-
Reckless Judicial Activism
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724.html?hpid=topnews]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724.html?hpid=topnews[/link]
So much for precedent, so much for the American people. Perhaps we can have a Pepsi logo on the court now (free speech and all).
Brought to you by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy: “we don’t just interpret the laws, we make them” -
42 Replies
-
ORIGINAL: Thor
[link=http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724.html?hpid=topnews]http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/21/AR2010012101724.html?hpid=topnews[/link]
So much for precedent, so much for the American people. Perhaps we can have a Pepsi logo on the court now (free speech and all).
Brought to you by Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Scalia and Kennedy: “we don’t just interpret the laws, we make them”
One of the issues is that the Constitution enumerates specific powers delegated to Congress, none of which is the abrogation of free speech by individuals or corporate entities. If this is a major issue then Congress and the states should take it up and amend the constitution. I have mixed feelings, but honestly would rather Congress have less power and states and private sector more. States in particular should (and probably do) have the right to regulate this sort of thing. Why do we look to the federal government to do everything?
-
Where in the Constitution is the right of corporate speech?
Given the issue is with Congressional and Presidential elections why isn’t this a federal issue?-
That is clearly in the realm of interpretation of the 1st amendment and the enumerated powers of Congress in articles 2, section 8&9. The slippery slope is under-interpretation vs over-interpretation. The major concern is that government’s goal is to continually expand its own power at the expense of the citizenry. Likewise, Congress over the states and the other branches of the federal government.
-
But the sponsorship names could be pretty cool do sound pretty cool…
The Pepsi Supreme Court
The Exxon Capitol Building
The Trial Lawyers Association of America White House
The American Board of Radiology restroom stall in a West Virginia VA hospital….not a bad way to spend our dues!-
ORIGINAL: Xpert
But the sponsorship names could be pretty cool do sound pretty cool…
The Pepsi Supreme Court
The Exxon Capitol Building
The Trial Lawyers Association of America White House
The American Board of Radiology restroom stall in a West Virginia VA hospital….not a bad way to spend our dues!
LOL
-
-
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It comes down to whether or not you believe that speech is an equal or unequal right. Does more money mean you get more rights to speech? In essence the court has found a right to paid speech. I don’t care if a CEO wants to stand in front of the WH with a bullhorn, but what it comes down to now is that through money individual speech can be suppressed if we continue down this road
Yes there is a slippery slope, but what the courts have in essentially codified a means for the will of the people to be subverted by large corporations.-
Striking down laws passed following the established process with bipartisan support is only judicial activism if the other side does it 😉
The only non-human entities that receive specific constitutional protections are the press and religious institutions.
Luckily, this will cut both ways. Maybe some of the evangelical organizations actually read their bible and make social justice and environmental conservation their issue. For every GE ad extolling the virtues of nuclear waste, you could seee three ads appealing to their bases social conscience.
Some of the campaign finance regulations had turned into a joke, particularly as they could be circumvented so easily though the various ‘citizens for thisandthat, inc’ entities. So in the end, this ruling is not going to really change anything.
-
Next up: Corporate marriage. If corporations are persons with a right to free speech, they should have the right to marry, right ?
-
You’re probably right. The only thing that will change will be the names at the bottom of the TV screen at the end of these awful ads from both sides that only contain half-truths and stuff taken out of context that could only be believed by someone with half a mind. Unfortunately this description fits a large portion of the electorate on both sides of the idealogical spectrum.
-
-
ORIGINAL: Thor
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
It comes down to whether or not you believe that speech is an equal or unequal right. Does more money mean you get more rights to speech? In essence the court has found a right to paid speech. I don’t care if a CEO wants to stand in front of the WH with a bullhorn, but what it comes down to now is that through money individual speech can be suppressed if we continue down this road
Yes there is a slippery slope, but what the courts have in essentially codified a means for the will of the people to be subverted by large corporations.
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
The decision is interesting. I agree with their premise. The idea that the government decides who and what can speak, and then establishes criminal penalties for improper speech is hard to swallow. The 1st amendment is very clear that this is not one of Congress’ enumerated powers.
-
-
-
-
-
I suppose it is OK for George Soros and the unions to contribute heavily to Obama? The way Obama has destroyed the economy there is not enough money at Pepsi to sponsor anything, even the Super Bowl.
-
ORIGINAL: Point Man
I suppose it is OK for George Soros and the unions to contribute heavily to Obama? The way Obama has destroyed the economy there is not enough money at Pepsi to sponsor anything, even the Super Bowl.
Or Scalia’s point about newspapers… owned by corporations. The dissent’s opinion is that newspaper speech is not constitutionally protected, only legal because Congress allows it.
Robert’s point about equalization — really the goal of Austin. Instead of equalizing society by helping one class of speakers speak more, it seeks to equalize by limiting the speech of another group of speakers, and that is the danger.
-
Unions have been circumventing the Mccain-Feingold law for years. Of the 8 largest contributors to national candidates last year-7 of them were unions, and the other was the American Trial Lawyers Association. Sense of trend here?! Or are liberals with false cries today going to bury their head in the sand about this one. By the response today, it seems that it is the latter. One has to be a hypocrite to say it is okay for unions to contribute so heavily but not public corporations-they’re bad. Also with the advent of 527s, the rise of opinion television, and the increasing power of Drudge/Huffington/political blogs-all since Mccain-Feingold was inacted in 2002-has made the law obsolete in fulfilling its purpose to prevent indentured wealth (assumption that it is from the right, however Soros and even Gates proves otherwise) or power (left-unions, NARAL) from influencing public elections.
-
And lets keep in mind that the OTHER big winner in today’s decision is unions. The spending and disclosure limits that were thrown out today applied to them as well as corporations. And for those of you screaming about today’s decision, you may want to take a look at the strategy employed by Elena Kagan, Obama’s Solicitor General who crafted the Government’s defense. Chief Justice Roberts dissects her incongruous arguments in his opinion, basically concluding that if her reasoning were followed to its logical conclusion, then large parts of the Buckley decision, upon which McCain-Feingold was predicated, would have to be thrown out.
http://bench.nationalreview.com/post/?q=NzA5ZjRiMTNkYzU3NzMxYTdiZGY0ZTEwMWE1YzU0NWE=
-
ORIGINAL: RVU
Unions have been circumventing the Mccain-Feingold law for years. Of the 8 largest contributors to national candidates last year-7 of them were unions, and the other was the American Trial Lawyers Association. Sense of trend here?! Or are liberals with false cries today going to bury their head in the sand about this one. By the response today, it seems that it is the latter. One has to be a hypocrite to say it is okay for unions to contribute so heavily but not public corporations-they’re bad. Also with the advent of 527s, the rise of opinion television, and the increasing power of Drudge/Huffington/political blogs-all since Mccain-Feingold was inacted in 2002-has made the law obsolete in fulfilling its purpose to prevent indentured wealth (assumption that it is from the right, however Soros and even Gates proves otherwise) or power (left-unions, NARAL) from influencing public elections.
I think you are right. The law was ineffective. By allowing it to stand, all it did was set precedent that the government could stifle free speech. And ultimately all that does is whittle away individual rights.
-
I can’t wait for Google to start modifying searches and content to benefit their preferred “liberal” politicians. It is all just “speech”, right?
-
Exactly what free speech is being stifled? Corporaions were free to set up voluntary PACS; now they can use corporate profits to manipulate elections.
