January 25, 201016 yr Guess conservatives don't think this is a big deal anymore, in light of the recent SCOTUS ruling on campaign finance. :idunno:
January 25, 201016 yr Since when was adhering to the original intent of the Constitution... specifically in the area of free speech "activist"? I would think that you among all others would value First Amendment rights.
January 25, 201016 yr Author Sorry Mitch, I don't buy the "money is speech" line. You're not actually trying to say this isn't a blatant case of the same "judicial activism" that right-wingers have been whining about in chorus for years? You can't have it both ways.
January 25, 201016 yr Sorry Mitch, I don't buy the "money is speech" line. You're not actually trying to say this isn't a blatant case of the same "judicial activism" that right-wingers have been whining about in chorus for years? You can't have it both ways. Both ways is fair play, wouldn't you say. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe in most cases, "whining in chorus" from common sense folks...I mean right wingers, has been related to decisions made by Federal judges, not SCOTUS. Based on your pot stirring....i mean logic, the "judicial activism" score would now stand at Libs 100, Conservatives 1. We have a lot of catching up to do.
January 25, 201016 yr Sorry Mitch, I don't buy the "money is speech" line. You're not actually trying to say this isn't a blatant case of the same "judicial activism" that right-wingers have been whining about in chorus for years? You can't have it both ways. I'm greatly fatugued by political spin... by any side departing from the truth. I would like to hear your views on how this ruling violates the First Amendment... and conversely, how the previous precedent that was over turned was more faithful to the First Amendment. I'll even provide you a jump start: "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."
January 25, 201016 yr Mccain-Feingold was challenged on the basic first amendment constitutionality question since it was passed. Good opinion on this: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203585004574393250083568972.html The government claims the authority to suppress corporate and union speech not only in broadcast formats but also in books, pamphlets and yard signs. Put simply, the government's theory is that because wealthy corporations and unions might speak too much during elections, all of them must be silenced. While the law prohibits even the smallest nonprofit groups from engaging in election advocacy, it exempts wealthy individuals, and it does not restrict the many advantages of incumbency for sitting members of Congress. A limitless loophole is also granted to the media. Thus the corporations that own NBC and ABC (GE and Disney, respectively), and corporations like The New York Times (or News Corp., owner of this newspaper), can express whatever views they want during campaigns. Loopholes aside, the government's argument that speech may be outlawed because it does not reflect "public support for the ideas expressed" is absurd. It is the very antithesis of free speech.
January 25, 201016 yr I do not believe that the following statement is necessarily true: Overturned Precident = Activist decision
January 25, 201016 yr Author I love the self-justification going on in this thread, since the activism suited the right. :lol:
January 25, 201016 yr I've yet to attempt to "justify" anything. I realize I'm so far out in right field to some of you folks, I might as well have a canoe in McCovey Cove... but "Judicial Activism" IMO involves decisions that reinterpret the original wording and/or intent of the Constitution. McCain/Feingold and accompanying judicial decisions were "activist" in that they added to the original wording of the First Amendment. How do you interpret "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" that made McCain/Feingold more faithful??? The "activism" occured prior to this decision IMO.
January 25, 201016 yr Author I've yet to attempt to "justify" anything. I realize I'm so far out in right field to some of you folks, I might as well have a canoe in McCovey Cove... but "Judicial Activism" IMO involves decisions that reinterpret the original wording and/or intent of the Constitution. McCain / Feingold and accompanying judicial decisions were "activist" in that they added to the original wording of the First Amendment. How do you interpret "Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press" ??? How is using semantics to call it something else not justifying? Money is not speech. That defeats the whole purpose of "one man (person) -- one vote." With this ruling, they overturned not only established legislation but multiple prior case precedent. But that's only "activism" when it doesn't suit the right. Got it. :thumb:
January 25, 201016 yr I'm greatly fatugued by political spin... by any side departing from the truth. I would like to hear your views on how this ruling violates the First Amendment... and conversely, how the previous precedent that was over turned was more faithful to the First Amendment. I'll even provide you a jump start: "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." Seems like you're not going to get a reasonable response to your question.
January 25, 201016 yr Author Seems like you're not going to get a reasonable response to your question. I don't understand what's not reasonable about what I said. Just because someone makes more than me doesn't mean he deserves more of a voice.
January 25, 201016 yr How is using semantics to call it something else not justifying? Money is not speech. That defeats the whole purpose of "one man (person) -- one vote." With this ruling, they overturned not only established legislation but multiple prior case precedent. But that's only "activism" when it doesn't suit the right. Got it. :thumb: How do the major media outlets with hundreds of newspapers, magazines, television and radio stations, and 55 gallon drums full of ink to print or air whatever "edited content" they deem appropriate... funded with billions of advertising dollars from thousands of small, medium and large businesses nationwide, from car dealerships, to florist shops, to retailers, to restaurants, to everyone who ever ran a newspaper ad in the only newspaper in their town... escape your "money is speech" rant? How do George Sorros funded, tax-exempt 527 shadow groups, or big labor unions shaking down members for mandatory dues that get spent regardless of members wishes on whoever union management deems most politically expedient not rub you the wrong way and escape your "money is speech" rant? I have asked you three times to illustrate how the ruling undermines the First Amendment, and all you have done is accuse me of some kind of semantical prestidigitation. I thought you were open to discussion. I apologize for diluting your empassioned rant. :thumb:
January 25, 201016 yr Couldn't one argue that the original intent never considered unions or corporations being covered?
January 25, 201016 yr Is it possible that there was more to this decision than the piece that is getting all of the press coverage? Could a vote have had an impact on other forms of speech? Books?
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.