Corporations and Campaign Finance

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Honest people can disagree over the interpretation of the Constitution. But whatever else last week's ruling was, it was not judicial activism.

If it isn't in the Constitution, and the Court found that it was, isn't that exactly the definition of judicial activism you have offered in the past?

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

so all of these interpretations would hold that a newspaper owned by a corporation does not have first amendment rights?

What if the corporation is only owned by one person and has only one employee (the owner)?

These interpretations would hold that individuals have free speech, but groups of people do not? Or only groups designated as corporations? If such a designation, why?

I have a hard time buying that groups of people don't have free speech rights.

Perhaps. They could hold that media corporations should but not other corporations. Or they could hold that the individuals who publish for a newspaper have First Amendment rights which are protected and therefore there isn't a need to protect the "newspaper" itself. Protection of the individual who works for the newspaper is sufficient.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Perhaps. They could hold that media corporations should but not other corporations. Or they could hold that the individuals who publish for a newspaper have First Amendment rights which are protected and therefore there isn't a need to protect the "newspaper" itself. Protection of the individual who works for the newspaper is sufficient.

Could you imagine a newspaper not being able to protect itself in civil suits by being able to say that they have free speech rights?

It makes no sense that two individuals each have free speech, but when they speak together, they do not.

Yet, essentially that is the liberal argument.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Could you imagine a newspaper not being able to protect itself in civil suits by being able to say that they have free speech rights?

It makes no sense that two individuals each have free speech, but when they speak together, they do not.

Yet, essentially that is the liberal argument.

No, that is the originalist argument.

Whether a newspaper can defend itself in a civil suit has nothing to do with whether it has First Amendment rights or whether for the purposes of the Constitution it is a person. It can be a "person" by statute and not for purposes of the Constitution.

[MikeWaters]

that's what the liberal on NPR said. Media companies only have free speech rights as long as Congress designates it so. They are not protected by the Bill of Rights.

In his view, if Congress wanted to prohibit the NRA from any kind of speech, it would be within Congress's purview. He didn't say this specifically, but it certainly is implied by his argument.

Screw that.

[MikeWaters]

I was listening to the Diane Rhem show, and again there was a democrat who was on his soapbox asking where all the conservative pundits are condemning the campaign finance decision as judicial activism. He said that the court, and all conservatives who don't condemn it are hypocrites.

I said "ok, let me hear the argument." There was none. That was where the argument ended.

It surprises me that so many intelligent, educated people gravitate to this kind of thinking. Liberalism. It's such weak sauce, it's like soaking your steak in bath water.

[MikeWaters]

I was listening to the Diane Rhem show, and again there was a democrat who was on his soapbox asking where all the conservative pundits are condemning the campaign finance decision as judicial activism. He said that the court, and all conservatives who don't condemn it are hypocrites.

I said "ok, let me hear the argument." There was none. That was where the argument ended.

It surprises me that so many intelligent, educated people gravitate to this kind of thinking. Liberalism. It's such weak sauce, it's like soaking your steak in bath water.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

I was listening to the Diane Rhem show, and again there was a democrat who was on his soapbox asking where all the conservative pundits are condemning the campaign finance decision as judicial activism. He said that the court, and all conservatives who don't condemn it are hypocrites.

I said "ok, let me hear the argument." There was none. That was where the argument ended.

It surprises me that so many intelligent, educated people gravitate to this kind of thinking. Liberalism. It's such weak sauce, it's like soaking your steak in bath water.

Liberals think the definition of judicial activism is "overturning our favorite precedents." They even coined a new term for it during the Roberts hearing: "super-precedent." What the heck is a "super" precedent?