Chief Justice Roberts certainly comported himself more reasonably on his judgement of the ACA ()Affordable Care Act). However, it is too late to save much of the election which is being bought because of his abandoning what had been ruled for 100 years to new interpretation. The Supreme Court refuses to reconsider the Citizen's United finding. Perhaps IO misunderstand that it was under the right to free speech that he allows corporati9ons to act as one person. I do not know a healthy family that allows any one member to cast them as one thought representing them all. That money expenditures can be represented as free speech boggles my mind. I've heard of 'put your money where your mouth is' but understood it as a euphemism for back your words up with something of value to you, like money. It hardly seems applicable here.
The ACA, Citizens United, and Unfair Public Perception of the Supreme Court posted by Erica Goldberg
She i8nsists that the people are misinterpreting their decision. Perhaps that is true but the effects of the decision are not being misinterpreted. Mr. Sheldon Adelson offering $100,000,000 for his candidate/party in the campaign should be clear enough that something is wrong whether it was the rule of law held for a hundred or more years or this new verdict which makes a mockery of fairness in the populace having an equal voice with their vote. When a law, whether constitutional or not, does not serve the people, it is not up to the Supreme Court to rule for it if they simply want to do so. They have their own Court legacy to uphold. It is now up to the Congress to write the law to cover what used to be fair or rewrite it anew in a way that is acceptable to the Constitution as it had been for so very many decades. Insulting the Court will not be helpful nor change anything. Judge Roberts must live with his own legacy The better good of the people won one and lost one.
The ACA, Citizens United, and Unfair Public Perception of the Supreme Court posted by Erica Goldberg
She i8nsists that the people are misinterpreting their decision. Perhaps that is true but the effects of the decision are not being misinterpreted. Mr. Sheldon Adelson offering $100,000,000 for his candidate/party in the campaign should be clear enough that something is wrong whether it was the rule of law held for a hundred or more years or this new verdict which makes a mockery of fairness in the populace having an equal voice with their vote. When a law, whether constitutional or not, does not serve the people, it is not up to the Supreme Court to rule for it if they simply want to do so. They have their own Court legacy to uphold. It is now up to the Congress to write the law to cover what used to be fair or rewrite it anew in a way that is acceptable to the Constitution as it had been for so very many decades. Insulting the Court will not be helpful nor change anything. Judge Roberts must live with his own legacy The better good of the people won one and lost one.
1 comment:
Thank you for including the Erica Goldberg piece on how the Citizens United decision is often misinterpreted. One of the common misconceptions is that the decision lifted spending limits. The actual decision cites spending limits as a regulation that is consistent with the first amendment. The ruling had no effect on whether Sheldon Adelson's political contribution.
The charges against Citizens United did not have anything to do with money. This non-profit group clearly had a first amendment right to make the film Hillary: The Movie. The case revolved over a provision in the BCRA that prohibited showing the film within 30 days of a primary, or within 60 days of an election. This ban did not apply just to films; in oral arguments, the Solicitor General argued that under the BCRA, a book could be banned during these 30 days / 60 days period if it contained one sentence advocating the election or defeat of a candidate. This goes against the central tenants of the first amendment, which is why the supreme court ruled the BCRA unconstitutional.
Post a Comment