What's new
By:
USCHO Fan Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

  • The USCHO Fan Forum has migrated to a new plaform, xenForo. Most of the function of the forum should work in familiar ways. Please note that you can switch between light and dark modes by clicking on the gear icon in the upper right of the main menu bar. We are hoping that this new platform will prove to be faster and more reliable. Please feel free to explore its features.

The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

WeWantMore said:
So, I'll ask again, is Citizens United really this dramatic departure, or is it a confirmation of more than 180 years of Supreme Court rulings? Priceless has been kind enough to make a case for the latter...
Click to expand...

I've to agree with Priceless on this one. There is a fine distinction in the recent SCOTUS ruling. I think original intent of congress was limited in scope and the courts are getting it wrong again.

Congress (rich) created corporations to protect the wealthy from personal liability. But they also created these corporations to enter into binding contracts etc... and so we have LIMITED personal rights transferred to corporations.

I can't believe the original intent of congress was that corporations had ALL or most of the rights of a person, but just enough to facilitate the smooth workings of a business and limit personal liability of the owners.

I know you can make the argument that corporations need to influence elections for business but it's bad for democracy. especially when most corporate coffers are controlled by few executives and stock owners.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Tundra said:
I've to agree with Priceless on this one. There is a fine distinction in the recent SCOTUS ruling. I think original intent of congress was limited in scope and the courts are getting it wrong again.

Congress (rich) created corporations to protect the wealthy from personal liability. But they also created these corporations to enter into binding contracts etc... and so we have LIMITED personal rights transferred to corporations.

I can't believe the original intent of congress was that corporations had ALL or most of the rights of a person, but just enough to facilitate the smooth workings of a business and limit personal liability of the owners.

I know you can make the argument that corporations need to influence elections for business but it's bad for democracy. especially when most corporate coffers are controlled by few executives and stock owners.
Click to expand...

That's a pretty decent argument. Interesting that you and Priceless are originalists now, but hey:)
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Tundra said:
I've to agree with Priceless on this one. There is a fine distinction in the recent SCOTUS ruling. I think original intent of congress was limited in scope and the courts are getting it wrong again.
Click to expand...

Not so sure one way or the other....hard to discern "original intent" sometimes when technological changes have made the world so different. I suspect that it is simpler than you put it...."original intent" was probably more for citizen legislators who served a few terms in Congress as a sort of "jury duty" writ large....I highly doubt that "original intent" was to have career politicians supported by government pensions! I think the enormous amount of power and influence concentrated in federal government clearly is not the intent behind Amendment X !!

At least this time the Court was consistent, it is not merely "corporations" it is all assemblages of people, corporate, union, not-for-profit.


Tundra said:
I know you can make the argument that corporations need to influence elections for business but it's bad for democracy. especially when most corporate coffers are controlled by few executives and stock owners.
Click to expand...
Agreed totally...

... just as most labor unions are controlled by a few people who often clearly do not represent the well-being of their rank and file members!! (Andy Stern lobbying for Obama'care' while president of SEIU, then retiring to accept a job in the Obama administration as soon as it passes is the most blatant example.)

Case in point, you can see it in many states: it is by far in the best interest of people who already have jobs in state government to make sure that said state is solvent enough to pay their pensions! Existing union members have a strong vested interest in preserving benefits for themselves at the expense of people who get new jobs. Yet union leaders' well-being is driven by how many union dues they collect. There is often a clear and blatant conflict of interest between union leaders insisting that existing benefits be extended to new hires while existing members would often prefer benefits for new hires to be less costly, otherwise everyone's pension is at stake (see that town in RI that went bankrupt, forcing existing pensioners to accept reduced payouts....the money just wasn't there for them despite the unfunded promises to the contrary).

I also know quite a few teachers that are totally outraged and disgusted at the way teachers' unions protect the truly terrible teachers. They would prefer that the bad teachers be tossed. Again, if a teacher's union leader lets any teacher be tossed, that is so much less in the way of dues rolling in.




Just because I think today's union leaders are sell-outs does NOT make me "anti-"union, so please don't start arguing with a straw man upon whom you stuck my picture!
 
Last edited:
FreshFish said:
Agreed totally...

... just as most labor unions are controlled by a few people who often clearly do not represent the well-being of their rank and file members!! (Andy Stern lobbying for Obama'care' while president of SEIU, then retiring to accept a job in the Obama administration as soon as it passes is the most blatant example.)

