No holds barred the gloves just came off

[Tam]

With McSame--All I see is a continuation of crooks and big money influence- and no guarantee of which way on which day he will go on social issues...With Obamas refusal to hire lobbyists- accept PAC and Corporate contributions he at least stands a "chance" of being somewhat independent.... And if this country doesn't get out from under the control of the big Corporate Money strangle hold- it is doomed...

That was in June of 2008. Today, sporting his new Obama kneepads, he agrees the Messiah needs PAC money........but we're the cultists.

:lol:

Didn't Obama give Solyndra, a green energy CORPORATION $500 million of tax payer money just in time for it's investors, who were OBAMA Campaign donors, to recoup their loses before it went bankrupt causing the tax payers to loose their money. That is a real INDEPENDENT Oldtimer. :wink: :roll:

Can you imagine what Obama will do to repay his PAC donors when they can give unlimited amounts of money to buy him another four years to replay them with tax payer money? I see Stimulus 3, 4 , 5 , and 6 coming down the pike and 6 more debt ceiling raises to pay for all the paybacks hid inside them.

 

[hypocritexposer]

At least I stand with the good guys side in believing that corporations should not be treated as people- as the Montana Supreme Court upheld the voter initiative enacted MT law that does not allow Corporates to support State candidates....

Montana bucks U.S. ruling on corporate contributionsJeff Milchen

San Francisco Chronicle
Thursday, January 12, 2012

SCOTUS is always correct, whether the issue be about "Natural Born Citizenship" or campaign finance.


I guess you don't have "standing" OT. Maybe instead of advocating for the Feds so often, you should concentrate on the 10th a little more. If the states don't have the authority to determine who is qualified to be placed on their ballot, then I guess they don't have the authority to determine how campaign finance is regulated, eh?

Supreme Court Blocks Montana Campaign Finance Ban

The U.S. Supreme Court has blocked the Montana Supreme Court's decision in December upholding the state's century-old ban on corporate political spending.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/17/supreme-court-montana_n_1285804.html

 

[Sandhusker]

"For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight... "

Perhaps he should of thought about that before he pledged that he would not play that game. He showed himself to be a liar yet again. The man is a compulsive and habitual liar. How can you support him?

 

[hopalong]

"For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight... "

Perhaps he should of thought about that before he pledged that he would not play that game. He showed himself to be a liar yet again. The man is a compulsive and habitual liar. How can you support him?

One liar supports another liar it look lke,,,,,EH oldtimer????

 

[Steve]

story of "Palestinian" brothers from the Rafah refugee camp in Gaza who donated $33,000 to Obama's campaign

Obama's overseas (foreign) contributors are making multiple small donations, ostensibly in their own names, over a period of a few days, some under maximum donation allowances, but others are aggregating in excess of the maximums when all added up. The countries and major cities from which contributions have been received France, Virgin Islands, Planegg, Vienna, Hague, Madrid, London, AE, IR, Geneva,Tokyo, Bangkok, Turin, Paris, Munich, Madrid, Roma, Zurich, Netherlands, Moscow, Ireland, Milan, Singapore, Bejing, Switzerland, Toronto, Vancouver, La Creche, Pak Chong, Dublin, Panama, Krabi, Berlin, Geneva, Buenos Aires, Prague, Nagoya, Budapest, Barcelona, Sweden, Taipei, Hong Kong, Rio de Janeiro, Sydney, Zurich, Ragusa, Amsterdam, Hamburg, Uganda, Mumbia, Nagoya, Tunis, Zacatecas, St, Croix, Mississauga, Laval, Nadi, Behchoko, Ragusa, DUBIA, Lima, Copenhagen, Quaama, Jeddah, Kabul, Cairo, Nassau(not the county on Long Island,lol), Luxembourg (Auchi's stomping grounds), etc,etc,etc,

Half a million dollars had been donated from overseas by unidentified people "not employed".

Half a million dollars had been donated from overseas by unidentified people "not employed".

well writing in Terrorist might just set off to many alarms...

We found Rebecca Kurth contributed $3,137.38 to the Obama Campaign in 112 donations, including 34 separate donations recorded in one day,

How about this gibberish donor on the 30th of April in 2008.