I am sure the court will now find illegal the penalties for citizens supporting terrorists since all they are doing is exercising free speech through money (or not since it does serve the Repub agenda)
I guess our congressman can now look like NASCAR vehicles-
At a time when expanding government continues to encroach on the people’s rights, it is refreshing to have the Supreme Court check Congressional encroachment on freedom of speech. Here’s an analysis supportive of the SCOTUS decision :
http://volokh.com/2010/01/21/lessened-corporate-first-amendment-rights-and-media-corporations/
[i]”Justice Stevens dissent in Citizens United argues that corporations should have sharply reduced First Amendment rights, at least when it comes to speech about political candidates. The obvious response, which the majority makes at length, is that this would leave the government free to impose similar restraints on newspapers, magazines, broadcasters, and others, since nearly all of them are organized as corporations as well. (Congress has so far exempted most media corporations from these restrictions; but the argument that corporations have reduced First Amendment rights would suggest that these exemptions are just a matter of legislative grace, and that Congress could restrict media corporations if it wanted.) …
Nor is it enough to say that the press gets special protection under the First Amendment. The question still remains who qualifies as the press for full constitutional protection. If the argument is that the speech of corporations doesnt fully qualify as part of the freedom of speech, because it comes from corporations, why should the use of the press by corporations fully qualify as part of the freedom … of the press[/i]
Congress cannot, and should not have the right to legislate who is covered by the bill of rights and who is not covered based on their own fickle perceptions of a group’s contribution to society or a group’s ability to affect their campaign. This is a slippery slope.
-
Foreign owned corporations (Chinese, European) will be able to give millions of dollars to candidates who promise to vote favorably for the foreign country, or fund attack ads on their enemies. I mean, it is just “speech”, right?
-
-
ORIGINAL: Thor
Exactly what free speech is being stifled? Corporaions were free to set up voluntary PACS; now they can use corporate profits to manipulate elections.
I am sure the court will now find illegal the penalties for citizens supporting terrorists since all they are doing is exercising free speech through money (or not since it does serve the Repub agenda)
I guess our congressman can now look like NASCAR vehicles
By letting the previous precedent stand, SCOTUS was acknowledging that newspapers have the “right” to print political speech only at the whim of Congress, not on 1st Amendment grounds. The 1st Amendment really seems to indicate that Congress just has no legislative authority to make any law that directly or indirectly free speech by anyone or anything, citizen or not. Maybe Congress would be better off taking care of their enumerated legislative responsibilities instead.
-
For those of you like myself scream about special interests on both sides, you have to feel worse. You can wrap this in the 1st all you want, but this was apolitical decision. If not then why had two courts already ruled on the opposite. That includes a less than liberal court in 2003. This is conservative judicial activism plain and simple. I also doubt seriously that our founding fathers had in mind that every corporation, union, group, etc was an individual with individual rights. The Bill of Rights was aimed at protecting individuals not companies, unions, etc.
If you are opposed to abortion then you would have to have a rather perverse sense of logic to rule companies have rights under the constitution but women don’t.
-
ORIGINAL: Raddocmed
For those of you like myself scream about special interests on both sides, you have to feel worse. You can wrap this in the 1st all you want, but this was apolitical decision. If not then why had two courts already ruled on the opposite. That includes a less than liberal court in 2003. This is conservative judicial activism plain and simple. I also doubt seriously that our founding fathers had in mind that every corporation, union, group, etc was an individual with individual rights. The Bill of Rights was aimed at protecting individuals not companies, unions, etc.
If you are opposed to abortion then you would have to have a rather perverse sense of logic to rule companies have rights under the constitution but women don’t.
Of course its “conservative judicial activism, plain and simple”, Raddocmed, because you say it is. I’m sure any SCOTUS decision that went against your omniscient understanding would be. Funny you mention abortion and the rights of women, a favorite stalking horse of the left. I’m inclined to agree with this direct comparison of Roe and Citizens United…
“So, can one endorse Citizens United (as I do) while criticizing (as I do) Roe v. Wade? Sure. (“Do you believe in infant baptism?” “Of course, I’ve seen it done.”) What’s wrong with Roe besides the fact that it constitutionalized an ersatz right to cause the death of another, vulnerable human being is that it (for the most part) removed by judicial decision from the arena of political debate a crucial and controverted moral question. Roe distorted, and short-circuited political dialogue, discussion, and even compromise.
