OK, late again, but hey - a couple thoughts on the Supremes and Free Speech
From Cornell University Law School:
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.
What part of NO do these Progressives just not want to understand? They are the perfect example why the act of spanking should be applied to adults (and not under the circumstances that are flashing through some of your heads); it certainly got missed when they were children....
This from Obama was jar-dropping:
“This ruling strikes at our democracy itself,” Obama said. “This ruling opens the floodgates for an unlimited amount of special interest money into our democracy. It gives the special interest lobbyists new leverage to spend millions on advertising to persuade elected officials to vote their way — or to punish those who don’t.”
Carrying on with his populist-tinged theme of the past two weeks, Obama said, “We don’t need to give any more voice to the powerful interests that already drown out the voices of everyday Americans.”
I detect a "Me....Thee" moment:
- Er, HOW much did you raise for your campaign? Aren't YOU a special interest?
- Er, HOW much money did the UNIONS spend on your campaign and issues? Really, SEIU and the NEA unions are NOT special interests, too? Given the money they spent on you, the Unions got a sweet, sweet payoff with GM and Chrysler (booting out the bond holders), and again with the healthcare bill where they get a $10 Billion payment - given that they only cover about 7.2% of the nation's private sector workforce?
- Why should media corporations have rights that are denied other corporations?
And the fact that he wants a "robust response"? He certainly doesn't get that "negative liberties" of "shall not" should be a direct slap against the Chief Executive of the Government who is trying to do exactly that.
After all, the response to bad speech should always be MORE speech - not less.
Tell you what - I'm willing to trade that free speech away - just take it away from ANY entity that receives ANY tax money for ANY purpose, be it individuals, or organizations (be they for-profits or non-profits).
As the actual argument went, the lawyers supporting McCain-Feingold said that if a book had the same content as the movie that Citizens United, it too could be banned before an election.
Ann Althouse (via Captain's Journal):
“Why would a law professor oppose a Supreme Court decision on a matter of constitutional law and not respect the authority of the Court and honor our system of separation of powers?”
Captain's Journal observes that Kent, a commenter, has the answer: ”Because, so far as President Present is concerned: this is a nation of men, not laws. He is, at his core, the anti-John Adams.”
Whatcha think?