A donor named Hbkjb, jkbkj

City: Jkbjnj Works for: Kuman Bank (doesn't exist)

Occupation: Balanon Jalalan Amount: $1,077.23

or the donor Doodad, The # of transactions = 1,044

The $ contributed = $10,780.00

This Doodad character works for FDGFDGF and occupation is DFGFDG

The more questions we answered the more questions we discovered.

Thousands of Obama's foreign donations ended in cents. The "cents" did not make sense. And we compared McCain donation documentss to Obama's. McCain's records are nothing like Obama's. McCain's are so clean. No cents, all even dollar amounts. But Obama's contained thousands of strange, odd amounts -- evidence of foreign contributors, since Americans living overseas would almost uniformly be able to contribute dollars.

in exchanging foreign currency it seldom would come out even.. .



in terms liberals can understand..

Obama foreign donors


Search
About 1,380,000 results

 

[Tam]

For Obama or the D's to do otherwise would be like taking a jackknife to a gunfight...
The Republicans (including Romney) already have several corporate Super PACS going which can legally take in as much corporate donations as they want - and then put out any information in ads (whether its true or false) and do it all in anonymity.....

I do agree with Obama and all those that believe the 2010 Supreme Court ruling saying corporate entities are people- and opening up these no limit/no stand behind what they say anonymous attack ads is wrong... And that the law needs to be changed...

It just makes very dirty campaigns that exist anymore-- get even dirtier...

Oldtimer did you support Obama in 2008 when he did this

Posted at 6:00 AM ET, 06/20/2008
Obama Reneges on Public Financing
By Michael Dobbs

Democratic debate, Cleveland, OH., Feb. 26, 2008.
"If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election." --Barack Obama, answer to Midwest Democracy Network questionnaire, September 2007.
In February 2007, Barack Obama challenged Republican presidential candidates to agree to public financing of the general election. John McCain responded positively, prompting Obama's campaign spokesman, Bill Burton, to call on other Republican candidates to follow suit. The headline in the New York Times: "McCain and Obama in Deal on Public Financing."

Fast forward 16 months. Both Obama and McCain have locked up their party's nominations for the presidency. Obama announces that the system of public financing "is broken," and he will rely on his well-oiled private fundraising machine. The McCain camp accuses the Land-of-Lincolner of "breaking his word." True or false?

The Facts

There is some dispute over whether Obama ever formally pledged to participate in the public financing system if his Republican opponent agreed to do the same. As I have reported in a previous post, the closest he came was in response to a September 2007 questionnaire from the Midwest Democracy Network, which included the question, "If you are nominated for President in 2008 and your major opponents agree to forgo private funding in the general election campaign, will you participate in the presidential public financing system?"

Obama highlighted the answer "Yes," and elaborated as follows:

I have been a long-time advocate for public financing of campaigns combined with free television and radio time as a way to reduce the influence of moneyed special interests.... My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election....If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.
While the "Yes" seemed unequivocal, the Obama camp could (and did) argue that the fine print of the deal remained to be worked out with the eventual Republican nominee. The Illinois senator promised to "aggressively pursue" such an agreement. Furthermore, he told the late Tim Russert of NBC News in February 2008 (click on Youtube video above) that he planned "to sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that works for everybody."

It seems pretty clear that there never were serious negotiations between the Obama and McCain campaigns on preserving the public financing system for the general election. The Obama camp has pointed to a 40-minute meeting on June 6 at which Obama campaign lawyer Bob Bauer raised some concerns with his McCain counterpart, Trevor Potter. In a conference call Thursday evening, Bauer said that the McCain camp failed to address these concerns (such as the role of 527s and the McCain "headstart" on general election fundraising) and that the Obama campaign had done "everything that could be considered reasonable under the circumstances."

A 40-minute meeting between two lawyers, some of which time was spent on other matters, can hardly be considered an "aggressive" attempt on Obama's part to reach a deal on campaign financing. In addition, Obama appears to have made no attempt to "sit down" with his Republican rival to produce a workable system.