Now, seen from the critics’ perspective, Citizens United probably does the same thing, in that it tells those who (mistakenly) think that discomfort with the tone of election-related speech provides a justification for regulating or silencing that speech that the First Amendment does not permit them to write their squeamishness into law. The case is better understood, though, as a vindication of political freedom: In a free society, politics is messy. Roe was an attempt, but a dramatic failure, to tidy up politics by telling the pro-life side, in the name of the Constitution, to be quiet and go home. Citizens United, by contrast, tells those whose lives are made easier by laws that censor their critics, “listen!”, and tells the rest of us, “speak up!””
Richard Garnett, NRO, Bench Memos Blog, 21 january, 2010
-
-
-
-
ORIGINAL: nobody2008
I can’t wait for Google to start modifying searches and content to benefit their preferred “liberal” politicians. It is all just “speech”, right?
Google is obviously already doing this.
But so what?.. If i don’t like google I can always go elsewhere. Bing! seems to be a good alternative so far.-
The botom line is we will have the best representatives that money can buy. It is interesting that this same court ruled that a company couldn’t contribute to campaign of judge, but can a Senator or Congressman. If you feel that money causes either actual or perceived problems, why is OK for one election but another. At least the Brethren should be consistent. Also so much of both Alioto and Robert’s testimony that they respected president. This same isssue had been ruled on twice before already. Also they weren’t even asked to rule on this issue. They took it upon themselves to expand the challenge. I don’t care how you couch that, it is judicial activism. It is just conservative vs liberal activism.
-
ORIGINAL: Raddocmed
The botom line is we will have the best representatives that money can buy. It is interesting that this same court ruled that a company couldn’t contribute to campaign of judge, but can a Senator or Congressman. If you feel that money causes either actual or perceived problems, why is OK for one election but another. At least the Brethren should be consistent. Also so much of both Alioto and Robert’s testimony that they respected president. This same isssue had been ruled on twice before already. Also they weren’t even asked to rule on this issue. They took it upon themselves to expand the challenge. I don’t care how you couch that, it is judicial activism. It is just conservative vs liberal activism.
I’m no SCOTUS scholar, but there are a couple of things that don’t fit here, Raddocmed. Firstly, corporations have been barred for decades from contributing to any candidates directly from their treasuries. Secondly, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have the same rights as living persons in 1886! (Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific RR Co.). How’s that stare decis working out for you now? Thirdly, it appears that Solicitor Gen Kagan opened the door for what you call “expanding the challenge” with her inconsistent arguments which called into question prior precedents. The issue is obviously more complicated than either you or I or just about anyone else understands. If you insist on reducing it to political talking points, you can join Chuck Shumer at the hearings he intends to hold on the matter. What do you think the chances are that he grills Solcitor Gen Kagan at an open hearing about her flawed defense of precedent?
-
It won’t change much. As long as there are disclosure rules, the people will be able to make up their own mind how how much value to put on the messages.
I don’t see the major corps getting into dirt campaigns. With the country being evenly split between political allegiances, they run a risk of incurring negative PR with 49-51% of their customer base.
So I don’t think we will see:
‘Candidate Miller kills puppies’ (GE Healthcare)
We may see:
‘Candidate Miller opposes appropriate medicare financing for the CT and MRI scans your doctor orders. Please take this under consideration when you cast your vote.’ (GE Healthcare)
And I would be fine with that.
If this decision serves to reduce the influence of those anonymous 527 straw-man groups that do the real smear jobs, something could actually be gained from it.
We already have the best congress money can buy.
-
[link=http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html]http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html[/link]
Yes it does (well sort of). The decision also means that corporations as people owned by other people are technically slaves, something prohibited by the 13 th Amendment.
Most importantly the case does not invlve the legal argument of the case for corporations and “persons”. It is a legal precedent (if you can call it that) established by a single person summarizing undocumented opinions.-
[b]The decision also means that corporations as people owned by other people are technically slaves, something prohibited by the 13 th Amendment.
[/b]Hah! Good one Thor. I still don’t understand the connection between the 1st Amendment right to pay for tv ads, and monetary donations to campaigns. Seems like a stretch. I mean, one is clearly expression of viewpoint, the other is pretty clearly just buying votes, or tinkering with the electoral system to be pc — what does that have to do with speech?
