Quote:
Originally Posted by bobabode
If someone wants to dramatically change the way the country is run they should take it to the people through the normal process of legislation. What the Roberts court has done is to water down (actually, pissed in the face of) the respect and confidence that we had in the court of last resort. (Well, what little was left after their crowning the Shrub in 2000, you know.) |
No, it is the court that needs to protect political speech against the silencing of a hostile legislature.
Quote:
|
Roberts, IIRC , at his confirmation had stated that he was against activism from the bench and the very next year pulled that Citizens United decision out of thin air. The two sides had already come to a compromise deal and it was narrowly focused on the issue before the court. Never in the 200+ years of the court has this kind of activism been seen. Law is a slowly built up succession of little steps but this one was a freaky gyration of convolutions and outright fables that I think everyone was left slackjawed and stunned by it. No one could believe much less mount any argument against this absolutely brazen power grab.
|
One could say the same thing about Austin v. Michigan. Have you read Kennedy's dissenting opinion in the Austin case? The suppression of speech, any speech, ought be severely restricted when there is not a clear physical danger to life regardless of assumed potentialities of unfairness IMHO. Inasmuch that corporations are great contibutors to our way of life and generally compete amongst themselves, there is little reason to unfairly lock them out of campaign involvement.