|
|
Post by millring on Feb 14, 2016 13:17:15 GMT -5
To those who think a corporation is a democracy that collects and considers the opinions of it employees to determine its political leanings has never spent time in one. Corporations are dictatorships with only the top tier of management having any say in whatever political position it would take. They represent the voices of the elite leaders who also have corporate revenue at their disposal to affect elections. When the day come when a CEO gives each employee $200 of corporate cah to donate the political cause of their choice, that is the day I would support citzens united. ...and they don't have to operate in that way in order to be determining what is in the corporation's best interest. They don't have to poll their employees OR their stock holders to determine whether a political issue is going to affect their business interests. Unions don't either. |
|
|
|
Post by Fingerplucked on Feb 14, 2016 13:22:45 GMT -5
So far it is, to me, and your link didn’t help. All I saw there was a list of union contributions. That’s a lot of money. But I didn’t see any comparisons to corporate or individual contributions. We could subdivide it any way you like. In my mind, corporate contributions aren’t much different than contributions from the wealthy, and contributions toward Democrats aren’t much different than contributions toward Republicans. Also, I wouldn’t separate lobbying from election purchasing. But breaking those things out as separate factors are okay too, so long as it’s done consistently and fairly transparently. I’m doubting that unions are the single biggest monetary influence in politics. I may be wrong. I am open to being educated. |
|
|
|
Post by coachdoc on Feb 14, 2016 13:47:19 GMT -5
Those lists show companies as well as unions, #5 is the Fahr Group, at 75mil. What is an executive recruiting company doing near the top of a national donor list? Beats me, but it is interesting. Smacks of cloak and dagger intrigue, and I've never heard of them.
|
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 14, 2016 13:51:06 GMT -5
Slice it any way you like, it always boils down to "Freedom for me and not for thee".
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Feb 14, 2016 14:14:35 GMT -5
To those who think a corporation is a democracy that collects and considers the opinions of it employees to determine its political leanings has never spent time in one. Corporations are dictatorships with only the top tier of management having any say in whatever political position it would take. They represent the voices of the elite leaders who also have corporate revenue at their disposal to affect elections. When the day come when a CEO gives each employee $200 of corporate cah to donate the political cause of their choice, that is the day I would support citzens united. ...and they don't have to operate in that way in order to be determining what is in the corporation's best interest. They don't have to poll their employees OR their stock holders to determine whether a political issue is going to affect their business interests. Unions don't either. That's very true. But in no way should we be assuming corporations are the equivalent of voters. Elections are won by a majority of voters and those voters are employees of a corporatin which do not represent in their political donatins the interests of those employees. Imagine a corporation which uss its corporate finances to promote candidates who deny global warming and is staffed by a vast number of employees who are Democrats and believe global warming is real and want to see politicians address it. Their company is working directly against their interest and they have no voice in how that corporation chooses to use its influence. |
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 14, 2016 14:19:04 GMT -5
Most people I talked to (last night) believe the Republican Congress will not approve anyone until after the election. The one person (Senator Charles Grassley) who probably has the most to say on that point agrees. Duh ! Grassley praised the high court judge and offered sympathy to his family in the statement, but also joined Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., and other prominent GOP senators in saying that Obama should not be allowed to appoint his successor.
“The fact of the matter is that it’s been standard practice over the last nearly 80 years that Supreme Court nominees are not nominated and confirmed during a presidential election year," Grassley said. "Given the huge divide in the country, and the fact that this President, above all others, has made no bones about his goal to use the courts to circumvent Congress and push through his own agenda, it only makes sense that we defer to the American people who will elect a new president to select the next Supreme Court Justice.”
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 14, 2016 14:25:51 GMT -5
...and they don't have to operate in that way in order to be determining what is in the corporation's best interest. They don't have to poll their employees OR their stock holders to determine whether a political issue is going to affect their business interests. Unions don't either. That's very true. But in no way should we be assuming corporations are the equivalent of voters. I'm not assuming that. Elections are won by a majority of voters and those voters are members of a unions which do not represent in their political donatins the interests of those members. Imagine a union which uss its union dues to promote candidates who promote abortion on demand while a number of their membership do not. Their union is working directly against their interest and they have no voice in how that union chooses to use its influence. The corporation doing that bothers you. The union doing that doesn't. |
|
|
|
Post by james on Feb 14, 2016 14:30:00 GMT -5
Robert Reich has thoughts about a potential SC judge.
"My mole in the White House tells me Obama will nominate 46-year-old Judge Sri Srinivasan, an Indian-American jurist who Obama nominated in 2013 to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit -- and the Senate confirmed unanimously. Having confirmed him unanimously just three years ago, it would be difficult (but hardly impossible) for Republicans to oppose him now. (Twelve former Solicitors General, including Republican notables as Paul Clement and Kenneth Starr had endorsed his confirmation. Moreover, the D.C. Circuit has long been a Supreme Court farm team – Scalia himself, along with John Roberts, Clarence Thomas, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg were judges there before ascending to the Supreme Court.)
But is Srinivasan progressive? He had been Obama’s principal Deputy Solicitor General before the nomination, arguing Supreme Court cases in support of affirmative action and against Indiana’s restrictive voter ID law, for example. But this record doesn’t prove much. (Having once worked as an assistant Solicitor General, I know the inhabitants of that office will argue whatever halfway respectable arguments the Justice Department and, indirectly, the President, wants made.)
