Supreme Court Rules McCainFeingold Violated the 1st

Printable View

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

07-03-2007
Quinn

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada

Blah! Blah! Blah!

1) Once again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA) – its ban on the ability of political parties to raise unlimited and unrestricted amounts of money from unions, corporations, and wealthy donors, etc. – which still stand. You see, stupid, declaring the instance specific application of a lone provision within McCain-Feingold unconstitutional is not the same as declaring the BCRA unconstitutional itself which is what you claimed, let alone supporting any melodramatic proclamations of “shredding the 1st(other provisions also have clear 1st ammendment implicaitons).

I understand you desperately want to rmisrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.

You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon

The pantywaist blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.”

You`re ignorance is now on parade. The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is. You are oblivious to the fact that in certain matters Congress has the ultimate authority. . . .

To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:

The Supreme Court’s own website:

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).

Chief Justice John Marshall

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing [using transfer pricing to evade taxation] is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal.

Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html

Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.

-Quinn
07-03-2007
LG

These are just very few examples of a myriad....

Quote:

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:34 pm; edited 3 times in total

Quote:

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:05 am; edited 4 times in total

Quote:

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:07 am; edited 5 times in total

Quote:

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:32 am; edited 1 time in total

Why does WMC keep editing his posts? Is it because he can never get it right the first time? Is it because he changes position more often than he changes his underwear?

And why does he never tell us what changes he made, as some posters, including myself, always do? Is it because he doesn't want us to see that his original post was even more full of shit? Is it because he can never tell the truth?

I don't think asking such questions makes me a kook. It merely makes me inquisitive. But for giving me reason to come up with them, I would not like to say what it makes WMC.
07-03-2007
White_Male_Canada

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[/b]

Quote:

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)

Fucking moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.

Now it is legal!

What don`t you understand retard !?

Quote:

I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."

Tell it to the 5 Justices moron.

But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J

Quote:

You still haven't even come close to explaining your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter.

Now the "Fiesta Resistance". This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it ! To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:

Quote:

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

You`re as easy as a two dollar anencephalic crack whore :lol:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22273
07-03-2007
White_Male_Canada

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Originally Posted by LG

These are just very few examples of a myriad....

Quote:

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:34 pm; edited 3 times in total

Why does WMC keep editing his posts? Is it because he can never get it right the first time? Is it because he changes position more often than he changes his underwear?

And why does he never tell us what changes he made, as some posters, including myself, always do?.

Best complain to your mommy lg otherwise known as the mods. Ask that they delete the edit function.

Told you a zillion times, i type extemporaneously and reserve the right to the final reply when i`m the author of the topic.

Now lets compare extemporaneous thought with the villageidiot who never has practiced critical thought:

Quote:

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

Quote:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

Keep crying , condoning spam/hi-jackers and being an all around left wing kook.

8)
07-03-2007
Quinn

Quote:

Originally Posted by LG

These are just very few examples of a myriad....

Quote:

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Mon Jul 02, 2007 11:34 pm; edited 3 times in total

Quote:

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:05 am; edited 4 times in total

Quote:

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sat Jun 30, 2007 1:07 am; edited 5 times in total

Quote:

Last edited by White_Male_Canada on Sun Jul 01, 2007 4:32 am; edited 1 time in total

Why does WMC keep editing his posts? Is it because he can never get it right the first time? Is it because he changes position more often than he changes his underwear?

And why does he never tell us what changes he made, as some posters, including myself, always do? Is it because he doesn't want us to see that his original post was even more full of shit? Is it because he can never tell the truth?

I don't think asking such questions makes me a kook. It merely makes me inquisitive. But for giving me reason to come up with them, I would not like to say what it makes WMC.

WMC has a history of editing his posts to remove mistakes or to add things that weren't initially there – to make his earlier posts appear to counter damaging arguments later placed in those same threads by opposing posters. Here are but a few examples (there are more) of respected posters commenting on WMC's actions:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecstatic

Prior to this point I had considered WMC to be intelligent, articulate, and well-informed, despite his untenable, questionable, even hateful conclusions. However, going back to edit a post (which is an historical document, albeit in a casual and fluid forum environment) in order to undercut his opponent's point of view--a sort of post-pre-emptive strike--is bad form and undermines his argument for those who have followed the course of the debate; only those coming to read the thread after the fact might be fooled by this tactic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trish

So tell me it’s not true. You don’t go back and revise your old posts to make your arguments anticipate your opponent’s objections, do you??? What a bad little boy you are! I don't even know why anyone should argue with you now.

