Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
The whole "strict constructionist" angle is not crap simply because it is a significant movement within constitutional law circles and this decision makes it clear that the "strict constructionist" position is also actively "legislating from the bench."
|
The so called 'strict constructionist' sitting on the bench is in no way, shape, or form a strict constructionist. In fact, I would venture to say that 8 of the 9 people sitting on that bench don't really care about the constitution as it is, but rather their idealized version of it.
Legislating from the bench started long before I was alive, so this is nothing new. Nearly everybody here likes to confuse the term 'judicial activism', applying it when they read a decision they don't agree with. It has a much simpler concept, but there aren't a whole lot of people willing to make that leap of truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by dippin
This was a much more restricted case, and, as the dissenting opinion expressed, there was no need to invoke arguments regarding broad constitutional precedent that way. That is, Roberts et al went out of their way to broaden the scope of the lawsuit. And then they went an extra step in that direction by saying that corporations are entitled to those rights, and that donations are a matter of free speech.
|
now this part I agree strongly on. It's been said so many times that the USSC only answers the questions that are directly in front of them. They've done this dozens and dozens of times, much to the detriment of the people. It was totally out of character and out of line for the majority to make such a radical turn to come to the ruling that they have.
---------- Post added at 03:59 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:56 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
Last I checked, the media is a corporation. Foxnews spent the entire election cycle heavily supporting McCain. CNN, MSNBC, HLN, NBC, ABC, CBS spent the entire cycle heavily supporting Obama. There was no constraint on their support because they operate under the guise of a free press. I am having a difficult time seeing how these corporations can have up-to-the-minute-of-the-election support of candidates, and all other corporations shouldn't be able.
|
part of this lawsuit was about that specific issue. The FEC has a media exception built in to the law, therefore the news outlets that you mentioned are exempt.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cimarron29414
Don't get me wrong, I don't want ANY corporations to give money directly to a candidate. I don't want them to use money to create an advertisement in support of a candidate. They should use that money to advance their businesses through the free market, rather than politics. However, the media corporations have such an advantage for whatever candidate/issue they support...well, you understand my point.
I don't know the solution, I suppose I lament that we have lost our free press.
|
I could suggest you start using non mainstream sources of news, like bloggers, but most people aren't ready to accept that as journalism at this point.
---------- Post added at 04:00 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:59 PM ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Marlon's Mom
I'm flabbergasted by this ruling. Completely appalled. When is one of these idiots going to die?
Following on that, why do we appoint justices to the SC for life? There's a reason our form of government was designed the way it was - to prevent one person or one family from keeping the people under their boots forever - but it doesn't seem to apply to the Supreme Court. Why is that?
 |
it was designed that way to keep the courts impartial and unswayed by the politics of the other two. To make the judiciary independent. That stopped being that way around 1833.