I’ve gotta comment on this: the Supreme Court ruling allowing unlimited contributions to candidates/parties. I’m a die hard free speech advocate, but I think this is simply wrong. I understand that courts are not supposed to consider political impacts of their rulings, but I don’t even like the link between “speech” and money. And I also have to assume that you think these judges were “activist” since they overturned a very old law to reach this ruling. What do you think? I think this is a game changer…for the worse!


3 Responses to “”

  1. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    LMFNAO πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ πŸ™‚ I hate to say this. I really do because I so want to agree with you on a few things right now. Speaking of, I am going to seriously look at the bank taxes and the regulations Obama is proposing because I’m not just going to offhandedly dismiss them because they came from a Dem.

    So anyway. My initial reaction was positively in favor of this. As Justice Kennedy said in announcing the opinion, β€œif the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits jailing citizens for engaging in political speech.” Just because you don’t like something about free speech, doesn’t mean you should make exceptions to it without a very weighty or serious foundation. The concept of “yelling fire in a movie” theater comes to mind. But so do KKK rallies. Our constitutional rights are the bedrock of our liberty. If you continuously water them down, they lose their meaning. It’s pretty serious stuff if you ask me.

  2. Anonymous Says:

    Well the law has been in effect since 1907 and reinforced in 1947 as I have read. Have corporations been maligned? Have rights been trampled? We need LESS money in politics, not more. Corruption investigations will increase for sure.

    Corporations don’t vote dude. Why should they be treated as though they do? We restrict other speech; we should restrict “contributions” too. I’d like to see NO corporate money in politics.

    I can see it now: “And now EXXON presents, Sarah Palin 2012”

    And was this activism from the bench, overturning a 103 year old law? I guess you forgot to answer that part of the question πŸ™‚

  3. urstupidnourstupid Says:

    I don’t know. I have to read a little more about it and think about it a little more. But just like you own progressive, you also own judicial activism. It’s not acitivism when you are trying to revert back to the constitution’s original intent.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: