#john roberts Tumblr posts

  • jonesyjonesyjonesy
    17.05.2022 - 6 hours ago

    would anyone 👉🏻👈🏻 be willing to post a photo of my stupid blorbo (joh pau jon) for me to fawn over and reblog even if I’ve seen the picture 1.3 million times

    #i just want a little thrill in my life! #babes please! #for me! #led zeppelin #john paul jones #jonesy#jimmy page#classic rock#robert plant#john bonham
    View Full
  • odinsblog
    17.05.2022 - 10 hours ago

    ROBERTS COURT LEGALIZES BRIBERY

    WASHINGTON, May 16 (Reuters) – The U.S. Supreme Court on Monday further undermined campaign finance restrictions, striking down as a free speech violation part of a bipartisan 2002 law challenged by Republican Senator Ted Cruz that federal officials had touted as an anti-corruption safeguard.

    The justices, in a 6-3 ruling, found that a $250,000 cap on the amount of money political candidates can be reimbursed after an election for personal loans to their own campaigns ran afoul of the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech by unjustifiably burdening political expression.

    In the ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court’s conservative justices were in the majority and liberal justices in dissent. Roberts wrote that the law in question “burdens core political speech without proper justification.”

    It was the latest in a series of rulings in which the conservative-majority court has rolled back campaign finance restrictions, citing free speech concerns.

    Roberts wrote that the government had failed to show that the measure “furthers a permissible anti-corruption goal, rather than the impermissible objective of simply limiting the amount of money in politics.”

    In a blistering dissenting opinion, liberal Justice Elena Kagan said the court was effectively aiding and abetting corruption in Washington by allowing donors to contribute to a campaign after an election in a way that benefits the candidate personally.

    “In striking down the law today, the court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop,” Kagan wrote.

    Politicians will know that such payments will go directly to them via the campaign, Kagan added, and the donors will hope for something in return.

    “The politician is happy; the donors are happy. The only loser is the public. It inevitably suffers from government corruption,” Kagan said.

    👉🏿 https://www.reformaustin.org/campaign-finance/u-s-supreme-court-backs-ted-cruz-dumps-campaign-finance-curb/

    View Full
  • smegdwarf
    17.05.2022 - 12 hours ago

    I fell into that trend …oops!

    Feel like Kryten is staring into my soul 👀

    Bonus:

    ✨Mighty Light✨

    #red dwarf#arnold rimmer #arnold j rimmer #arnold judas rimmer #rimmer#hologram#chris barrie#dave lister#kryten#craig charles#the cat#david lister#robert llewellyn #danny john jules #that stupid new profile pic app 😅
    View Full
  • adondeirhoy
    17.05.2022 - 13 hours ago

    50 Aniversario de la icónica película "El Padrino" de Francis Ford Coppola

    50 Aniversario de la icónica película “El Padrino” de Francis Ford Coppola

    View On WordPress

    View Full
  • reddeadreference
    17.05.2022 - 14 hours ago

    A Really Big Bastard

    -Click here to return to the index page for Epilogue: Beecher’s Hope- 

    Sadie visits John at Beecher's Hope. They leave to hunt down a bounty, Marshall Thurwell, in Tall Trees and discuss other men who have evaded their capture.

    Jack calls for his parents and they run out to see-

    Sadie has come to visit.

    Everyone sits down for a meal outside.

    Sadie mentions a bounty mission if John’s interested.

    Abigail protests against him going but he insists they need the money to pay off the bank loans.

    John and Sadie track their Marshall Thurwell to a run down shack where they find a dead man (WAY too gory to show here) but it turns out that he isn’t their target.

    Their target comes out and asks if the “monster” is gone.

    The two assure him it’s gone and tell him to come out.

    As he’s coming out, Thurwell sees the “monster” behind them.

    The “monster” is a bear-

    A very very large and VERY angry grizzly bear.

    The bear’s scars/appearance and the fact that you cannot kill it have led some to believe this is the legendary bear in RDR1 “Brumas the Bear“. This location is also where you find the bear in the first game though it’s called “Bear Claw Camp” in RDR1 as opposed to just “Bear Claw” in RDR2.