In this matter, he's completely reversed himself from that initial post (in this thread's previous incarnation) that tried to present this USSC's ruling as a far broader ruling than it was. This was done because he wasn't initially familiar with the case and didn't actually read the ruling itself. Hell, he couldn't even read the standardized format for the case correctly to understand that "BCRA §203" meant it only dealt with section/provision 203 or he wouldn't have even made the initial post, which he edited 6 times to hide his mistake. Sven and Rogers commented on it as well. Everything since then has simply been an effort to cover up that fact.

-Quinn
07-03-2007
Quinn

1 Attachment(s)

1) Once again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA) – its ban on the ability of political parties to raise unlimited and unrestricted amounts of money from unions, corporations, and wealthy donors, etc. – which still stand. You see, stupid, declaring the instance specific application of a lone provision within McCain-Feingold unconstitutional is not the same as declaring the BCRA unconstitutional itself which is what you claimed, let alone supporting any melodramatic proclamations of “shredding the 1st(other provisions also have clear 1st ammendment implicaitons).

I understand you desperately want to rmisrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.

You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited/changed that initial post immediately afterward (I wasn’t the only poster who called you one it either) You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (multiple other posters have called you out on it in the past)...

2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon

The pantywaist blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.”

You`re ignorance is now on parade. The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is. You are oblivious to the fact that in certain matters Congress has the ultimate authority. . . .

To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:

The Supreme Court’s own website:

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).

Chief Justice John Marshall

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing [using transfer pricing to evade taxation] is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal.

Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html

Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.

-Quinn
07-03-2007
White_Male_Canada

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

… my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.

LOL. Sure moron.

This from the VillageIdiots anencephalic pee-brain as conclusive proof he/she hasn`t the foggiest clue as to the law:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

Quote:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[/b]

Quote:

... he's completely reversed himself from that initial post (in this thread's previous incarnation) that tried to present this USSC's ruling as a far broader ruling than it was...

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)

Fucking idiot. The Court was not there to deal with the parts of McCain/Feingold that were irrelevant to the first amendment, such as personal spending thresholds for Senate candidates, Restrictions on State & Local Party Soft Money Spending,consolidated reporting provisions,etc,

Fucking moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.

Now it is legal!

What don`t you understand !?

Quote:

I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."

Tell it to the 5 Justices moron.

But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J

Quote:

You see, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/).

Take the challenge sissy, prove it or get out.

Quote:

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

Quote:

Too easy... Just like when you folded during that little test of wills the other night.

You`re as easy as a two dollar anencephalic crack whore :lol:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22273
07-03-2007
Quinn

1 Attachment(s)

1) Once again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA) – its ban on the ability of political parties to raise unlimited and unrestricted amounts of money from unions, corporations, and wealthy donors, etc. – which still stand. You see, stupid, declaring the instance specific application of a lone provision within McCain-Feingold unconstitutional is not the same as declaring the BCRA unconstitutional itself which is what you claimed, let alone supporting any melodramatic proclamations of “shredding the 1st(other provisions also have clear 1st ammendment implicaitons).

I understand you desperately want to misrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.

You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited that initial post immediately afterward. Svenson and Rogers also called you on it. You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (numerous respected posters have called you out for this sort of thing in the past):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecstatic

Prior to this point I had considered WMC to be intelligent, articulate, and well-informed, despite his untenable, questionable, even hateful conclusions. However, going back to edit a post (which is an historical document, albeit in a casual and fluid forum environment) in order to undercut his opponent's point of view--a sort of post-pre-emptive strike--is bad form and undermines his argument for those who have followed the course of the debate; only those coming to read the thread after the fact might be fooled by this tactic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trish

So tell me it’s not true. You don’t go back and revise your old posts to make your arguments anticipate your opponent’s objections, do you??? What a bad little boy you are! I don't even know why anyone should argue with you now.