From the point of view of campaign strategy, Obama has good reasons to avoid locking himself into the public financing system. He has proved that he can raise huge sums of money on his own, much of it from small donors. He does not want to disarm in the face of likely Swiftboat-type attacks on his character, mounted by conservative groups not directly affiliated with the McCain campaign. But none of this alters the fact that he has gone back on his word.
The Pinocchio Test
Barack Obama probably wishes that he had been more careful in the wording of some of his earlier statements about the public financing system. His carefully parsed retreat on public financing is similar to his hedging on an earlier promise to meet the leaders of Iran, Cuba, and North Korea "without preconditions" during his first year as president. In this case, however, the turnaround is even more blatant.

He promised to use Public Financing in 2008 until he realized he could con more money out of the donors so he broke his promise and filled his coffers with UNTRACABLE MONEY.

Now in 2012 after scolding the SCOTUS on Super PACs and telling everyone that they have opened the door to Republicans taking foreign money and realizing his con jobs are not going to fill his coffers with the bragged Billion dollar payday after being caught redhanded taking foreign donations and having to give it back , he backtracks on Super PACs. WHY? Because He knows he is going to have to have as much money as George Soros, Warren Buffet and the Mexican Fugitives Cordona brothers can feed him to launch a Swiftboat-type attack on the character of the Conservative candidate, as he can't run on his record now that he finally has one that the Public knows about.

Obama (the lieing piece of crap) promised McCain a knife fight and then upped his game by dropping the knife and bringing a gun. Now he wants a gun fight but realizes his gun is not big enough so he is letting Soros and Buffet buy him a AK 47 probably provided to them through Fast and Furious and smuggled back into the US by the Mexican Fugitive Cardona brothers along with a few bombs just to level the playing field to his advantage. :wink: :roll:

You can take it to the bank that this is going to the dirtest election cycle in the history of the US and voter fraud and intimidation is going to be like nothing the US has ever seen before. Worse yet if Obama isn't re-elected the riots will make Greece look like a kiddy party.
And we will have Obama and his buddies like ACORN (or what ever they call themselves now) The New Black Panthers, Union thugs, Occupiers and countless black youth gangs to thank for it.

Tell us again Oldtimer how good Obama has been for the US. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Supreme Court rebuffs Montana on corporate election spending
Justices block a decision by the state's high court to enforce a 100-year-old ban on such money in campaigns.

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

February 17, 2012, 10:06 p.m.

Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court served notice Friday that it would not let states or state judges casually defy its much-disputed ruling in the Citizens United case that gave corporations a right to spend freely on election campaigns.

The justices put on hold enforcement of a Montana election law. But the case could force the high court to reconsider the corporate spending issue if its liberal justices insist on doing so.

On Dec. 30, Montana's high court said it was refusing to follow Citizens United as a binding precedent. Instead, the state justices affirmed Montana's 100-year-old anti-corruption law that forbids corporations from giving to candidates or spending to elect them. Adopted by its voters, it arose during the era of the "Copper Kings" who, as Mark Twain once put it, "bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment."


But the 5-4 majority in the Citizens United case said the 1st Amendment protects independent political spending by corporations and unions. One Montana justice described as "utter nonsense" the Supreme Court's view that lavish spending by corporations did not corrupt candidates or the election process.

Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, staunch dissenters two years ago, said the court should reconsider the Citizens United decision "in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance."

"Montana's experience, and experience elsewhere since [the decision] make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption'" Ginsburg wrote.

It is not clear what will happen next. The four liberal justices could vote as a bloc and call for the court to hear arguments later this year on Montana's defiance of the Citizens United decision. However, the five conservative justices could agree on a summary ruling to overturn the Montana state court decision.

And SCOTUS should have been chastised...Their decision to consider corporate entities to be considered the same as "individuals"- and give them free run again to buy elections and in turn own politicians/judges is wrong....

Read the book "Copper Kings of Montana"...The Copper Kings and Anaconda Company bought and sold state politicians at a whim? They totally controlled Helena- and the state..... Many of those that fought for this law were our ancestor farmer/ranchers in eastern Montana....

But now SCOTUS in its arrogance says we can't enforce an almost 100 year old law that has worked to keep down corporate influence....

 

[Tam]

Supreme Court rebuffs Montana on corporate election spending
Justices block a decision by the state's high court to enforce a 100-year-old ban on such money in campaigns.

