-
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?