    Sadie saves John from the Bear and it runs off. They get their target and turn him in to the Blackwater sheriff.

    View Full
  • dreamofstarlight
    17.05.2022 - 1 day ago

    Ted, Jackie, Jack, and Bobby visit University of Virginia, c. 1958

    #ted kennedy #edward m kennedy #emk#jackie kennedy #jacqueline bouvier kennedy #john f kennedy #jfk #robert f kennedy #rfk#bobby kennedy#kennedy family#the kennedys
    View Full
  • olm2589
    16.05.2022 - 1 day ago

    Supreme Court rules Senator Cruz in campaign finance case

    Supreme Court rules Senator Cruz in campaign finance case

    Washington (AFP) – A conservative majority in the Supreme Court sided Monday with Republican Senator Ted Cruz of Texas. It overturned a provision in the federal campaign finance law, one that an opposition judge said had the risk of causing “further abuse” of US policy. The court, by 6 to 3, said the ruling in which Cruz challenged limiting the repayment of personal loans from candidates to their…

    View On WordPress

    #2022 midterm elections #AP Top News #campaign finance#Campaigns#Congress#elections #government and politics #John Roberts#Ted Cruz #US Supreme Court
    View Full
  • auroraluciferi
    16.05.2022 - 1 day ago
    In a decision Monday that liberal Justice Elena Kagan warned will further corrupt the nation's money-dominated political system, the U.S. Supreme Court's right-wing majority struck down a campaign finance regulation limiting federal candidates' ability to use campaign funds to repay personal loans.
    "When they give money to repay the victor's loan, they know he will be in a position to perform official favors."
    Established by the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, the rule barred candidates from using more than $250,000 in campaign funds collected after an election to recoup their loans to their own campaign.
    The legal challenge to the cap was brought by Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas), who intentionally violated the $250,000 cap during his 2018 reelection bid in order to pursue a repeal of the limit, which he characterized as a violation of free speech.
    In her dissent, Kagan argued that the court's ruling will make even more common the kinds of "crooked exchanges" that have long sullied the U.S. political system, which is awash in money from corporations and ultra-wealthy individuals.
    "Political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets, given after his election to office, pose a special danger of corruption," Kagan argued, pointing to the issue of recouping personal loans. 
    "The candidate has a more-than-usual interest in obtaining the money (to replenish his personal finances), and is now in a position to give something in return. The donors well understand his situation, and are eager to take advantage of it. In short, everyone's incentives are stacked to enhance the risk of dirty dealing."
    Kagan went on to contend that quid pro quos—political favors carried out in exchange for money, in this case post-election donations—could become more rampant thanks to the Supreme Court's new ruling, which was authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, who helped orchestrate the high court's infamous Citizens United ruling and other attacks on campaign finance law.
    "Post-election donors can be confident their money will enrich a candidate personally," Kagan wrote. "And those donors have of course learned which candidate won.”
    When they give money to repay the victor's loan, they know—not merely hope—he will be in a position to perform official favors. 
    The recipe for quid pro quo corruption is thus in place: a donation to enhance the candidate's own wealth (the quid), made when he has become able to use the power of public office to the donor's advantage (the quo)."
    View Full
  • reddeadreference
    16.05.2022 - 1 day ago

    The Best of Women

    -Click here to return to the index page for Epilogue: Beecher’s Hope-

    After months of separation, Jack and Abigail finally arrive at the ranch.

    (This whole “mission” is just the cutscene)

