Bad Supreme Court precedent can and should be ignored
We read:
"Next Wednesday the U.S. Supreme Court will hear a rare second round of oral arguments in the case of Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. At issue is the documentary Hillary: The Movie, which was produced by the conservative group Citizens United and intended for distribution before the 2008 elections. As Justice Stephen Breyer noted during the first round of arguments back in March, the film "is not a musical comedy." It's a 90-minute political harangue attacking Clinton's ideas and character. In other words, it's exactly the sort of controversial political speech the First Amendment was written and ratified to protect.
Yet under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (also known as the McCain-Feingold Act), which bars corporations and non-profit organizations from sponsoring "any broadcast, cable, or satellite communication" that mentions a candidate in a federal campaign within 30 days of a primary or 60 days of a general election, Citizens United was forbidden from using the film to express the political views of its members and supporters. So it's a welcome sign indeed that the Court wants to subject this noxious law to some additional scrutiny.
Source
7 comments:
Sounds like the Irish referendum on the Lisbon treaty, but in reverse.
The Irish Government wanted it bad, but because of a clause in the Irish constitution they had to hold a referendum. That was about 2-years go.
The Irish voters rejected the referendum. Now the Irish government was made to look like asses (which they are by the way) in front of the other European Union countries. Most of them just had their parlaments retify the Treaty and that was that.
Now, somehow the Irish Government has decided that they're not taking NO for an answer and the SECOND referendum on the exact same treaty is being shoved down the Irish voter's throats.
We're keep voting till we get it right!
How did McCain, (the Left's favorite "Republican") and Feingold get a law passed that clearly violates the First Amendment? It's too bad that when the SCOTUS deems this law to be unconstitutional, the public offices held by it's liberal authors can't be done away with as well.
John (McLoser) McCain has never been anything but a liberal RINO. Some day, the people of Arizona will wake-up and realize that. Maybe.
Bad Supreme Court precedent can and should be ignored? How?
The same way the Dredd Scott decision was overturned.
If corporations are allowed to create and publicize the kind of trash this documentary represents (regardless of which side the documentary presents), then the other side of the controversy doesn't stand a chance.
Should elections really be about who (and whose supporters) can spend the most money? If that is the case, then only the rich who have rich friends can get elected. It's not often that an entire campaign 'warchest' can be built on $20 donations from millions of citizens.
Ah, but people do also tend to have pretty good B.S. detectors, and a good sense for recognizing when something has truth to it, and when it doesn't. If some corporation or political group wants to spend millions promoting its agenda, but uses lies to do so, chances are real good that people's B.S. detectors will warn them, and the campaign will fall flat, with truth prevailing. We have also seen example after example after example of Wall Street-owned and controlled mass media choosing to ignore stories that would harm their agendas. Getting the truth out helps to counter lies of omission. There's a reason that in a court of law, witnesses swear to tell "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth."
Post a Comment