Before the Obama administration, Srinivasan worked for five years in George W. Bush’s Justice Department. Prior to that, as an attorney in the private firm of O'Melveny & Myers, he defended Exxon Mobil in a lawsuit brought by Indonesians who accused the company’s security forces of torture, murder, and other violations against their people; successfully represented a newspaper that fired its employees for unionizing; and defended Enron’s former CEO, Jeffrey Skilling, later convicted for financial fraud. But in these instances, too, it could be argued he was just representing clients. Another clue: After graduating Stanford Law School in 1995, Srinivasan clerked for two Republican-appointed jurists – Judge J. Harvie Wilkinson III, and Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor – both of whom were considered moderate.
Since he became a judge on the D.C. Circuit, he hasn’t tipped his hand. But I discovered one morsel of information that might interest you: In 2000, he worked on Al Gore’s legal team in the infamous Supreme Court case of “Bush v. Gore.”
My suspicion is Obama couldn't do better than Srinivasan. No other nominee will get a majority of Senate votes."
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Feb 14, 2016 14:39:40 GMT -5
That's very true. But in no way should we be assuming corporations are the equivalent of voters. I'm not assuming that. Elections are won by a majority of voters and those voters are members of a unions which do not represent in their political donatins the interests of those members. Imagine a union which uss its union dues to promote candidates who promote abortion on demand while a number of their membership do not. Their union is working directly against their interest and they have no voice in how that union chooses to use its influence. The corporation doing that bothers you. The union doing that doesn't. It does bother me and I oppose unions doing the same thing. That is why I applauded Governor Walker for getting unions out of the public sector. They had the ability to influence who sat on the opposite side of the negotiating table in school benefit negotiation through there financial support of school board candidates in local elections. They had way too much power for far too long. If they made it illegal for unions to donate to candidates, then they can think again about representng public sector employees. |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 14, 2016 14:46:34 GMT -5
I'm not assuming that. Elections are won by a majority of voters and those voters are members of a unions which do not represent in their political donatins the interests of those members. Imagine a union which uss its union dues to promote candidates who promote abortion on demand while a number of their membership do not. Their union is working directly against their interest and they have no voice in how that union chooses to use its influence. The corporation doing that bothers you. The union doing that doesn't. It does bother me and I oppose unions doing the same thing. That is why I applauded Governor Walker for getting unions out of the public sector. They had the ability to influence who sat on the opposite side of the negotiating table in school benefit negotiation through there financial support of school board candidates in local elections. They had way too much power for far too long. If they made it illegal for unions to donate to candidates, then they can think again about representng public sector employees. Then you, sir, are my hero. But you're still ugly and your breath smells of elderberries. |
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Feb 14, 2016 16:34:21 GMT -5
Nothing better than an ugly elderberry.
|
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 14, 2016 16:35:45 GMT -5
Marshall prefers ugly mulberries.
|
|
|
|
Post by Marshall on Feb 14, 2016 16:50:54 GMT -5
I'm not old enough for elderberries.
|
|
|
|
Post by epaul on Feb 14, 2016 18:02:49 GMT -5
Obama should nominate a moderate judge that is respected by both sides of the great divide and put the bet to the Republicans: Do you dare pass this up in hopes that you will do better by waiting?
Republicans in congress have to be aware that, despite their hopes and dreams, odds favor a Hillary presidency and with it a more liberal judge than the moderate one Obama is dangling in front of their noses. (if Obama cleverly selects a moderate)
Given what Hillary might come up with, that Indian dude might not be such a terrible fate.
Obama may not have an interest in picking a moderate... OR it could be that he has a greater interest in placing his stamp on the court for history and his "legacy".
If so, he has the best/only chance of getting his name in the books if he picks a judge that tempts the more pragmatic Republicans.
In a twist (if there is any sense or likelihood to this scenario), the stumbling block to this move would actually be liberal Democrats who would prefer to wait in the hope that Hillary will ram in Hilary put in a cross-gendered green vegan.
The Republicans best move is to send some secret smoke signals Obama's way. Nominate a moderate. We'll bitch like hell but vote him in after the left has committed. We get someone that is better than what we will most likely get by waiting and you get your name in the history books/
|
|
|
|
Post by fauxmaha on Feb 14, 2016 18:13:20 GMT -5
Take as moderate a nominee you can get out of Obama now.
Win the presidency and replace Ginsberg (for sure), Souter (probably) and Kennedy (maybe) in the next term with serious Originalists in the Scalia mold.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 14, 2016 18:27:55 GMT -5
Given what Hillary might come up with, that Indian dude Kansan might not be such a terrible fate.
|
|
|
|
Post by PaulKay on Feb 14, 2016 18:37:02 GMT -5
Marshall prefers ugly mulberries. The last time I mulled berries I got a berry berry bad headache! |
|
|
|
Post by millring on Feb 14, 2016 18:45:49 GMT -5
A Mull of Kintyrely bad headache.
|
|
|
|
Post by godotwaits on Feb 14, 2016 18:52:18 GMT -5
<Justice Souter already resigned>
|
|
|
|
Post by dradtke on Feb 14, 2016 19:05:33 GMT -5
To those who think a corporation is a democracy that collects and considers the opinions of it employees to determine its political leanings has never spent time in one. Corporations are dictatorships with only the top tier of management having any say in whatever political position it would take. They represent the voices of the elite leaders who also have corporate revenue at their disposal to affect elections. When the day come when a CEO gives each employee $200 of corporate cah to donate the political cause of their choice, that is the day I would support citzens united. ...and they don't have to operate in that way in order to be determining what is in the corporation's best interest. They don't have to poll their employees OR their stock holders to determine whether a political issue is going to affect their business interests. Unions don't either. Of course they don't have to operate that way in order to determine the corporation's best interest. They already know, because they're smarter and work harder than the rest of us. If they weren't smarter or worked harder, they wouldn't be the elite in charge of the corporation, now would they? QED. Duh. |
|
