"If Congress endorsed our proposal," they said, "these companies - and tens of thousands of others - would face a stark choice: They could endorse candidates or do business with the government, but they couldn't do both. When push came to shove, it's likely that very few would be willing to pay such a high price for their 'free speech'."
The court's decision also laid bare the silly arguments by conservatives that justices should merely interpret the law and not engage in judicial activism. The Scalia court first decided the outcome of a presidential election and is back to give a huge opening for corporate support of candidates (read: Republicans).
So I'll leave you with this thought from dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens:
"While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majority of this court would have thought its flaws included the dearth of corporate money in politics."
Posts
8 comments:
So the first amendment embraces legal entities such as corporations, not just human citizens? Can the right to bear arms be far behind? Can you imagine a stock holder meeting when the security guards wear the corporate logo and pack a Glock? And all this, according to Scalia and Thomas, was the original intent of the authors of the Constitution. You just gotta love those strict constructionists.
PJ, I think they are already mightily loved.
The 2000 decision in Bush v. Gore was decided by the Rehnquist Court not the Scalia Court. Scalia is an Associate Justice not Chief Justice. It could never be the Scalia Court unless he is elevated to Chief Justice.
The title may have been different, but the outcome was the same. It is Scalia non-strict constructionist that permeates the Ruling Five, right?
I would have thought that you would know the difference between Associate and Chief and how the SC is identified. Don't try to ignore a mistake by changing the subject.
Without sounding preachy to the Bush diehards, I will agree that I miscast Scalia on the court. Maybe it's because the high court has frequently been called the Scalia court, no small measure to his own aggressive conservatism and the fact that his vote counts for two -his and Clarence Thomas', who whines occasionally but seldom has anything useful to say. Since the demotion of Al Gore, Scalia has regularly treated his audience to the validity of the decision for Bush Vs. Gore , referring to "his" court, as in: "I and my court offer no apology whatsoever for Bush vs. Gore. We did the right thing. So there." And he has been heard to bark to his critics: "Get over it. It's so old by now." So if it pleases you to play "gotcha", go right ahead. I'm outta here.
Sorta like the "Cheney Presidency".
Anybody know why Scalia and his deputy, Clarence Thomas, were no-shows at the State of the Union address?
Post a Comment