take. The court has given government an extensive role in the area on grounds that there is a fundamental national interest in rooting out corruption or even the appearance of it. That concern justifies limitations on the freedom of speech, the court has said. The case is McConnell v. FEC, 02-1674. (edit to add link) witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

How many people do you know that couldn't safely operate a ladder or bathtub? I'd say those are less complex than a firearm, and I've seen more stupid things happen around them than I care to recall. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Actually, I was talking to John about JFields. (John was the last one to post a reply. definitely the last one to post a reply that made sense.)

I love the way he disappears when you give him an argument he can't refute with emotion, don't you? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

If there is only one force, you would move in the direction of that force, in this case towards the center. Without centrifugal force, you wouldn't spin. I understand centripetal makes you spin, but in your drawing it wouldn't work without centrifugal. The spin is the result of both forces acting. What you marked velocity is basically the tangent to the circle. You can't get that from a force driving towards the center. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

You realize that according to your drawing one would feel lighter? We're heavier because both forces apply. Centrifugal force makes your lines tight, centripetal makes you spin. Finely put. Where'd you get it? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Maybe this led to the misunderstanding. Would it be fair to say you meant "the NG is part of the militia." In that I would see you as attempting to correct his statement. However, what you said implies the NG is the entire militia, which we see is not true. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

So why did you disagree with him? He was saying citizens are the militia, and the second amendment covers them. He was abrupt, but I don't think he was not saying the NG doesn't count as militia, just that it's not the entire militia. So we are in agreement on this point, yes? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

[bass profundo announcer voice] And TheAnvil has thrown down the gauntlet. Does his opponent dare take up the challenge? [/voice] witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Nice find. Where'd it happen? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Like John, I'll take it that you meant the opening clause. That was one reason they passed the amendment, not the only reason. Giving one reason does not invalidate all others. You seem to be intentionally misreading it. It's like Montana. "The right of any person to keep or bear arms in defense of his own home, person, and property, or in aid of the civil power when thereto legally summoned, shall not be called in question, but nothing herein contained shall be held to permit the carrying of concealed weapons." That doesn't say allowing concealed carry is unconstitutional. It just says "this part of the constitution does not mean you can carry concealed weapons." It means the legislature can make laws concerning concealing weapons. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I think it was also significantly different. Franklin vs Kennedy Half Dollars Diameters: 30.6 mm Weights: 12.5 g Compositions: .9 silver .1 copper Yep, they seem significantly different all right. And I'm not debating Kennedy vs. Franklin So like I said, you don't care about changing coins, you are just opposed to this particular change. Can I call em or what witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

And I can see what is posted while I am composing my own reply? Oh heaven forbid, I spent eight minutes looking for coin information. "to come close?" So changing Washington to Ike to Susan B to Sacajawea is only coming close to having a person change? (Washington was on the Lafeyette dollar in 1899) Also the half dollar has had a change of faces. 1948 through 1963 Franklin was on the half dollar. Since 1964 Kennedy has been on the half dollar. What's your point? That we should change the metal, edge, and size with the face? Coin change is not uncommon. You just don't like the proposed change. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

And there's no chance whatsoever that Reagan included FDR to strengthen his rhetoric and bring democrats into his fold, right? Of course Reagan liked him. Where do you think he learned so much of his Great misCommunication? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well that would be just a little impossible. You can't change the coin without minting a new one. Each time the silver dollar image was changed, a new coin was minted. In this case, we would stop production of the Roosevelt dime and begin the Reagan dime. So explain to me how you can replace a coin without minting a new one, please. If you believe coin denominations have never had the face upon them changed, then you must think the US didn't have pennies before 1909, nickels before 1938, dimes before 1946, quarters before 1932, or half dollars before 1964. US Mint Coin Info witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I figured he'd never get himself caught so I was wondering what the joke was. Well, at least not until twenty or so years after it happened. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

No, you disagree with his decisions in those areas, but he was very good at getting his decisions implemented, and remaining popular while doing so. And just so you know, I have just as many issues with FDR as I do with Reagan. Take a look at the US Mint Timeline. You act like the face on currency never changes. That is just not the case. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Funny thing is everyone here thought it was a possibility. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I said grassroots level. Government is always trying to increase its power. And that is another case of advertisements costing someone money, in that case the site owners. In my example it's e-mail endusers. I don't trust the bulk folder settings. I have lost too many e-mails to spam blocking. My own resume was blocked because it contained the phrase "live cctv." I only get about ten spams a day in my inbox, but I have to scan the hundreds of spams that have been automatically edited out into my bulk folder. Today one of the e-mails from my skydiving listserve was marked as spam and I had to pull it out. You know what I meant. I pay for access, not the sites. If I don't like a site I can just leave. Your idea regulates internet usage as well, just in a different way. The bill works backwards from endusers while your idea works by controlling how spam is sent. I wish we didn't need this legislation, but spam is more than half of all internet traffic. We all know how much time and money is spent dealing with it. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

I agree, but I see more implementation problems with your plan than with the bill. Is your junk mail clearly marked as such in some government required way? It's easier to require a do no send list than to regulate every piece of mail. It's worse with e-mail because one piece can hit thousands of people instead of requiring a new message for each recipient. http://www.fcc.gov/aboutus.html Every communication including face to face speech is subject to government intrusion. There are rules for the mail, rules for radio, rules for television, rules for satellite usage, et cetera. You are promoting some form of government control of e-mail. This is just an easier one to implement. Not better, but it will get done. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

This is not monitoring in any sense. This is protecting citizens, so I am for it. As to who would do the leg work, I imagine they might have some idea how to do it. No one is seeking to control websites [grassroots level] because it's like tv: you can just change the channel. E-mail is different because right now you can't make spam go away. I don't pay for sites, so I don't expect control there. By the way, trying to regulate internet use here in the US would be slapped with so many lawsuits it would make the government's collective head spin. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Well you just let me know when you want the US to start making laws for your country. I don't expect to hear from you soon. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Yeah, what he said. witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

Actually, we don't have to. There are plenty of reasons for us not to. You think he wasn't good at what he did? Or are you reacting in an emotional way because you disagree with what he did. Another example of what? One president replacing another in being honored? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*

The lesson that freedom requires effort, and sometimes fighting for it? That isn't the lesson you'd learn about the men with guns that killed Lincoln, Kennedy or Martin Luther King, Jr., now is it? What did you learn from the pictures about the revolutionary and civil wars? And what did you learn from the text telling you that leaders have been assassinated since there were leaders? That it's the tool's fault? witty subliminal message Guard your honor, let your reputation fall where it will, and outlast the bastards. 1*