This is a huge deal.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._FEC - aka "Companies are people and money is free speech"
As for money being free speech, the equivalence is that in general it costs money to publicize views. The FEC has limits on what you can do with the money (you're not supposed to buy jewelry or fancy vacations) and where it can come from.
I hope, as an European, Trump will be pro NATO enough to keep Putin from invading more countries...
Let's hope that Trump will look at who buys US stuff and who doesn't. And Russia is too badly managed to have a good economy and be a good partner for trade.
Nothing positive about Clinton implied, either.
[0] The Swedish ex communists have declared themselves a feminist party -- but stamp it as "racist" when immigrant women have problems with oppression in the immigrant areas... :-) They are courting the intolerant immigrant votes. I would dare anyone to find any more hypocritical political example anywhere, but... sadly, there certainly are.
So the left has been pushing 'back-door' laws that would do the same thing, effectively: huge taxes on ammo, letting manufactures be legally liable crimes committed with their sold weapons, etc.
Regardless of your views on guns, it is the 2nd Amendment - if the left wants to change it, there is a method to change the Constitution. Executive decisions and other nefarious schemas shouldn't be accepted.
I am talking about civil liberties in general. The mechanism for gay marriage would be similar.
As a footnote, yes, I have read the decision and I have read my constitution. Furthermore I don't think this is the right place for those kinds of ad-hominem attacks.
Not giving Federal taxpayer money to PP doesn't stop them from doing abortions (they officially claim they use no taxpayer funds for abortion anyway), and you can't ban abortion via statute due to Roe v Wade having supremacy. (BTW, PP does a minority of abortions in the USA.)
Even if the USSC wanted to replace Roe v Wade, they can't just do that by decree. A relevant case that would give them that nexus would have to navigate itself all the way up the chain from Federal court through the corresponding Court of Appeals (assuming they even hear the case), winning all the way in courts laden with Obama appointees, to even get on the USSC's radar.
You didn't understand what you claim to have read.
But even if it DID pass the House, the Senate would just filibuster it.
And even if by some miracle one was passed and signed, it would hit an immediate injunction from the Federal court of the abortion-backers' choice, using Roe as a precedent.
The concept makes for a good scare tactic to raise contributions and volunteers, but it goes nowhere in the real world.
Why do you believe this? On a night when the traditional polling and data mechanisms we have come to rely on have proven totally fallible, I have a hard time trusting ANY proposed split.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_State...
If Clinton won, the republicans would probably have held one or both houses, which seems like significant checks on power even if she could have a more friendly supreme court than Obama.
Certainly I doubt our founders thought an entire political party would control every single branch of government. But even if it does the only things that can be accomplished need to be agreed upon by that large group of people. If the will of the people is to elect a group of people into those positions that all hold the same philosophy and values, then that's just democracy. It's what we voted for. I don't know if any party has controlled all three branches of government at once, but it's not like that negates the principle of checks and balances
I think we are closer to uncharted territory than a lot of people assume.
Political parties are just another application which happens to run well on top of the same OS.