-
ORIGINAL: Thor
[link=http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html]http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html[/link]
Yes it does (well sort of). The decision also means that corporations as people owned by other people are technically slaves, something prohibited by the 13 th Amendment.
Most importantly the case does not invlve the legal argument of the case for corporations and “persons”. It is a legal precedent (if you can call it that) established by a single person summarizing undocumented opinions.
One would think that this legal precedent would have been challenged forcefully by any number of Progressive or New Deal era plaintiffs, eager to wipe the stain of “personhood” from the idea of corporations, and thus gain influence. I am not aware of that happening, but readily acknowledge that it may have. In any event, this “precedent” is now 124 years old, and has been upheld by other Courts over that time.
I like this thumbnail summary of the recent decision, from the Chief Justices opinion:
“The Government urges us in this case to uphold a direct prohibition on political speech. It asks us to embrace a theory of the First Amendment that would allow censorship not only of television and radio broadcasts, but of pamphlets, posters, the Internet, and virtually any other medium that corporations and unions might find useful in expressing their views on matters of public concern. Its theory, if accepted, would empower the Government to prohibit newspapers from running editorials or opinion pieces supporting or opposing candidates for office, so long as the newspapers were owned by corporationsas the major ones are.”
Which makes me wonder what all the fuss is about, anyway. As we speak, the Government owns or controls GM and Chrysler. The Government owns stock and/or warrants in Bank of America and other financial institutions. The Government is tying corporations to the whipping post. Either overtly or covertly, if things keep going this way, the Government will be able to direct the “free expression” that yesterday’s decision granted to corporations. You on the left will have your control, one way or the other.
-
ORIGINAL: Thor
[link=http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html]http://www.ratical.org/corporations/SCvSPR1886.html[/link]
Yes it does (well sort of). The decision also means that corporations as people owned by other people are technically slaves, something prohibited by the 13 th Amendment.
Most importantly the case does not invlve the legal argument of the case for corporations and “persons”. It is a legal precedent (if you can call it that) established by a single person summarizing undocumented opinions.
I’m not sure why you guys are all hung up about corporations, legal status, citizenship, etc. The ruling has little to do with any of that.
Speech is the focus of the 1st amendment, not the speaker. The speaker is irrelevant. Free speech may not be infringed, period. The 1st amendment applies to any individual speaker, including citizens, resident aliens, an foreign nationals. It also applies to non-profit and for-profit corporations, religious organizations (many of whom are corporations), and the press (many of whom represent corporations).
Another way of looking at this is that the 1st amendment delineates an important type of legislative authority that is denied to Congress. It doesn’t matter who the speaker is or what the speaker is saying, the issue is that Congress does not have the right to censor or filter speech in any way. It is a power that the Constitution specifically does not grant to Congress.
-
Bravo, el Jefe!!
-
-
-
-
ORIGINAL: Hero of Reason
ORIGINAL: nobody2008
I can’t wait for Google to start modifying searches and content to benefit their preferred “liberal” politicians. It is all just “speech”, right?
Google is obviously already doing this.
But so what?.. If i don’t like google I can always go elsewhere. Bing! seems to be a good alternative so far.
proof?
-
Sometimes the Supreme court gets it right–> case “The Amistad”
and sometimes it gets it wrong–>’Dred Scott vs. Sandford”/ Prigg vs. Pennsylvania/ Ableman vs Boothit took 300 years to abolish slavery–Obama can’t change the world in 1 year—we are all human anjd no one is perfect
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[i]Politico[/i] –[url=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/revenge-of-citizens-united-120115.html#ixzz3fy2YfSm8]Revenge of Citizens United:[/url] [b]Concerns are mounting that huge checks in the GOP primary will hurt the party’s chances of taking the White House.[/b]
Long-shot candidates propped up by super PACs and other big-money groups will be able to linger for months throwing damaging barbs at establishment favorites who offer a better chance of victory, the thinking goes. Already, big-money groups have raised about $86 million to support a handful of second- and third-tier candidates Govs. Chris Christie of New Jersey and John Kasich of Ohio, Texas Sen. Ted Cruz, former CEO Carly Fiorina and former Govs. Rick Perry of Texas and Mike Huckabee of Arkansas. In some cases, the lions share came from a handful of ultra-wealthy partisans, including a pair of Dallas billionaires who combined to give $11 million to a pro-Perry super PAC and a handful of donors who accounted for the majority of the $37 million reportedly raised by a pro-Cruz super PAC.