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

February 17, 2012, 10:06 p.m.

Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court served notice Friday that it would not let states or state judges casually defy its much-disputed ruling in the Citizens United case that gave corporations a right to spend freely on election campaigns.

The justices put on hold enforcement of a Montana election law. But the case could force the high court to reconsider the corporate spending issue if its liberal justices insist on doing so.

On Dec. 30, Montana's high court said it was refusing to follow Citizens United as a binding precedent. Instead, the state justices affirmed Montana's 100-year-old anti-corruption law that forbids corporations from giving to candidates or spending to elect them. Adopted by its voters, it arose during the era of the "Copper Kings" who, as Mark Twain once put it, "bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment."


But the 5-4 majority in the Citizens United case said the 1st Amendment protects independent political spending by corporations and unions. One Montana justice described as "utter nonsense" the Supreme Court's view that lavish spending by corporations did not corrupt candidates or the election process.

Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, staunch dissenters two years ago, said the court should reconsider the Citizens United decision "in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance."

"Montana's experience, and experience elsewhere since [the decision] make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption'" Ginsburg wrote.

It is not clear what will happen next. The four liberal justices could vote as a bloc and call for the court to hear arguments later this year on Montana's defiance of the Citizens United decision. However, the five conservative justices could agree on a summary ruling to overturn the Montana state court decision.

And SCOTUS should have been chastised...Their decision to consider corporate entities to be considered the same as "individuals"- and give them free run again to buy elections and in turn own politicians/judges is wrong....

Read the book "Copper Kings of Montana"...The Copper Kings and Anaconda Company bought and sold state politicians at a whim? They totally controlled Helena- and the state..... Many of those that fought for this law were our ancestor farmer/ranchers in eastern Montana....

But now SCOTUS in its arrogance says we can't enforce an almost 100 year old law that has worked to keep down corporate influence....

OMG you chastise the Supreme Court for their arrogance for not enforcing a 100 year old rule but defend Obama when he flip flops and uses the Supreme Court rule to hide the fact he is ILLEGALLY taking FOREIGN DONATIONS to fund his filthy dirty campaign plans. If you honestly think Obama will keep his hands out of the super pac money and ads I suggest you do a little research on who, the tax exempt Media Matters is having private meeting with at the WHITE HOUSE and who is planning their attacks on FOX employees because Obama sees them as a threat to his and the Democrap's socialist agenda.

Anything Obama's Super PAC puts out will have Valerie Jarrett's stamp of approval all over it as they are not going to allow former White House Aids to do anything they don't approve of FIRST. Which is against the rules but since we all know he is taking FOREIGN donation which is also AGAINST THE LAW I somehow doubt he or his zoomie followers like you Oldtimer will care as the rules don't apply if there is a D behind your name right OLDTIMER.

BTW Since you seem to think the SC should be chastised for not enforcing a 100 year old rule why do you defend Obama's arrogance in violating the US Constitution over and over again? I believe it is because you are a koolaid drinking Obama Loving Hypocrite but I could be wrong :wink:

 

[Anonymous]

BTW Since you seem to think the SC should be chastised for not enforcing a 100 year old rule why do you defend Obama's arrogance in violating the US Constitution over and over again? I believe it is because you are a koolaid drinking Obama Loving Hypocrite but I could be wrong :wink:

What laws or actions that were passed during the Obama administration has the SCOTUS ruled that was unconstitutional :???: ....

 

[Tam]

BTW Since you seem to think the SC should be chastised for not enforcing a 100 year old rule why do you defend Obama's arrogance in violating the US Constitution over and over again? I believe it is because you are a koolaid drinking Obama Loving Hypocrite but I could be wrong :wink:

What laws that were passed during the Obama administration has the SCOTUS overturned :???: ....

Oldtimer looks like you are playing stupid and winning. :roll:

Due to Obamacare, Obama just mandated the Catholic Church provide Birth Control and as we all know the Government is not to infringe on RELIGIOUS BELIEFS. Even he knows it as that is why he made a lame attempt to backtrack away for his ADIMINSTRATION'S RULE. The one thing he forgot was some of the religious organization SELF INSURE so by forcing all Insurance companies to provide birth control free of charge he is still forcing the church to provide something that goes against their religious beliefs. WHICH VIOLATES THE FIRST AMENDMENT. :x

Not only that, we all know Obamacare is mandating everyone in the US BUY something against their will which according to the lawsuits filed by a majority of States, violates the Constitution. If he can mandate you buy health insurance when will he mandate you by a Chev. Volt? **** if he can mandate the insurance companies provide something for free when will he mandate they buy everyone a new Chev Volt to save on energy and give his campaign donors that make the batteries a boost in sales? :x

Just because Obamacare hasn't been overturned YET doesn't mean it doesn't violate the Constitution. And with that Lieing Kagan not recusing herself I doubt it will be. When you have a Supreme Court Justice LIE to get confirmed I would not be look at her to do the right thing on anything that might hurt the dirt bag that appointed her. :x

 

[Anonymous]

So Tam- which university(s) did you receive your Juris Doctor degree? Which Bar allows you to practice before the Federal Courts?

I don't know how you do it in Canada--but in the United States- a law/resolution passed by Congress and signed by the President is deemed legal and constitutional until it is overturned in the courts-with the SCOTUS being the final word on Federal Law and conflicting Federal Court rulings....Thats part of the separation of powers....

You may not like them- but that does not mean they are unconstitutional until the SCOTUS rules them so- either in part or totallarity....

So would you answer my question- What laws or actions that were passed during the Obama administration has the SCOTUS ruled that was unconstitutional?

There may be some- but I cannot think of any-- and the current Roberts Court is recognized by all legal scholars as the most conservative in decades-- going back to the early 50's.....

 

[Mike]

You may not like them- but that does not mean they are unconstitutional until the SCOTUS rules them so- either in part or totallarity....

"Totallarity" is an English word????? :lol: :lol:

We know you're hell bent on lying, but when you start making up new words it's really time to think.............................

 

[Tam]

So Tam- which university(s) did you receive your Juris Doctor degree? Which Bar allows you to practice before the Federal Courts?

I don't know how you do it in Canada--but in the United States- a law/resolution passed by Congress and signed by the President is deemed legal and constitutional until it is overturned in the courts-with the SCOTUS being the final word on Federal Law and conflicting Federal Court rulings....Thats part of the separation of powers....

You may not like them- but that does not mean they are unconstitutional until the SCOTUS rules them so- either in part or totallarity....

So would you answer my question- What laws or actions that were passed during the Obama administration has the SCOTUS ruled that was unconstitutional?

There may be some- but I cannot think of any-- and the current Roberts Court is recognized by all legal scholars as the most conservative in decades-- going back to the early 50's.....

BREAKING: VIRGINIA JUDGE RULES OBAMACARE UNCONSTITUTIONALPosted by Jim Hoft on Monday, December 13, 2010, 11:10 AM
Federal judge strikes down linchpin of the president's plan…
U.S. District Court Judge Henry E. Hudson ruled today that the federal mandate in Obamacare is unconstitutional.

Florida Judge Rules Obamacare UnconstitutionalFederal district court judge Roger Vinson issued his ruling today on summary judgment motions in the Florida case, State of Florida v. United States Department of Health and Human Services, in which 26 states allege that Obamacare is unconstitutional. Judge Vinson agreed with their arguments and granted summary judgment in favor of plaintiffs.

President Barack Obama's healthcare law suffered a setback on Friday when a U.S. appeals court ruled that it was unconstitutional to require all Americans to buy insurance or face a penalty.

The U.S. Appeals Court for the 11th Circuit, based in Atlanta, found that Congress exceeded its authority by requiring Americans to buy coverage, but also reversed a lower court decision that threw out the entire healthcare law.

The legality of the individual mandate, a cornerstone of the healthcare law, is widely expected to be decided by the U.S. Supreme Court. Opponents have argued that without the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014, the entire law falls

See Oldtimer I don't need a law degree when Federal courts have already ruled Obamacare UNCONSTITUTIONAL. All I need is the ability to READ. :wink:

 

[hypocritexposer]

What laws or actions that were passed during the Obama administration has the SCOTUS ruled that was unconstitutional :???: ....

So SCOTUS has to rule on each and every action, during the term of the President, to determine if that action is Constitutional?

What about repeating acts that have been previously deemed unconstitutional?

From prosecuters I've talked to- morale was nonexistent anymore down on the front line levels because they knew many of the things that were happening or even they were being asked to do were illegal/unconstitutional...

 

[Steve]

Their decision to consider corporate entities to be considered the same as "individuals"- and give them free run again to buy elections and in turn own politicians/judges is wrong....

Obama could have worked towards fixing this when he had control of both houses..

just remove any and all corporate and personnel deductions for campaign and lobbyist donations.. and overturn the US code that allows the pacs/superpacs ect to be Tax free organizations.. and the money would have been slowed if not stopped.. but then that would have hurt his fundraising..

when it is their own dime... they will not spend it so freely,..

but he didn't because the political cost was to high. they are just a bunch of gutless whiners .

 

[Tam]

BTW Since you seem to think the SC should be chastised for not enforcing a 100 year old rule why do you defend Obama's arrogance in violating the US Constitution over and over again? I believe it is because you are a koolaid drinking Obama Loving Hypocrite but I could be wrong :wink:

What laws or actions that were passed during the Obama administration has the SCOTUS ruled that was unconstitutional :???: ....

BTW Oldtimer I google searched Obama Violates the Constitution and I came up with About 43,600,000 results (0.23 seconds). So that right there should be proof positive in your books that he has VIOLATED THE CONSTITUTION. :wink: Here is just a tiny taste of what I found

Wall Street Journal: Birth-Control Mandate: Unconstitutional and Illegal
Feb 14th, 2012 by francisbeckwith

David Rivkin and Ed Whelan write in the Wall Street Journal (15 February 2012):

Last Friday, the White House announced that it would revise the controversial ObamaCare birth-control mandate to address religious-liberty concerns. Its proposed modifications are a farce.


The Department of Health and Human Services would still require employers with religious objections to select an insurance company to provide contraceptives and drugs that induce abortions to its employees. The employers would pay for the drugs through higher premiums. For those employers that self-insure, like the Archdiocese of Washington, the farce is even more blatant.


The birth-control coverage mandate violates the First Amendment's bar against the "free exercise" of religion. But it also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration Act. That statute, passed unanimously by the House of Representatives and by a 97-3 vote in the Senate, was signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1993. It was enacted in response to a 1990 Supreme Court opinion, Employment Division v. Smith.

President Barack Obama has made four recess appointments when the Senate was not actually in recess. He has, in effect, violated the Constitution, the rule of law, and the legal advice of his own administration's lawyers.

Last week President Obama appointed yet another "czar" with massive government power, answering only to him. Even before this latest appointment, the top-ranking Democrat in the Senate wrote President Obama a letter saying that these czars are unconstitutional. President Obama's "czar strategy" is an unprecedented power grab centralizing authority in the White House outside congressional oversight and in violation of the Constitution.

Republican members of Congress are claiming the conflict in Libya is unconstitutional because Barack Obama failed to seek Congressional approval.

President Obama sent a letter defending the Libya intervention to members of Congress on Monday in an effort to quell a growing rebellion over his failure to consult the Senate and the House of Representatives before embarking on the third major military action of his presidency.

In the letter, Obama attempted to address criticism that he had failed to either brief or discuss his decision in detail with both Democrats and Republicans. Under the US constitution, Congressional approval is required for declarations of war.

Congressman Roscoe Bartlett, a Republican on the House armed services committee, was among members who argued that military action in Libya was unconstitutional.

..Judge Holds Obama Administration in Contempt Over Offshore Drilling Ban
By Eric On February 3, 2011 · 10 Comments · In Obama's Arrogance, Supreme Court, U.S. Constitution ....A New Orleans judge has ruled that the Obama administration acted in contempt by continuing to block new offshore drilling after a judge struck down the drilling moratorium. After the first ban was struck down, the administration instituted a second ban, then lifted it just before it too was about to be struck down. Even now there still appears be a de facto ban because the government has yet to approve any new offshore drilling. From Bloomberg.com,

Interior Department regulators acted with "determined disregard" by lifting and reinstituting a series of policy changes that restricted offshore drilling, following the worst offshore oil spill in U.S. history, U.S. District Judge, Martin Feldman of New Orleans ruled yesterday.

