Supreme Court rules corporate contributions can't be limited

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes, I did note the concurring opinion. I didn't say they would try to defend it on the grounds of originalism, I said it isn't defensible on the grounds of originalism (a point which is true whether or not they tried to do it).

Heh. You didn't read it first, did you.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

My argument on originalism, by the way, isn't that "originalism isn't perfect, ergo it's results-oriented." I am pretty confident you already know that, given that "we're retreading old discussions" here, so I will chalk this up as a dishonest attack and move on.

Chalk it up to whatever you want, that's exactly how I view your position.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh. You didn't read it first, did you.

Yes, I did, but I am guessing you didn't until we went through two pages of discussion. Regardless of what you want to believe (and what I believe), I did note you refused to address the point on the merits. Again.

Chalk it up to whatever you want, that's exactly how I view your position.

Heh. You didn't read it first, did you.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Yes, I did, but I am guessing you didn't until we went through two pages of discussion. Regardless of what you want to believe (and what I believe), I did note you refused to address the point on the merits. Again.

Heh, yeah, because I never address your points on the merits. Thanks for the chuckle.

Of course, if by "merits" you mean nit-picking on a couple of words in a 9-page opinion and projecting your own emotions on to Stevens, then yeah, I ignored that nonsense. But I am glad you finally decided to read it.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Heh, yeah, because I never address your points on the merits. Thanks for the chuckle.

Of course, if by "merits" you mean nit-picking on a couple of words in a 9-page opinion and projecting your own emotions on to Stevens, then yeah, I ignored that nonsense. But I am glad you finally decided to read it.

Again.

[Tex]

Justice Thomas defends the Citizens United ruling:

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”

BOOM SHAKALAKA!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us...scotus.html?hp

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Justice Thomas defends the Citizens United ruling:



BOOM SHAKALAKA!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us...scotus.html?hp

All that and not a single word about originalism. Maybe you should have used lower case letters.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

All that and not a single word about originalism. Maybe you should have used lower case letters.

Na, und?

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Tex

Justice Thomas defends the Citizens United ruling:



BOOM SHAKALAKA!

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/04/us...scotus.html?hp

Interesting that Thomas essentially says the same thing that I did. One person alone has free speech rights. But two people together don't? That's bullshit. And every liberal in this country knows it. Every liberal that doesn't have a fascist heart that is. What is that? Three of them?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

Interesting that Thomas essentially says the same thing that I did. One person alone has free speech rights. But two people together don't? That's bullshit. And every liberal in this country knows it. Every liberal that doesn't have a fascist heart that is. What is that? Three of them?

He also notes (earlier in the article) how interesting it is that news corporations got an exception in McCain-Feingold, and he takes care to note that it was a policy-based decision, not a Constitutional one.