    #rdr2 photo mode #rdr2 #red dead redemption 2 #John Marston#abigail roberts#jack marston#rdr2 epilogue
    View Full
  • dontmeantobepoliticalbut
    16.05.2022 - 1 day ago
    The Supreme Court on Monday ruled in favor of Republican Sen. Ted Cruz of Texas in a case involving the use of campaign funds to repay personal campaign loans, dealing the latest blow to campaign finance regulations.
    The Court said that a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after the election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign was unconstitutional.
    Chief Justice John Roberts wrote the 6-3 decision. Justice Elena Kagan wrote the dissent for her liberal colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
    "The question is whether this restriction violates the First Amendment rights of candidates and their campaigns to engage in political speech," Roberts wrote. He said there is "no doubt" that the law does burden First Amendment electoral speech. "Any such law must be at least justified by a permissible interest," he added, and the government had not been able to identify a single case of so-called "quid pro quo" corruption.
    Roberts concluded that the "provision burdens core political speech without proper justification."
    In her dissenting opinion, Kagan criticized the majority for ruling against a law that she said was meant to combat "a special danger of corruption" aimed at "political contributions that will line a candidate's own pockets."
    "In striking down the law today," she wrote, "the Court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop. . . . In allowing those payments to go forward unrestrained, today's decision can only bring this country's political system into further disrepute."
    Indeed, she explained, "Repaying a candidate's loan after he has won election cannot serve the usual purposes of a contribution: The money comes too late to aid in any of his campaign activities. All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor -- by a vote, a contract, an appointment. It takes no political genius to see the heightened risk of corruption -- the danger of 'I'll make you richer and you'll make me richer' arrangements between donors and officeholders."
    The ruling is a further erosion of a 20-year-old law that governs how elections are funded.
    The Supreme Court already has chipped away at the law, granting corporations and unions the right to spend unlimited amounts to influence candidate elections in its 2010 Citizens United decision.
    In 2008, the justices also struck down the so-called millionaire's amendment that aimed to level the playing field when wealthy candidates financed their own campaigns. That provision had relaxed contribution limits for opponents of self-funded candidates in an attempt to close the funding gap.
    In the case at hand, campaign finance regulators at the Federal Election Commission argued that the cap -- a part of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 -- is necessary to protect against corruption, but a three-judge appellate court ruled in favor of Cruz last year, holding that the loan-repayment restriction violates his First Amendment right to free speech.
    At oral arguments at the Supreme Court, the conservative justices seemed skeptical of the government's claims that the law serves a purpose of fighting corruption.
    Justice Amy Coney Barrett said that Cruz had emphasized that the after-election repayment scheme would simply replenish his coffers from money he had loaned. "This doesn't enrich him personally, because he's no better off than he was before," she said, adding, "It's paying a loan, not lining his pockets."
    And Justice Brett Kavanaugh said that a candidate may feel reluctant to loan money before the campaign out of fear he would not be able to recoup it. "That seems to be," he said, "a chill on your ability to loan your campaign money."
    Kavanaugh echoed a lower court opinion that went in favor of Cruz.
    "A candidate's loan to his campaign is an expenditure that may be used for expressive acts," the court said in an opinion written by DC Circuit Court of Appeals Judge Neomi Rao. She and DC District Court Judges Amit Mehta and Timothy Kelly ruled unanimously.
    "Such expressive acts are burdened when a candidate is inhibited from making a personal loan, or incurring one, out of concern that she will be left holding the bag on any unpaid campaign debt," the ruling added.
    Federal law allows candidate to make loans to their campaign committees without limit. The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002, however, imposes a $250,000 limit on a campaign committee's ability to repay those loans with money contributed by donors after the election.
    A day before he was reelected in 2018, Cruz loaned his campaign committee $260,000, $10,000 over the limit -- laying the foundation for his legal challenge to the cap. While he could have been repaid in full by campaign funds if the repayment occurred 20 days after the election. But Cruz let the 20-day deadline lapse so that he could establish grounds to bring the legal challenge.
    #us politics#news#cnn #us supreme court #scotus #sen. ted cruz #gop#Republicans#conservatives #campaign finance laws #misuse of campaign funds #campaign funding #chief justice john roberts #justice john roberts #Justice Elena Kagan #1st amendment#first amendment #Federal Election Commission #citizens united #Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 #justice amy coney barrett #justice brett kavanaugh #DC Circuit Court of Appeals #DC District Court #2022
    View Full
  • groovy-rockstars
    16.05.2022 - 1 day ago

    Robert and Jimmy from Led Zeppelin’s live performance in Denmark, 1969.

    View Full
  • jonesyjonesyjonesy
    16.05.2022 - 1 day ago

    weird little freaks

    View Full
  • audiemurphy1945
    16.05.2022 - 1 day ago

    Guns at Batasi (1964)

    View Full