Reply With Quote
Modern times...
Can you even hear yourself....do you know how cheesy that sounds?
Modern times...
Immature minds require cheesy replies, otherwise they go over one's head.
You answered the question. We'll never know if they don't have any recourse.
Like upholding the challenge to the faciality of law Citizens United never made. Or extending relief to for-profit corporations and unions who were not parties in the case, and had demonstrated no harm. To say nothing of the (not improper but)very unusual decison to take the case up again. There is a political trend, reflected by the new majority.
(Does the Supreme Court usually make the case for the appellants in this way? Posing and answering questions on their behalf?)
To be sure, Mr. Justice Stevens hangs a lot on the confusion about the legal personality of corporations, on which the SC decision itself does not really turn, but popular sentiment does.
The Berkeley quotation at page 85 of Stevens's dissent is applicable to both sides IMO.
Last edited by Winehole23; 02-04-2010 at 01:10 AM. Reason: v... H/T, speaks Russian, in French
What poses as principle is sometimes just the lingering aftereffect of a political majority.
I guess it was inevitable that the Cons ution would be interpreted by the SC as protecting the natural rights of the Fortune 500.
Free speech has very wide skirts, apparently.
Legal fads and novelties swiftly acquire the dignity of custom when they are endorsed by the Supreme Court of the United States.
And, the public is gullible enough to believe that the Bill of Rights was written for Wal-Mart.
It is as if free speech never existed before. Lol.
Zero restraint of corporate speech, even within 30 days of an election. Laws in 24 states may be threatened.
Isn't the Federalist Society sentimental about the power of the states anymore?
Rofl!
We can't limit the power to vote for public officials to human beings, because that would chill voting rights...
Proleptic. Subjunctive case. That's a fear, I guess.
Isn't it enough that they already hold the marionette strings, now they want to direct the play themselves
, something like that?
This decision could roll up 100 years of legal landscape.
Where might it end?
Of course, silly me, I thought business organizations were formed to engage in business, and the state conferred limited liability protection on the ownership of those that incorporated.
Since the SC is in such an expansive, liberty granting mood, perhaps it can extend limited liability to all...
Waiting for mobastiato to show up.
Concession theory is apparently rendered passe' by this decision, but I am not so sure "natural rights", let alone personhood, have been conferred by it. We'll see.
Last edited by Winehole23; 01-26-2010 at 03:32 PM.
The one thing I will grant the SC is that they were ruling on a ty law.
The majority decided that it was not possible to discern political speech made by an individual versus that made by a synthetic, state chartered en y. Yes, "conservatives" used to hate and dump on governmental stupidity such as this.
So much for "conservatism" as upholding tradition or stare decisis.
Digs the prosonomasia.
Winning, after all, is much more important than moldly old judge-made principle. The majority was aggressive, needlessly so, I thought, since in my estimate they were the narrow winner on the merits. It was a close case.
If you don't confer free speech rights on a legal en y, then wars will follow.
Citizens United is a not for profit educational org, right?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions