01-22-2010, 03:05 AM | #1 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Supreme Court rules corporate contributions can't be limited
Originalists everywhere cheer the decision. You know- because the founders believed that "individual" meant "corporation," and "speech" meant "campaign contribution."
Perhaps the decision can be legally defended- but it most definitely can't be on the grounds of originalism. Not that Scalia or Thomas actually care. They are, and always have been, results oriented rather than principled. |
01-22-2010, 03:23 AM | #2 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
I think ones reaction to this depends on whether one feels that the electorate, the citizens of America, as it were, are stupid or not.
I'm kinda undecided. Because I believe if the electorate is stupid, lazy, and uneducated, this country will fail. And it's not like there is zero evidence that this is the case. |
01-22-2010, 03:45 PM | #3 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: The Bluth Home
Posts: 3,877
|
Quote:
Also, whatever the founders may have thought, SCOTUS has held many times over many years that speech protections apply to corporations, associations and other collections of human beings. Austin and McConnell are the departures from precedent there, not this case.
__________________
The Bible tells us how to go to heaven, not how the heavens go. -Galileo |
|
01-22-2010, 03:56 PM | #4 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
01-22-2010, 04:35 PM | #5 |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
I'm sure Cali's baiting me, but I'll bite anyway.
I haven't read the opinions yet (though I cheer the decision, based on what I've heard), but the originalism dig by Cali is a complete red herring. As if Thomas or Scalia ever claimed that all decisions they make are originalist. Scalia has in fact said the exact opposite. The results-oriented dig is also complete nonsense. I've heard Scalia speak a number of times of cases where his originalist approach has led him to a decision that he personally disagrees with. "Results-oriented" is the short definition of "judicial activist," and the ideological side most guilty of that is the Left. Cf. Current Prop 8 challenge in federal court.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young Last edited by Tex; 01-22-2010 at 04:37 PM. |
01-22-2010, 04:57 PM | #6 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
Could it be that originalism isn't, and never has been, and never can be, the anchor you want it to be? Forgive me if I chuckle a bit that Scalia's statement that he isn't results oriented is conclusive proof that he isn't results oriented. Last edited by Cali Coug; 01-22-2010 at 05:04 PM. |
|
01-22-2010, 06:59 PM | #7 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
For your benefit, here is what Scalia said to Peter Robinson less than a year ago (which I posted on this site at the time): Quote:
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
||
01-22-2010, 07:19 PM | #8 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,996
|
Quote:
|
|
01-22-2010, 07:24 PM | #9 |
Demiurge
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 36,367
|
what's the counter argument? That congress has the ability to restrict corporate and union funded speech in any way it sees fit?
Only an individual alone has the unrestricted right to free speech? |
01-22-2010, 08:10 PM | #10 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 8,596
|
Quote:
Although technically I'm not an originalist, or anything else. I'm just a computer programmer who is a complete legal layman. But I like what I read about it. Sort of reminds me of the 5-4 Heller ruling a while back when DC tried to parse the "right to bear arms". Only then, they were trying to say that it didn't apply to individuals, but only militias. Judicial activists mold the constitution to fit whatever it is they're trying to do.
__________________
"Have we been commanded not to call a prophet an insular racist? Link?" "And yes, [2010] is a very good year to be a Democrat. Perhaps the best year in decades ..." - Cali Coug "Oh dear, granny, what a long tail our puss has got." - Brigham Young |
|
Bookmarks |
|
|