Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : The Residential Real Estate Post-Crash Index-Moderated -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: pstuartb who wrote (37690)	8/30/2011 10:24:26 AM
From: bentway	3 Recommendations Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 119360

To my mind, the mistake was equating money and speech. It may be objectively true, but our laws should push AGAINST it, not codify it. Money = speech and Citizens United together just put the corporations in complete control of this country.

To: pstuartb who wrote (37690)	8/30/2011 12:47:13 PM
From: koan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 119360

<<Citizen's United could be abrogated by legislation, but it's extremely unlikely the SC would ever actually reverse it even if the balance shifted on the Court. >> You know that is impossible in todays congress. <<If the balance shifted and a similar issue came up again, they would be far more likely to narrow the holding of Citizen's United, rather than reverse it.>> I don't agree with that. You put one more liberal on the court, and they will manufacture a case to reverse Citizens United and could very well make even more restrictive. Every liberal in the country knows the citizens United decison is the largest threat to our democracy probably since the civil war.