Supreme Court Slaps Down ACORN and Environmental Wackos

1. 61

   TMMasonposted 13 years ago

   That make a few this court has got right. If we can just sit a couple more Conservative judges there after we take the Presidency in 2012, maybe we can right this country back upon the correct course.
   
   WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court won't hear an appeal from ACORN, the activist group driven to ruin by scandal and financial woes, over being banned from getting federal funds.
   
   The high court on Monday refused to review a federal court's decision to uphold Congress's ban on federal funds for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now.
   
   Congress cut off ACORN's federal funding last year in response to allegations the group engaged in voter registration fraud and embezzlement and violated the tax-exempt status of some of its affiliates by engaging in partisan political activities.
   
   ACORN sued, but the 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York City upheld the action. The high court refused to hear its appeal.
   
   The case is ACORN v. United States, 10-1068.
   
   
   http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110620/ap_ … rn_lawsuit

   replyreport
   1. 73

      Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Oh, sure, this is just peachy: let's let an activist create a selectively edited video accusing an organization of shady activity, and congress can bypass the courts and punish the organization without trial! And then when the organization says, "Hang on, we never did any of that stuff, and we're being punished for it without being proven guilty in a trial," let's let the courts abdicate their power!
      
      For someone who says he likes the Constitution, you  sure support some strange things, TM.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         So those people working there, and on the video, were not doing what we could all see them doing and saying... excellent logic jeff. Well in that case lets just forget the whole thing.

         replyreport
         1. 73

            Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

            Oh, so it's impossible for someone to edit a video in such a way as to make something seem nefarious when it isn't? Okay.

            replyreport
            1. 61

               TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

               I didn't say that. 
               
               I watched those videos though,  and even if edited, you cannot deny what was said and the intent of those who were saying it. It was clear what they were doing, were conspiring to help who they thought were pimps and child sex-slavers.
               
               Just the fact that they would consider helping anyone harm children and women in such a way should get the Left in a bullistic mood... but no... it was all good for you all.
               
               Such defenders of Children's Rights and Women's Rights.. amazing.

               replyreport
               1. 73

                  Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                  No trial necessary, eh? A creatively edited video is enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that these people were, with criminal intent, aiding and abetting a sex-slaver. We don't need to see the rest of the tape, or hear what the people in the video have to say about it, or check if there's any further evidence beyond said creatively edited video to support the accusations.
                  
                  No, we don't need a speedy public trial in which the accused has the right to legal counsel and the right to confront their accuser, and the right to call witnesses on their own behalf. Since it's a bunch of liberals being accused, and since it's a conservative doing the accusing, we can just dispense with the trial and condemn them out of hand.
                  
                  And of course, since all liberals are exactly the same, the creatively edited video is proof beyond a reasonable doubt not only that those particular Acorn employees are guilty, but that the whole darn organization does that kind of thing all the time when we aren't looking. We don't even need a selectively edited video of them doing it--we just know they're guilty!
                  
                  Or perhaps we ought to, y'know, follow the Constitution, and have a trial to see if they're really guilty of fraud and aiding and abetting other worse crimes.
                  
                  If they're proven guilty, I'll be first in line calling for their incarceration.
                  
                  If not, will you be first in line to apologize for wrongly condemning them?

                  replyreport
                  1. 61

                     TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                     There is no type of court -due- process to withdraw tax funding. It is up to the American People and Congress. Now criminal charges have due process and Civil courts, as it should be, but not to recieve tax money. We can give it or take it away when we want.
                     
                     You can go to the court and complian but I do not think it will get them anywhere. They can sue the filmers if they want, but not the American people.
                     
                     And there is more to it than those cases. They have sustained a conspiracry and acted in ways to commit voter fraud over and over and continuously. Americans have simply had enough. And yes there have been many an individual taken to court for it and found guilty. And to say that was them and not the ACORN, is absurd. They are responsible for their people, just like the banks are responsible for their lenders actions.

                     replyreport
                     1. 58

                        C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        "You can go to the court and complian but I do not think it will get them anywhere. They can sue the filmers if they want, but not the American people."
                        
                        This is the key. If they have been defamed, let them prove it. The Fed is NOT required to fund them. If their funding was pulled because of slander, it can be addressed. If their case has merit they will more than likely win. No doubt the "video's" caused them harm. Now it's a matter of how accurate are the "video's".

                        replyreport
                     2. 73

                        Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                        "They have sustained a conspiracry and acted in ways to commit voter fraud over and over and continuously."
                        Voter fraud is a crime. If it's as pervasive as you claim, then it should be a slam-dunk prosecution. Anyone who commits voter fraud should be prosecuted and punished. Let that prosecution take place, and the whole funding issue will be moot.
                        
                        "If they have been defamed, let them prove it." Oh, so now the burden of proof is on the accused? Guilty until proven innocent? If I claimed to the media that you were, say, an embezzler, and you lost your job, you'd have to prove that you weren't an embezzler, rather than have me prove that you were one. I don't think that's such a great way to run things....

                        replyreport
                        1. 61

                           TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                           In civil court it is always on the complianing party to prove their charges against the defending party. Simple Civil Court 101 Jeff.
                           
                           And they did prosecute and found guilty quite a few individuals from the org. guilty, which is the main reason ACORN disbanded.

                           replyreport
                           1. 73

                              Jeff Berndtposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                              Wait, if ACORN disbanded, how is it that ACORN is involved in a trial in the 2nd US circuit court of appeals, as the original post says?

                              replyreport
                              1. 61

                                 TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

                                 They split into many lil groups. Read the earlier posts regarding it. And the 2nd court was hearing the appeal. It is all done.
                                 
