Supreme Court frees firms from decades of limits on political campaign spending

[jamesrage]

So you don't have a problem at all with, say Soros Fund Management, openly buying an election for a Democrat Presidential candidate or multiple Senate seats?

I have no problem with Soro fund management buying ads for a political candidate,although I imagine that such a liberal candidate would have a snowballs change in hell of winning an election in Oklahoma..

[guido911]

Who individually have the right to free speech, amongst other things. In their personal capacity, they should be free to say whatever they like and spend whatever they like.

The entire idea of an incorporated entity having human rights is a nonsensical oxymoron. Apparently, a lot of people agree with me, even if certain members of the Supreme Court have poor enough reading comprehension (or a strong enough incentive to misread) that they don't grasp the difference between a corporation and a person.

I'm perfectly willing to wait on new legislation, by the way. I have a strong desire to see how the befuddled five would rule on the restrictions on electioneering by religious organizations.

You are the one with poor reading comprehension. Corporate personhood for the umpteenth time has existed since 1886. Don't like it, build a freakin time machine and bark at that court because "the befuddled five" (where did you go to law school again?) had nothing to do with that decision. You continue to prove a well traveled point that knowing lawyers doesn't make you one. As for the poll...so what? According to a CSM poll, 93% opposed the eminent domain decision in Kelo v. New London. The majority of Americans in a recent poll believe that abortion is morally wrong. Should we then overturn those decisions or legislate to circumvent the affect of those opinions?

[Conan71]

According to a CSM poll, 93% opposed the eminent domain decision in Kelo v. New London. The majority of Americans in a recent poll believe that abortion is morally wrong. Should we then overturn those decisions or legislate to circumvent the affect of those opinions?

So is that to say though, that in spite of public opinion SCOTUS is never wrong?

[jamesrage]

I think you may have the same reading comprehension issues the fantabulous five seem to be struggling with.

Their reasoning was that the corporation itself has the right to free speech (amongst others), completely independent of the individuals running said corporation. Their reasoning has nothing to do with the right to 'assemble peaceably'.

Corporations are made up of people.Your association with a corporation does not change the fact that you are still a person.

http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf

[jamesrage]

So is that to say though, that in spite of public opinion SCOTUS is never wrong?

They are wrong when they contradict the constitution or cite foreign law.

[nathanm]

You are the one with poor reading comprehension. Corporate personhood for the umpteenth time has existed since 1886. Don't like it, build a freakin time machine and bark at that court because "the befuddled five" (where did you go to law school again?) had nothing to do with that decision. You continue to prove a well traveled point that knowing lawyers doesn't make you one. As for the poll...so what? According to a CSM poll, 93% opposed the eminent domain decision in Kelo v. New London. The majority of Americans in a recent poll believe that abortion is morally wrong. Should we then overturn those decisions or legislate to circumvent the affect of those opinions?

Prior to this decision, guido, it was settled law that corporate personhood did not encompass all rights specified in the Constitution and that states (and the federal government) generally had the power to define what rights were to be extended to corporations. The decision could have been much more narrowly focused, even with the majority believing that corporations deserved the right to political speech.

Corporations are made up of people.Your association with a corporation does not change the fact that you are still a person.

Yes, officers and employees of corporations should have the unfettered right to free speech as individuals. When they are acting in their capacity as officers or employees of the corporation, that need not be the case. This would not be restricting the individual's right to free speech, only the corporation's.

I don't know what's so difficult to grasp about the concept, even if you disagree with the premise. It's pretty simple, really.

[guido911]

So is that to say though, that in spite of public opinion SCOTUS is never wrong?

Of course not. I believe the Court got it way wrong in Plessy, Korematsu, Bakke, Roe,and Kelo. This is one issue that you and I disagree on and that's fine. In all fairness, I really do understand you and Nate's fears on this, but I also believe the court got this one right despite its unpopularity. The law as it was, was nothing but rank censorship and all Americans, in my very humble opinion, should despise censorship in all forms. Regulation of speech, as opposed to outright suppression, is entirely another matter. I believe under the circumstances it will take a constitutional amendment to circumvent this opinion.

[nathanm]

Regulation of speech, as opposed to outright suppression, is entirely another matter.

Ah, I now see where our difference lies on this issue. I see barring corporate political speech as regulation of the individual officers/employees' speech. A regulation that states they only have free speech in their individual capacity. Since they're free to donate, electioneer, or whatever as an individual, I don't see an outright ban.

