Tend to hold other portions of the Bill of Rights in contempt as well. Notice which Justices came out against free speech rights? It was those "tolerant" "progressive" Liberals.
A victory for the 1st Amendment, and yet the Liberals on the Court come down on the anti-rights side. I'm happy to see the Court strike down part of McCain-Feingold as well.
Remember folks, when Liberals claim to be supporters of "Free Speech" what they really mean is that they support only the "free speech" that they personally approve of. Silly me, I've always been of the opinion that speech most in need of protection is that which others find contentious, disagreeable, or even morally repugnant.
Stevens says corporations are not actually members of our society. Wow, he's off his rocker again!
At least Justice Kennedy was a voice of reason saying,
"There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers.... The government may regulate corporate speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."
h/t to Unc
Update - Marginal Revolution has an excellent graphic that illustrates the fundamental difference in the focus of the majority and the dissent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I remember after Kelo v. New London was handed down, Howard Dean tried to blame it on the court's conservative wing, when in fact it was the leftists on the court who were ultimately responsible for that monstrosity as well.
No big surprise. They are anti-rights, and anti-freedom.
Well, consistency is a virtue, after a fashion. In the future, when it comes down to the eternal fight between "rights" and "control", we know exactly where those five justices will come down, and we should plan accordingly.
It would surprise me greatly if the Chicago case had a different counting than this one...
Post a Comment