                                 http://www.reuters.com/article/2010/03/ … W920100323
                                 
                                 They couldn't spin it in the end. Good riddance. As for the continuance to the Supreme Court, it was in motion and they wanted damages and other monies from what I understand, so they continued on and attached the others to it. Thus the Enviromental wackos in the title.

                                 replyreport
      2. 58

         C.J. Wrightposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Good arguments but why should "Charitable Organizations" get Federal Funding? I don't see the value in ACORN. What do they do that is NOT already being being done by other Charities not recieve Fed Funding or Fed Agencies funded by Tax Dollars?

         replyreport
      3. 68

         WRWeeksposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         If ACORN was misrepresented in the videos BigGovernment.com released, why didn't they sue for defamation of character?  In stead, all they offered was that it was a localized problem that they were handeling.  Unfortunately, after the fifth separate location was exposed with the same problem, that excuse did not hold up.  So, yes, someone can edit a video to try and defame someone else.  That's what the courts are for, to adjudicate these issues.

         replyreport
      4. 59

         American Viewposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         I do not know what Acorn is complaining about. They changed their name, recieved Gov funds and are back 9in business doing the same crap. Why did noone in the Media talk about that? I wonder. Here is a part of the news when congress cut funds to acorn, acorn ahead of the game :If you recall it was the housing part of acorn doing the most illegal work, ripping off poor first time homebuyers
         
         "It is merely restructuring itself. The lead corporate entity, ACORN, filed Chapter 7 bankruptcy, but the state chapters and other branches of the infamous activist network continue to operate. Other affiliates including vote manufacturers Project Vote and housing bubble generator ACORN Housing continue in business. ACORN Housing changed its name to Affordable Housing Centers of America.
         
         ACORN insiders acknowledge a reconstituted ACORN will emerge in time to help the reelection campaign of President Obama, who used to work for ACORN".

         replyreport
   2. 62

      bgamallposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      Compared to all the people murdered in the Iraq oil war this is small stuff. If this is all you got Mason, you will have to do better than that.
      
      You going to take back our country to do what? You realize that if you cut the budget as you say we will likely have another Great Depression? Did you know that Paul Ryan has budgeted in a ponzi housing scheme as the way to offset these cuts? You want another one of those?
      
      Bachus a Republican and head of the banking committee in the House wants to do away with the Volcker Rule so that the casino banks can gamble us once again to ruin.
      
      Ron Paul is against both of these but he is one man. He is surrounded by sharks.
      
      Both parties were equally responsible for the housing bubble, but the Dems are trying to slow the casino down.

      replyreport
      1. 61

         TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

         Have you read my comments on Ryan? Obviously not. And what does Acorn have to do with Iraq? And you have confussed me for a supporter of the Progressive Right... I am not.
         
         Bush and the Progressives are as bad as Obama.
         
         And we know FDR's BS sosialist agenda failed, and was respopnsible for sinkling us further into the deppression, and so willl this Obama one. That is why the Repubs swept the house and senate in the end, and had to pay down major deficits to straighten it all out. you cannot spend your way out of debt... anyone who has credit cards can attest to that. Not to mention that the Supreme Court struck down and threw out the New Deal agenda.
         
         And the fact is they are all in the pocket of big bussiness...
         
         http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php
         
         They have all sold us out. Again don't confuse me for a Bush or Progressive supporter. I am not.
         
         And the first thing Ron Paul would do is run to area 51 to show off the UFOs.

         replyreport
2. 39

   Greg Sageposted 13 years ago

   Politics aside, and only speaking for what I have been personally privy to...
   
   ... I have a family member that lived with me for a time (a couple election cycles back) while working for Acorn.  His politics and theirs are closely inline, so he was certainly not setting out to malign them.
   
   His daily conversations with me about his experiences there outlined what was essentially training in the art of voter fraud.
   
   I don't pretend to know the details behind the scene for the various scandals that have happened (and obviously, there are agendas at work, so scrutiny is only prudent), but I am quite certain about the first hand experiences he shared.  He eventually quit in disgust. 
   
   He was being paid at least in part with taxpayer money. 
   
   I'm just stating first-person accounts that have been shared with me personally.  If there was any bias in those accounts, it was certainly in Acorn's favor, and not the other way around (at least at first... once disillusionment set it, it may have swung the other way)  I claim no knowledge of anything outside those conversations.  Make of it what you will.

   replyreport
3. 73

   Reality Bytesposted 13 years ago

   Receiving Federal funding is not a Right, nor is the refusal of funding a sentence!
   
   There are no criminal charges, the bucket just got taken away from their well!
   
   Stop it 

   replyreport
4. 73

   aguasilverposted 13 years ago

   Not being American, can anyone tell me what the 'Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now' were supposed to be doing, if they did it at any time, and what positive effect it had for Americans that they did whatever they were supposed to do?
   
   Kind of, was there any 'fitness for purpose' in them, and did they do what it said on the can?
   
   What where they trying to reform?
   
   If they had the support of 'Community Organizations' why did they need funding?
   
   Apologies for being simplistic, but from the name it sounds like a good excuse to get some government funding and have a good time!

   replyreport
   1. 61

      TMMasonposted 13 years agoin reply to this

      They specialized in storm-trooping banks and forcing, through lawsuits and the threat of, said banks to give mortgages to people who could not afford them. They collected voter registrations from people, and the plural should be noted as many times they would register the same person.
      
      Among other things...
      
      http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/ … jean-lopez
      
      http://michellemalkin.com/2010/09/23/ac … ant-scams/
      
      http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2009/09/ … ia-ignore/
      
      http://michellemalkin.com/2010/06/11/em … democrats/
      
      http://www.nypost.com/p/news/opinion/ed … 848C66779A

      replyreport