The degree to which various candidates in the massive 15-candidate GOP field rely on super PAC crutches will start becoming apparent by midnight Wednesday the deadline for most of the candidates to file campaign-finance reports with the Federal Election Commission. But the more illuminating deadline will come at the end of July when super PAC disclosures detailing seven- and eight-figure checks from mega-donors are due to the FEC.
party leaders hands are tied when it comes to limiting the ability of mega-donors to subsidize fringe campaigns, including by attacking more viable rivals. And conditions appear ripe for super PACs to make the 2012 GOP primary the first of the [i]Citizens United[/i] era look like childs play by comparison.
-
Americans may not agree on much. They certainly don’t agree on most Supreme Court rulings.
But one place where they do….
[b]Campaign Finance[/b]
[link=http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-09-28/bloomberg-poll-americans-want-supreme-court-to-turn-off-political-spending-spigot]Bloomberg Poll:
[b]Bloomberg Poll: Americans Want Supreme Court to Turn Off Political Spending Spigot[/b][/link]
In a new Bloomberg Politics national poll, 78 percent of those responding said the Citizens United ruling should be overturned, compared with 17 percent who called it a good decision.
Unhappiness with the 2010 decision cuts across demographic and partisan and ideological lines. Although the ruling was fashioned by the courts conservative majority, Republicans oppose Citizens United 80 percent to 18 percent, according to the poll. Democrats oppose 83 percent to 13 percent, and independents, 71 percent to 22 percent. Among self-described liberals, conservatives, and moderates, 80 percent say the decision should be overturned.
{T}he poll indicates deep suspicion of a campaign finance system seen as giving outsize influence to the wealthy. Asked whether the system should be reformed so that a rich person doesnt have more influence than a person without money, 87 percent said yes and only 12 percent said no.
[b]
[/b] -
Politico: [url=http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/congress-campaign-finance-cash-rider-216220#ixzz3shzthzWv]GOP rider would boost party spending: Mitch McConnell plans to slip campaign cash rider in omnibus spending bill.[/url]
Senate Republicans plan to insert a provision into a must-pass government funding bill that would vastly expand the amount of cash that political parties could spend on candidates, multiple sources tell POLITICO. The provision, which sources say is one of a few campaign-finance related riders being discussed in closed-door negotiations over a $1.15 trillion omnibus spending package, would eliminate caps on the amount of cash that parties may spend in coordination with their candidates.
Pushed by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, a longtime foe of campaign finance restrictions, the coordination rider represents the latest threat to the increasingly rickety set of rules created to restrict political fundraising and spending on elections.
Campaign finance watchdogs argue that it would allow wealthy donors to exercise even more influence with members of Congress. And they cried foul over the possibility that the provision could be slipped into the omnibus spending bill that Congress is working to pass before a Dec. 11 deadline to avoid a government shutdown. Other campaign-finance provisions being discussed during the omnibus negotiations include GOP-backed efforts to block the Internal Revenue Service and the Securities and Exchange Commission from enacting additional regulations and disclosure requirements on politically active nonprofit groups, sources say.
-
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2016/01/20/us/president-obama-may-require-federal-contractors-to-list-campaign-gifts.html?smid=tw-share&_r=0]Obama said to be considering executive order on Campign Finance[/url]
President Obama is seriously considering an executive order that would require companies doing business with the federal government to disclose their political contributions, White House officials said on Tuesday, a step long awaited by activists to reduce the influence of secretive corporate donations in elections.