"Each step the government took following the court's imposition of a preliminary injunction showcases its defiance," Feldman said in the ruling.

"Such dismissive conduct, viewed in tandem with the re- imposition of a second blanket and substantively identical moratorium, and in light of the national importance of this case, provide this court with clear and convincing evidence of the government's contempt," Feldman said.

The Interior department has also been ordered to pay the legal fees of the group that originally filed the lawsuit against the drilling ban.

This is not the only time the Obama administration has ignored a federal judge's ruling. During the last few days, the administration has been ignoring the Jan. 31 ruling of U.S. District Court judge Roger Vinson. Judge Vinson struck down the entire bill as unconstitutional, but the Obama administration is still implementing the bill. They may receive another charge of contempt by ignoring Judge Vinson's ruling.

There appears to be a pattern developing. When a court rules against Obama, he continues doing the same activity that the court ruled against. For someone who is supposed to be a Constitutional Law professor, Obama doesn't seem to realize how the separation of powers works in our form of government. Or maybe he understands completely and is refusing to obey the rule of law. If this is the case we have a very big problem.

But hey nothing Obama has done is UNCONSTITUTIONAL Oldtimer :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

The 9th Circuit Court ruled that Arizona is violating the Constitution with their anti- Mexican/illegal immigrant law...
So do you then agree that it is UnConstitutional?

I'm still waiting to see a SCOTUS ruling that overturned an Obama passed law/action as unConstitutional- if as you say he is doing/making so many UnConstitutional things and Laws....

Just like when some rightwinger starts screaming that Obama is taking all our guns away- I ask them to name one new Federal Firearms Act that has passed since the Obama Administration came in that restricts our owning of guns - and any that have been overturned in the Courts...

Again- I'm not sure if there is or not -- but noone has been able to name one....

This is the only rule change I know of- which has been ruled Constitutional and which sane folks/gunowners agree with as needed as a way to stop straw purchasers from funneling guns to Mexico..

Federal Judge Upholds Reporting Requirement for Gun Stores

Published January 13, 2012
FoxNews.com

WASHINGTON – A federal judge has dismissed a firearms industry association's lawsuit seeking to block the Obama administration from requiring gun store owners in Southwest border states to report when customers buy multiple high-powered rifles.

U.S. District Judge Rosemary M. Collyer said the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives properly limited its requirement to purchasers of two or more semi-automatic rifles greater than .22 caliber within five days in the states of California, Arizona, New Mexico or Texas.

Like I said- just because YOU don't like a law- does not necessarily make it unConstitutional.....

 

[Tam]

FGS man how stupid are you I did not say Obamacare is unconstitutional I just happen to agree with those that did say IT WAS. Those being at least 27 State Attorneys and two Federal court judges and the Appeal Court that agreed with them. If you don't like them calling it UNCONSTITUTIONAL take it up with them I'm sure you as a one term Sheriff and small county JP can teach them a few things about CONSTITUTIONAL LAW. :roll:

BTW If Obama didn't violate the First Amendment why didn't he just tell the Church to suck it up and pay for birth control? Face it he backed off as he knew his Administration over stepped their authority and violated the First Amendment. If that narsissitic twit would have thought he had a legal leg to stand on he would have never backed down and risk p*ssing off his Lunitic Leftard base. :roll:

 

[Anonymous]

Supreme Court rebuffs Montana on corporate election spending
Justices block a decision by the state's high court to enforce a 100-year-old ban on such money in campaigns.

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

February 17, 2012, 10:06 p.m.

Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court served notice Friday that it would not let states or state judges casually defy its much-disputed ruling in the Citizens United case that gave corporations a right to spend freely on election campaigns.

The justices put on hold enforcement of a Montana election law. But the case could force the high court to reconsider the corporate spending issue if its liberal justices insist on doing so.

On Dec. 30, Montana's high court said it was refusing to follow Citizens United as a binding precedent. Instead, the state justices affirmed Montana's 100-year-old anti-corruption law that forbids corporations from giving to candidates or spending to elect them. Adopted by its voters, it arose during the era of the "Copper Kings" who, as Mark Twain once put it, "bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment."


But the 5-4 majority in the Citizens United case said the 1st Amendment protects independent political spending by corporations and unions. One Montana justice described as "utter nonsense" the Supreme Court's view that lavish spending by corporations did not corrupt candidates or the election process.

Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, staunch dissenters two years ago, said the court should reconsider the Citizens United decision "in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance."

"Montana's experience, and experience elsewhere since [the decision] make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption'" Ginsburg wrote.

It is not clear what will happen next. The four liberal justices could vote as a bloc and call for the court to hear arguments later this year on Montana's defiance of the Citizens United decision. However, the five conservative justices could agree on a summary ruling to overturn the Montana state court decision.

And SCOTUS should have been chastised...Their decision to consider corporate entities to be considered the same as "individuals"- and give them free run again to buy elections and in turn own politicians/judges is wrong....

Read the book "Copper Kings of Montana"...The Copper Kings and Anaconda Company bought and sold state politicians at a whim? They totally controlled Helena- and the state..... Many of those that fought for this law were our ancestor farmer/ranchers in eastern Montana....

But now SCOTUS in its arrogance says we can't enforce an almost 100 year old law that has worked to keep down corporate influence....

To go back to the original subject and corporates now being able to buy elections:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"
Benito Mussolini

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
Franklin D Roosevelt.

 

[Tam]

Supreme Court rebuffs Montana on corporate election spending
Justices block a decision by the state's high court to enforce a 100-year-old ban on such money in campaigns.

By David G. Savage, Washington Bureau

February 17, 2012, 10:06 p.m.

Reporting from Washington— The Supreme Court served notice Friday that it would not let states or state judges casually defy its much-disputed ruling in the Citizens United case that gave corporations a right to spend freely on election campaigns.

The justices put on hold enforcement of a Montana election law. But the case could force the high court to reconsider the corporate spending issue if its liberal justices insist on doing so.

On Dec. 30, Montana's high court said it was refusing to follow Citizens United as a binding precedent. Instead, the state justices affirmed Montana's 100-year-old anti-corruption law that forbids corporations from giving to candidates or spending to elect them. Adopted by its voters, it arose during the era of the "Copper Kings" who, as Mark Twain once put it, "bought legislatures and judges as other men buy food and raiment."


But the 5-4 majority in the Citizens United case said the 1st Amendment protects independent political spending by corporations and unions. One Montana justice described as "utter nonsense" the Supreme Court's view that lavish spending by corporations did not corrupt candidates or the election process.

Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen G. Breyer, staunch dissenters two years ago, said the court should reconsider the Citizens United decision "in light of the huge sums currently deployed to buy candidates' allegiance."

"Montana's experience, and experience elsewhere since [the decision] make it exceedingly difficult to maintain that independent expenditures by corporations 'do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption'" Ginsburg wrote.

It is not clear what will happen next. The four liberal justices could vote as a bloc and call for the court to hear arguments later this year on Montana's defiance of the Citizens United decision. However, the five conservative justices could agree on a summary ruling to overturn the Montana state court decision.

And SCOTUS should have been chastised...Their decision to consider corporate entities to be considered the same as "individuals"- and give them free run again to buy elections and in turn own politicians/judges is wrong....

Read the book "Copper Kings of Montana"...The Copper Kings and Anaconda Company bought and sold state politicians at a whim? They totally controlled Helena- and the state..... Many of those that fought for this law were our ancestor farmer/ranchers in eastern Montana....

But now SCOTUS in its arrogance says we can't enforce an almost 100 year old law that has worked to keep down corporate influence....

To go back to the original subject and corporates now being able to buy elections:

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power"
Benito Mussolini

"The liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerated the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than the democratic state itself. That in its essence is fascism: ownership of government by an individual, by a group, or any controlling private power."
Franklin D Roosevelt.

Are you back to Chastising the Supreme Court or Obama for allowing Soros, Buffet, Media Matter, Foreign fugitives and nameless Corporations to buy the election/government for him Oldtimer? GEE let me guess :? you are back to trashing the SCOTUS? :wink: And giving Obama and his big money donors a pass. :roll: