The Miami Herald lead editorial purposefully omits any reference to politics in its lead editorial today: "An Activist Decision", noting the US Supreme Court last week overturned "more than a century of well-considered precedent and ignored stacks of evidence compiled in congressional hearings regarding the pernicious influence of money in politics." Curious that the Herald did not say, anywhere in its opinion, that Republican-appointed Supreme Court justices are responsible for this "activist" decision.
Another way of saying, that it will be up to readers of the Herald to draw that conclusion. The truth is that the furor over presidential appointments of "activist judges" to the Supreme Court is a traditional tin drum of the Republican Party, used to call party faithful to voting polls against Democratic candidates for the highest office: "Don't elect a Democrat because he (or she) will appoint activist Supreme Court justices!" Rarely, do you hear it the other way around: that Republican appointed US Supreme Court judges are activists, and yet that is exactly how it worked out on this most important constitutional issue.
How many times has that message frame been used by the GOP or its surrogate bloviators on Fox News? This is a fact that followers of the Tea Party may want to consider about the GOP, when its candidates come calling.
8 comments:
Since when is it an activist position to uphold free speech and the first amendment? If you want to restrict the speech of corporations and unions, there is an amendment process available to you.
Free speech is for people not entities. In fact our speech was abridged by this ruling.
Free speech for inanimate objects too!
Please show me where it says free speech is reserved only for individuals and not entities (including media organizations and blogs). Thanks.
"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."
I loved Justice Stevens' reference to Tokyo Rose.
"Free speech is for people not entities. In fact our speech was abridged by this ruling."
Your logic escapes me, who creates and populates the "entities"
A-Ameoba
B-Snakes
C-Rose Bushes
D-Humans (aka people)
Please define "our" and how were you able to percieve that "our speech was abridged"
As long as there is disclosure (and even that has its arguments against it) I think any further restrictions just drives the money into 527s or is funnelled in through other sources. At least this way we may (stress may) be able to follow the money more easily.
Cato- Your logic, our government financing will now be controlled by foreign countries. Free speech for the Chinese!!
"Free speech for the Chinese!!"
Well its about time somebody gave those poor bastard free speech.
First the complaint was about entities now that that was answered its about foreigners when this is answered it will be about extraterrestials influencing our elections. Money from forieners and foreign corps have been making their way into the US electoral process for quite some time this ruling won't change that either.
Nobody gets it yet if the government had not usurped so much power from the people to begin with all this campaign contribution crap wouldn't matter. Thats where this argument should begin.
Post a Comment