Case in point, you can see it in many states: it is by far in the best interest of people who already have jobs in state government to make sure that said state is solvent enough to pay their pensions! Existing union members have a strong vested interest in preserving benefits for themselves at the expense of people who get new jobs. Yet union leaders' well-being is driven by how many union dues they collect. There is often a clear and blatant conflict of interest between union leaders insisting that existing benefits be extended to new hires while existing members would often prefer benefits for new hires to be less costly, otherwise everyone's pension is at stake (see that town in RI that went bankrupt, forcing existing pensioners to accept reduced payouts....the money just wasn't there for them despite the unfunded promises to the contrary).

I also know quite a few teachers that are totally outraged and disgusted at the way teachers' unions protect the truly terrible teachers. They would prefer that the bad teachers be tossed. Again, if a teacher's union leader lets any teacher be tossed, that is so much less in the way of dues rolling in.




Just because I think today's union leaders are sell-outs does NOT make me "anti-"union, so please don't start arguing with a straw man upon whom you stuck my picture!
Click to expand...
Ok I am going to call you anti-union. You say it's in the best interest of the union to reduce the benefits and pensions of new members in order to make sure the state is solvent? Really? Actually it's the best need of a union to protect and gain the best for its members. All members. Why should a union sacrifice it's solidarity because a states politicians can't manage money right? If a union has to take a cut then everybody takes a cut, not just new members. Any union that doesn't do it that way is a crap union (and yes plenty of them exist).

I give up part of my pay to my union so they can advocate for what is best for everybody, whether it's the guy who's worked for 20 years or 20 days.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Jimjamesak said:
You say it's in the best interest of the union to reduce the benefits and pensions of new members in order to make sure the state is solvent?.
Click to expand...

Not quite what I said at all, you completely missed what I did say entirely. I said something very, very different.

I said that the first priority of union leaders should be to watch out for the welfare of union members. You seem to agree, no?

The very first priority of union members would be to make sure their own benefits are secure. Do we agree?

One of the very highest priorities of union members would be to insist that their pension benefit plans are fully funded and the sooner the better. Why should they accept an unsecured promise from an entity whose credit rating has just been down-graded? if you were a fiduciary of a union pension fund, would you accept an unsecured note from a less-than-fully creditworthy source? would you not insist that sufficient money be set aside to make sure current pension benefits already earned and vested are secure? what evidence to we have that state governments are trustworthy in keeping their promises? there's a huge amount at stake here, billions of dollars. If they can't find the money now to fully fund our pensions, what recourse do we have? wouldn't you agree that there is just too much at stake here to take some career politician's word for things? we know they want to kick the can down the road, we can't afford to take that risk, right?

We must agree here too, right?

By definition, people who have not yet been hired are not yet union members. After our own, existing pensions are secure, then we can talk about extending comparable benefits to new hires, but not before. This is merely clear-thinking prudence.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

5mn_Major said:
I could care less of whether the health care bill is deemed unconstitutional or not.

Although it may seem a victory for conservatives...what will we need a GOP president for then?
Click to expand...

Teh gays! And SOCIALISM!!!!!!!!!!!!11!!1!!!11!
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Well this seems like an exceedingly boring discussion about whether or not jurisdiction matters.

~50 minutes in it gets better.
 
Last edited:
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

5mn_Major said:
I could care less of whether the health care bill is deemed unconstitutional or not.

Although it may seem a victory for conservatives...what will we need a GOP president for then?
Click to expand...
Make sure it stays dead? Otherwise if we get another Dem Congress, they may try to resurrect the darn thing again.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

joecct said:
Make sure it stays dead? Otherwise if we get another Dem Congress, they may try to resurrect the darn thing again.
Click to expand...

If its deemed unconstitutional, I doubt the public will see that as a very valid reason to vote GOP...regardless of how much debate time has been spent on it.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

ScoobyDoo said:
Well, that would be my argument. Seems to me that they're playing semantics with language if they strike it down and don't strike down Social Security at the same time.
Click to expand...
Social Security is a completely different implementation, and it's financed using an income tax, something that is explicitly permitted by the Constitution.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Is the entire act tied together? As in if one part gets struck down, does the whole thing fail? The thing that is being argued is the individual mandate. If that solely gets ruled unconstitutional and the rest stands, what happens is for-profit insurance in this country ceases to exist.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

Craig P. said:
Social Security is a completely different implementation, and it's financed using an income tax, something that is explicitly permitted by the Constitution.
Click to expand...

This is a tax too. Just because it's not called a tax doesn't mean it isn't a tax. It's the same implementation. That's what I meant by semantics.
 
Re: The Power of the SCOTUS II: "Release the Kagan!"

bronconick said:
Is the entire act tied together? As in if one part gets struck down, does the whole thing fail? The thing that is being argued is the individual mandate. If that solely gets ruled unconstitutional and the rest stands, what happens is for-profit insurance in this country ceases to exist.
Click to expand...
That would make me so sad.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top