tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post4762053714210036631..comments2023-10-29T04:52:56.730-07:00Comments on Salt & Light: Judicial ActivismHoward Fisherhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07131678953403450197noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-88340108076624441552010-01-24T11:37:07.039-08:002010-01-24T11:37:07.039-08:00At times judicial activism is simply when the cour...At times judicial activism is simply when the court disagrees with my position. <br /><br />As Howard noted about lawyers seeking ways to win, this is nothing more than the ancient version of being a sophist. You tried to figure out ways to win rather than ways to find out what the truth was or the just way to proceed on. In other words, we no longer have a justice system in place that is very solid at all. Lawyers want to win rather than search out the truth. When the Supreme Court makes a decision based on the Constitution, at least one side does not get what it wants and so it is perceived as judicial activism. The Supreme Court is now perceived as nothing more than a body of judges that is to give us the rights we want.<br /><br />Obama has been ripping the Constitution to shreds with his actions. Let us hope that the Supreme Court can stop being so policitally motivated and actually go by the Constitution that it is sworn to uphold.RichardShttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18366661721715080133noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-54408257958849593512010-01-23T12:53:24.372-08:002010-01-23T12:53:24.372-08:00They also argued by precedent no less that the Bil...They also argued by precedent no less that the Bill of Rights do apply to Corporations.<br /><br />"(b) The Court has recognized that the First Amendment applies to corporations, e.g., First Nat. Bank of Boston v. Bellotti, 435 U. S. 765, 778, n. 14, and extended this protection to the context of political speech, see, e.g., NAACP v. Button, 371 U. S. 415, 428–429. Addressing challenges to the Federal Election Campaign Act of"Howard Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07131678953403450197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-29566476355355179452010-01-23T12:51:30.652-08:002010-01-23T12:51:30.652-08:00I thought this paragraph was interesting.
"(...I thought this paragraph was interesting.<br /><br />"(a) Although the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech,” §441b’s prohibition on corporate independent expenditures is an outright ban on speech, backed by criminal sanctions. It is a ban notwithstanding the fact that a PAC created by a corporation can still speak, for a PAC is a separate association from the corporation. Because speech is an essential mechanism of democracy—it is the means to hold officials ac-countable to the people—political speech must prevail against laws that would suppress it by design or inadvertence. Laws burdening such speech are subject to strict scrutiny, which requires the Government to prove that the restriction “furthers a compelling interest and is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest.” WRTL, 551 U. S., at 464. This language provides a sufficient framework for protecting the interests in this case. Premised on mistrust of governmental power, the First Amendment stands against attempts to disfavor certain subjects or viewpoints or to distinguish among different speakers, which may be a means to control content. The Government may also commit a constitutional wrong when by law it identifies certain preferred speakers. There is no basis for the proposition that, in the political speech context, the Government may impose restrictions on certain disfavored speakers. Both history and logic lead to this conclusion."<br /><br />Logical indeed!Howard Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07131678953403450197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-65044036153475745552010-01-23T12:43:50.037-08:002010-01-23T12:43:50.037-08:00"You confuse corporations with people. The Bi..."You confuse corporations with people. The Bill of Rights exists to protect people-- not corporations."<br /><br />I just have to ask, "Does Walmart have to testify against itself in a court of law?"<br /><br />Does Walmart not have the right to fight against unlawful search and seizure?<br /><br />Would a local organization such as a Boys Club not have the right to defend itself as any private citizen? Could they be denied the right to a speedy trial?<br /><br />I am sorry, I just can't see your viewpoint standing up here. The Bill of Rights protects us all.<br /><br />This includes the Press, which are usually organizations and corporations.Howard Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07131678953403450197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-7995099754501295342010-01-23T12:31:34.244-08:002010-01-23T12:31:34.244-08:001) "changing the case in front of you to make...1) "changing the case in front of you to make a statement."<br /><br />I have no doubt that occurs, and I am not certain how that is avoided totally. Lawyers go to court and come up with all kinds of plans to win, and not necessarily argue the actual case. That is why I think that when the question that was posed, "What has changed...?", that is where the problems lie. So I would agree to some extent.<br /><br />Nevertheless, the Act under dispute was dismantled and rightly so.<br /><br />McCain was wrong for writing it. George Bush was wrong for signing it into law. And the Act itself is wrong.<br /><br />2) "You confuse corporations with people. The Bill of Rights exists to protect people-- not corporations."<br /><br />I simply reject this. We will just have to disagree fundamentally here. I see no evidence that the Framers would have only in mind individuals and not the very groups of people that would fund their getting to write the First Amendment in the first place (Which obviously included the state governments).<br /><br />3) "Beyond this, though, we DO expect there to be certain laws of speech and press."<br /><br />Of course. That is why I was referencing political speech. Obviously there are laws against libel and your other examples. Nobody is arguing that.<br /><br />4) "but this means that in the future ANY fight on the public stage that is person against corporation, the game is rigged."<br /><br />McCain Feingold does absolutle nothing to solve this. All it did was make groups of people to have to come up with new ways to be sneaky (this was part of the discussion with the Justices). Plus I would argue that this Act actually helps keep incumbents in office by giving them the financial advantage.<br /><br />I couldn't give a rip if one person can't defeat a group of people in raising money. If your ideas have merit, then bust your but to persuade others. One pickup truck owner from Massachusetts just did.<br /><br />The solution to "even the playing field" is not to do the unconstitutional thing by bringing down giants. That just makes everyone equally miserable. The real American ideal is equal opportunity, not equal outcome, which never has equal outcome anyway because by definition, equal outcomes are "rigged".Howard Fisherhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07131678953403450197noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-9504248.post-62017193924763467022010-01-23T11:31:46.373-08:002010-01-23T11:31:46.373-08:001) It was judicial activism. I don't think th...1) It was judicial activism. I don't think that a little of that is a bad thing, but you have to recognize (if you've actually read the case... which I doubt) that the Court greatly changed the scope of what was being debated to fit what they were looking to make a statement on. That is, in definition, judicial activism-- changing the case in front of you to make a statement. Both conservatives and liberals have done this in the past, and will in the future. Pointing fingers and saying only one group does this is... well, that's the part where someone is being a fool.<br /><br />2) You confuse corporations with people. The Bill of Rights exists to protect people-- not corporations. There is a difference; there are many people who have to put on a mask at work. Beyond this, though, we DO expect there to be certain laws of speech and press. Otherwise I could put up my money to run a paper in your hometown that said your family was filled with incestuous demons, or drop by your local movie theater and run through it screaming "the building's on fire!" Thankfully you and I are both protected against such "speech". You may love gas companies and want them to be able to spend billions of dollars so they can "drill baby, drill"-- but this means that in the future ANY fight on the public stage that is person against corporation, the game is rigged. Because now speech equates to money. So bring on the senator from WalMart... because your voice is never going to be loud enough to be heard again.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com