Pack the Courts?

[Bomb#20]

Bribery requires a quid pro quo, which is an agreement, express or implied, between someone giving money to a politician and that upon giving the money to the politician the politician reciprocates with some agreed upon action. The relationship has to be “direct,” and there must be “intent.”

Citizens United v FEC, which concerned money from the general fund of a corporation spent to finance a movie critical of Hillary within 30 days of the election, IS not remotely close to bribery.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CU went much further than just ruling about a movie.

Well, CU ruled that people don't lose their First Amendment right to free speech just because they incorporate; but that's something the SCOTUS established a long time ago. So if you think Citizens United v. FEC was wrongly decided, do you also think New York Times Co. v. United States was wrongly decided? Should Richard Nixon have been authorized to censor the New York Times, to stop them from publishing the Pentagon Papers and embarrassing the government, because corporations aren't people and only people have First Amendment rights?

If you think New York Times Co. v. United States was decided correctly but CU was wrongly decided, how do you square those opinions? Which corporations does the First Amendment protect from censorship? Only the corporations progressives like?

 

[James Madison]

Yes, but nothing close to bribery.

So why did you downplay that, the actual most important aspect, of the CU decision?

What exactly did I “downplay?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZiprHead]

Yes, but nothing close to bribery.

So why did you downplay that, the actual most important aspect, of the CU decision?

What exactly did I “downplay?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You said it was all about a corporation funding a movie. It ended up being much more.

 

[James Madison]

What exactly did I “downplay?”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

You said it was all about a corporation funding a movie. It ended up being much more.

No, I didn’t say “it” was “all about” funding a movie and what I did say doesn’t come close to such a statement. I said Citizens United “concerned” the use of general funds by a corporation for a movie critical of Hillary within 30 days of the election. Those were the facts of the case. The decision concerned those facts and its those facts before the Court in which the majority decision is made.

This by no means suggests “all about.”

There were several holdings by the majority in the case involving two statutes and two prior cases, an as applied analysis, and much more.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[James Madison]

Yes, but nothing close to bribery.

So why did you downplay that, the actual most important aspect, of the CU decision?

Apparently because he likes the idea that anyone with enough cash can buy an election, whether or not it subverts the will of millions of others with less cash.
But I'll let him say that in his own words.
View attachment 16602

It would be most welcome and enlightening if you could expound upon how CU allows “anyone with enough cash to buy an election.”




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[ZiprHead]

http://time.com/5338689/supreme-court-packing/

"The right approach isn’t a revival of FDR’s court packing plan, which would have increased the court to 15, or current plans, which call for 11. Instead, the right size is much, much bigger. Three times its current size, or 27, is a good place to start, but it’s quite possible the optimal size is even higher."

 

[steve_bank]

On this account democrats and republicans do the same. There is no set number of justices, I believe FDR tried to increase the number of SCOTUS judges to control the court.For a ;long time the supreme court was left of center. In district courts there are some are blatantly liberal.