2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon

The pantywaist blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.”

You`re ignorance is now on parade. The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is. You are oblivious to the fact that in certain matters Congress has the ultimate authority. . . .

To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:

The Supreme Court’s own website:

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).

Chief Justice John Marshall

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing [using transfer pricing to evade taxation] is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal.

Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html

Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.

-Quinn
07-03-2007
White_Male_Canada

1 Attachment(s)

Quote:

Like I said previously, I'm going to push this until we eventually both get banned by the mods. – at which point the P&R forum can hold the type of debates HA used to have regularly

[/b]

Quote:

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” [u]The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA)

Fucking moron, at issue was Section 203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. That section made it illegal to refer by name to a candidate for federal office in an ad run 30 days before a primary election, or 60 days before a general election.

Now it is legal!

What don`t you understand retard !?

Quote:

I understand you desperately want to reinterpret your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st."

Tell it to the 5 Justices moron.

But when it comes to defining what speech qualifies as the functional equivalent of express advocacy subject to such a ban—the issue we do have to decide—we give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship. The First Amendment’s command that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech” demands at least that. The judgment of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is affirmed. It is so ordered…. I join the principal opinion because I conclude (a) that §203 of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, 2 U. S. C. §441b(b)(2) (2000 ed., Supp. IV), as applied, cannot constitutionally ban … because §203 is unconstitutional as applied to the advertisements before us, it is unnecessary to go further and decide whether §203 is unconstitutional on its face."Opinion of ROBERTS, C. J

Quote:

You see, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/).

Take the challenge sissy, prove it or get out.

Quote:

You still haven't even come close to explaining your contradictory positions on which branch of government has the ultimate authority to determine constitutionality in this matter.

Now the "Fiesta Resistance". This ignoramous takes a shellacing and learns a lesson in regards to the USSC, how it is the end point of litigation and how Article III applies, making Congress the ultimate authority. The point flies so far over this Village Idiots head it still doesn`t get it ! To top it off this useless self embarrassing retard then continues on in it`s complete ignorant bliss and states with complete sincerity:

Quote:

within the legal community is that the coming review is based upon this criteria and that it will actually strengthen McCain-Feingold before it’s over...

Quote:

Too easy... Just like when you folded during that little test of wills the other night.

You`re as easy as a two dollar anencephalic crack whore :lol:

http://www.hungangels.com/board/viewtopic.php?t=22273
07-03-2007
Quinn

2 Attachment(s)

1) Once again:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn

This ruling deals with only a small part of McCain-Feingold (BCRA), hence the words “as applied to the advertisements at issue in these cases.” The court's decision, however, has no effect on the farther-reaching components of McCain-Feingold (BCRA) – its ban on the ability of political parties to raise unlimited and unrestricted amounts of money from unions, corporations, and wealthy donors, etc. – which still stand. You see, stupid, declaring the instance specific application of a lone provision within McCain-Feingold unconstitutional is not the same as declaring the BCRA unconstitutional itself which is what you claimed, let alone supporting any melodramatic proclamations of “shredding the 1st(other provisions also have clear 1st ammendment implicaitons).

I understand you desperately want to misrepresent your way out of this, but the above point was used to refute the implication you made in the now deleted thread that the decision entailed more than it actually did, as if it supported your long-held claims that McCain-Feingold was unconstitutional and "shredded the 1st." It’s okay, stupid. I know the reason you did it.

You see, want wit, I know that you copied and pasted much of your initial post in this thread’s first incarnation from part of a post on a blogger’s site (http://www.jayreding.com/). The problem is that you did so without reading his entire post, let alone the initial decision itself. That’s why you didn’t even initially understand the limited scope of the case. You were clearly afraid that I would discover this fact after I called you on not reading or understanding the decision – which is why you edited that initial post immediately afterward. Svenson and Rogers also called you on it. You can deny it all you want, but we know the truth and are used to it. After all, this isn’t the only time you’ve been caught doing this sort of thing, is it (numerous respected posters have called you out for this sort of thing in the past):

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecstatic

Prior to this point I had considered WMC to be intelligent, articulate, and well-informed, despite his untenable, questionable, even hateful conclusions. However, going back to edit a post (which is an historical document, albeit in a casual and fluid forum environment) in order to undercut his opponent's point of view--a sort of post-pre-emptive strike--is bad form and undermines his argument for those who have followed the course of the debate; only those coming to read the thread after the fact might be fooled by this tactic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trish

So tell me it’s not true. You don’t go back and revise your old posts to make your arguments anticipate your opponent’s objections, do you??? What a bad little boy you are! I don't even know why anyone should argue with you now.

2) Your grasp of constitutional law and the US legal system is so underwhelming that you previously argued in a conversation, concerning the US Supreme Court’s 2003 decision on McCain-Feingold (BCRA), that said court doesn’t even have the final authority it just exercised.

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Prevaricating_Poltroon

The pantywaist blurted out that the “Supreme Court – the ultimate authority on such matters – upheld the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold’s key provisions.”

You`re ignorance is now on parade. The USSC is NOT the ultimate authority on such matters,Congress is. You are oblivious to the fact that in certain matters Congress has the ultimate authority. . . .

To bad for you the US Supreme Court and Congress’s relevant bodies disagree:

The Supreme Court’s own website:

While Congress has ultimate authority to modify or set aside any such rules that are not constitutionally required, e.g., Palermo v. United States, 360 U.S. 343, 345—348, it may not supersede this Court’s decisions interpreting and applying the Constitution see, e.g., City of Boerne v. Flores, 521 U.S. 507, 517—521.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Patrick Leahy

In matters of constitutional interpretation, the Court’s rulings are the supreme law of the land[/b], whether they are decided unanimously or by a single vote.

Former Chairman of the Senate Committee on the Judiciary, Arlen Specter

. . . it is fundamental that Congress not legislate contradiction to a constitutional interpretation of the Supreme Court.

Congressional Research Service Testimony before a House of Representatives subcommittee.

According to a unanimous ruling by the Court in the Little Rock crisis, Marbury ''declared the basic principle that the federal judiciary is supreme in the exposition of the law of the Constitution.''Cooper v. Aaron, 358 U.S. 1 (1958). That principle was reasserted by the Court in the reapportionment case of Baker v. Carr (1962): [b]Deciding whether a matter has in any measure been committed by the Constitution to another branch of government, or whether action of that branch exceeds whatever authority has been committed, is itself a delicate exercise in constitutional interpretation, and a responsibility of this Court as ultimate interpreter of the Constitution.'', Seven years later, in the exclusion case of Adam Clayton Powell, the Court again referred to itself as the ''ultimate interpreter'' of the Constitution., Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 549 (1969).

Chief Justice John Marshall

It is, emphatically, the province and duty of the judicial department to say what the law is.

3) Hell, you’re so unbelievably ignorant of this nation’s laws that you previously argued the use of transfer pricing by corporations to evade taxes isn’t illegal.???

Quote:

Originally Posted by White_Male_Canada

Quote:

Originally Posted by Quinn

The ability of the IRS to prosecute for this sort of thing [using transfer pricing to evade taxation] is limited. That’s the point of using a tax haven to begin with.

Limited !? Holy fuck you’re an arse. It`s limited because it`s not illegal.

Here’s but one of many examples of a corporation being prosecuted for something your uneducated stated isn't illegal:

http://www.irs.gov/newsroom/article/...162359,00.html

Face the facts, cupcake, my cat is more qualified to discuss – let alone interpret – legal matters than you. Fuck, you’re dumb.

-Quinn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Felicia Katt

You added this crap to your post after I had responded to it.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ecstatic

Prior to this point I had considered WMC to be intelligent, articulate, and well-informed, despite his untenable, questionable, even hateful conclusions. However, going back to edit a post (which is an historical document, albeit in a casual and fluid forum environment) in order to undercut his opponent's point of view--a sort of post-pre-emptive strike--is bad form and undermines his argument for those who have followed the course of the debate; only those coming to read the thread after the fact might be fooled by this tactic.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trish

So tell me it’s not true. You don’t go back and revise your old posts to make your arguments anticipate your opponent’s objections, do you??? What a bad little boy you are! I don't even know why anyone should argue with you now.

Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page