- This topic has 200 replies, 18 voices, and was last updated 14 years, 10 months ago by
sdduuuude.
-
AuthorPosts
-
January 21, 2010 at 9:52 AM #16930January 21, 2010 at 10:04 AM #504195
XBoxBoy
ParticipantPut simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.
Bad news indeed.
XBoxBoy
January 21, 2010 at 10:04 AM #504343ParticipantPut simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.
Bad news indeed.
XBoxBoy
January 21, 2010 at 10:04 AM #504741ParticipantPut simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.
Bad news indeed.
XBoxBoy
January 21, 2010 at 10:04 AM #504832ParticipantPut simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.
Bad news indeed.
XBoxBoy
January 21, 2010 at 10:04 AM #505085ParticipantPut simply, unless we can stop the corruption of our system by special interests all hopes of real change are unwarranted. With this ruling, it looks like it’s gonna be a while longer before real change comes.
Bad news indeed.
XBoxBoy
January 21, 2010 at 10:06 AM #504200Arraya
ParticipantIn his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided.” He said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
January 21, 2010 at 10:06 AM #504348ParticipantIn his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided.” He said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
January 21, 2010 at 10:06 AM #504746ParticipantIn his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided.” He said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
January 21, 2010 at 10:06 AM #504837ParticipantIn his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided.” He said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
January 21, 2010 at 10:06 AM #505090ParticipantIn his dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens lamented the decision and called the majority “profoundly misguided.” He said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.” Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor joined Stevens’ dissent, parts of which he read aloud in the courtroom.
January 21, 2010 at 10:15 AM #504206briansd1
GuestI disagree with the majority ruling.
Corporations are not citizens. They are legal entities that survive in perpetuity.
For you Republican guys out there who agree with the ruling:
1) What if shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens? In today’s world, foreigners own a big chunk of US businesses.
2) What if the majority of shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens?
January 21, 2010 at 10:15 AM #504353GuestI disagree with the majority ruling.
Corporations are not citizens. They are legal entities that survive in perpetuity.
For you Republican guys out there who agree with the ruling:
1) What if shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens? In today’s world, foreigners own a big chunk of US businesses.
2) What if the majority of shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens?
January 21, 2010 at 10:15 AM #504751GuestI disagree with the majority ruling.
Corporations are not citizens. They are legal entities that survive in perpetuity.
For you Republican guys out there who agree with the ruling:
1) What if shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens? In today’s world, foreigners own a big chunk of US businesses.
2) What if the majority of shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens?
January 21, 2010 at 10:15 AM #504842GuestI disagree with the majority ruling.
Corporations are not citizens. They are legal entities that survive in perpetuity.
For you Republican guys out there who agree with the ruling:
1) What if shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens? In today’s world, foreigners own a big chunk of US businesses.
2) What if the majority of shareholders of a corporation are foreign citizens?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.