The directive, known as the dark money executive order, would mandate that government contractors publicly report their contributions to groups that spend money to influence campaigns. Advocates inside and outside the White House believe the executive order would prompt some companies to spend less, by exposing their donations to public scrutiny.
Mr. Obama has been considering the action for more than a year, but discussions have intensified in recent weeks, according to activists and administration officials, as the president moves to deliver on unfulfilled promises in his final year in office.
-
Roberts worried that the public “mistakenly” believes the Supremes are not political. His opinion is the Court just reads what’s there.
And I believe in the tooth fairy too so that make us even.
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/the-political-wars-damage-public-perception-of-supreme-court-chief-justice-roberts-says/2016/02/04/80e718b6-cb0c-11e5-a7b2-5a2f824b02c9_story.html]https://www.washingtonpos…a2f824b02c9_story.html[/link]
Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. said late Wednesday that partisan extremism is damaging the publics perception of the role of the Supreme Court, recasting the justices as players in the political process rather than its referees.
In fact, our ruling is that whoever [i]does[/i] get to decide this or that is allowed to do it, and that its not unconstitutional, that its consistent with the law. But [i]we[/i] often have no policy views on the matter at all. and thats an important distinction.
The court is under heavy criticism from all sides in the presidential campaigns, with Republican Donald Trump suggesting he would appoint justices who would overturn the courts 5 to 4 decision saying gay couples have a constitutional right to marry, and Democrats Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders making a rejection of the courts [i]Citizen United [/i]campaign finance decision a litmus test for their potential nominees.
-
They complain about the same Roberts who was a judicial activist FOR Obamacare in that last decision.
Activism is disregarding the Constitution. That decision, and so many others, are the hallmark of modern progressive ethos. There are very few examples where progressives defer to the Constitution, the fact is, they are the innovators. [b]That[/b] is activism.-
[b]Justices Strike Down Disclosure Laws for Political Donors[/b][/h1]
The Supreme Court on Thursday [link=https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/20pdf/19-251_p86b.pdf]struck down[/link] a California law that required nonprofits to hand over a list of their biggest donors.
[link=https://www.axios.com/supreme-court-political-donors-california-709684f8-7374-449d-a02d-275f3f150339.html]Axios[/link]: In a 6-3 ruling authored by Chief Justice John Roberts, the court said California had subjected donors to the threat of public harassment and intimidation, undermining their First Amendment right to free association.-
Striking down Voting Rights, the Supremes show their party loyalty.
So much for Roberts’ calling “Balls and Strikes” as an impartial umpire. So much for “originalist” reading of laws when the original language of the Voting Rights laws directly contradicts Alito’s written rationalization that the other 5 “Republican” judges support.
The “originalist” language the Court seems to understand is Old Major’s” quote:
“All animals are equal but some are more equal than others.”
The Old Majors in the Court will support Republican legislatures to determine and ensure who is more equal than whom.-
For those who don’t know the text:
[/h3]§10301. Denial or abridgement of right to vote on account of race or color through voting qualifications or prerequisites; establishment of violation[/h3]
(a) No voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard, practice, or procedure shall be imposed or applied by any State or political subdivision in a manner which results in a denial or abridgement of the right of any citizen of the United States to vote on account of race or color, or in contravention of the guarantees set forth in section 10303(f)(2) of this title, as provided in subsection (b).(b) A violation of subsection (a) is established if, based on the totality of circumstances, it is shown that the political processes leading to nomination or election in the State or political subdivision are not equally open to participation by members of a class of citizens protected by subsection (a) in that its members have less opportunity than other members of the electorate to participate in the political process and to elect representatives of their choice. The extent to which members of a protected class have been elected to office in the State or political subdivision is one circumstance which may be considered: [i]Provided[/i], That nothing in this section establishes a right to have members of a protected class elected in numbers equal to their proportion in the population.
If any Conservatives dispute the meaning or intent of the Court’s decision, just recall the Red states who are so concerned with elections, they are passing laws that would allow Republican legislatures to overturn voting results they do not like and election boards who do not agree to overturn results to a result more favorable to the Republican legislatures’ wishes.
-
-
-
-