I will be interested to see if FTC advertising regulations are challenged on these same grounds, as it will be entertaining to see the Court wrestle with protecting one form of commercial speech but not another. Either that or it will be entertaining to watch Roberts and Alito once again show that they lied to Congress about their judicial views during their confirmation hearings. Either way, it will be fun times all around.  

And by definition, the Supreme Court is never "wrong" on Constitutional issues, since they are the ones who get to decide what the Constitution means. Their reasoning may be flawed at times, but what they say still goes. (Unless you're Andrew Jackson and you're removing Indians to the West)

[Conan71]

...it will be entertaining to watch Roberts and Alito once again show that they lied to Congress about their judicial views during their confirmation hearings.

I suspect every nominee to SCOTUS has been less than 100% truthful or forthcoming on their views during their hearings.

[nathanm]

I suspect every nominee to SCOTUS has been less than 100% truthful or forthcoming on their views during their hearings.

You're probably right, although I hadn't previously noticed such a blatant 180 as from those two. Prior to 2000, I didn't pay much attention to politics.

They both said, in effect, that they respect stare decesis and judicial restraint. The instant case is a strong refutation of both principles, as there was previous case law on point and they chose to reach far beyond the dispute at hand in this case.

I hate to say it, because I think the complaints about activist judges are generally just sour grapes, but Citizens United could be the new dictionary definition of judicial activism.

[Conan71]

You're probably right, although I hadn't previously noticed such a blatant 180 as from those two. Prior to 2000, I didn't pay much attention to politics.

They both said, in effect, that they respect stare decesis and judicial restraint. The instant case is a strong refutation of both principles, as there was previous case law on point and they chose to reach far beyond the dispute at hand in this case.

I hate to say it, because I think the complaints about activist judges are generally just sour grapes, but Citizens United could be the new dictionary definition of judicial activism.

I think "judicial activism" is becoming an over-used cliche mostly by people who don't have a grasp on what SCOTUS actually does.  That said though, this case and Kelo v. New London left me scratching my head.

[rwarn17588]

I think "judicial activism" is becoming an over-used cliche mostly by people who don't have a grasp on what SCOTUS actually does. 

Thank you. I agree that the term "judicial activism" is almost meaningless when used by critics. It's little more than a term that people use when they don't like a Supreme Court decision.

That said, I think the Republicans (relatively few, I admit) who praised SCOTUS' decision on this matter will pivot away after reading that poll.

[guido911]

You're probably right, although I hadn't previously noticed such a blatant 180 as from those two. Prior to 2000, I didn't pay much attention to politics.

They both said, in effect, that they respect stare decesis and judicial restraint. The instant case is a strong refutation of both principles, as there was previous case law on point and they chose to reach far beyond the dispute at hand in this case.

If you go back through this thread or even revisit the opinion, you will see that the opinion the majority overruled itself overruled previous precedent.

As to your earlier post about our differing views on the issue, that was probably my fault. I sometimes get wrapped up in parlance and I wind up making distinctions without differences. I think you get my point about the difference between censorship/suppression and regulation.

[Townsend]

Activist fights carpool ticket claiming he was riding with a corporation

http://news.yahoo.com/video/activist-fights-carpool-ticket-claiming-223604016.html

Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, California, was ticketed for driving alone on highway 101 in a carpool lane. But Frieman said that he wasn't driving solo, because he had corporate paperwork in the seat next to him. The self-described activist, argues that because of the paperwork, he was riding with a corporation which he says is included in the California vehicle code's definition of a person. The 59-year-old has hired an attorney for his appearance before a traffic commissioner and he hopes for a loss so he can appeal the decision. If so, he's prepared to appeal his case all the way to the California Supreme Court if necessary. The driver has said that he wants the definition of a person to be stood on its head so people can see the absurdity.

[Conan71]

Activist fights carpool ticket claiming he was riding with a corporation

http://news.yahoo.com/video/activist-fights-carpool-ticket-claiming-223604016.html

Jonathan Frieman of San Rafael, California, was ticketed for driving alone on highway 101 in a carpool lane. But Frieman said that he wasn't driving solo, because he had corporate paperwork in the seat next to him. The self-described activist, argues that because of the paperwork, he was riding with a corporation which he says is included in the California vehicle code's definition of a person. The 59-year-old has hired an attorney for his appearance before a traffic commissioner and he hopes for a loss so he can appeal the decision. If so, he's prepared to appeal his case all the way to the California Supreme Court if necessary. The driver has said that he wants the definition of a person to be stood on its head so people can see the absurdity.

Some people just can't avoid being a jackass, can they?