[theDentist]

HOOO-AH!

[pnh102]

Good.

[Blue Turtle]

..wow, big news. Again, another example of our forefathers genius, clarity, and checks & balances.

[Cletus.D.Yokel]

Great news!

I wonder how “The Big 89” was the first to report?

[Puppage]

How did the Wise Latina vote?

[Lakeshark]

Wow. I hope this is true.

[randog]

Outstanding. Now let’s have another look at Kelo.

[Tarantulas]

Live Supreme Court blog:

http://www.scotusblog.com/

[browardchad]

Speech About Candidates Constitutionally Protected, Even When Funded by Corporations

Eugene Volokh • January 21, 2010 10:07 am

That’s what SCOTUSblog is reporting about Citizens United v. FEC; Austin v. Michigan Chamber of Commerce (1990), has been overruled. The majority seems to consist of the 5 conservatives, and the dissent of the 4 liberals. There is also a separate debate about disclosure requirements, which were apparently upheld.

[PIF]

Sounds like it was only a partial reversal limited to corporate expenditures.

[browardchad]

Link to the Court’s opinion:

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

[Sister_T]

Some links:

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

Supreme Court rolls back campaign spending limits

[ctdonath2]

Decision here.

...
Some members of the public might consider Hillary to be insightful and instructive; some might find it to beneither high art nor a fair discussion on how to set the Nation’s course; still others simply might suspend judg-ment on these points but decide to think more about issuesand candidates. Those choices and assessments, however, are not for the Government to make. “The First Amend-ment underwrites the freedom to experiment and to create in the realm of thought and speech. Citizens must be free to use new forms, and new forums, for the expression ofideas. The civic discourse belongs to the people, and the Government may not prescribe the means used to conduct it.” McConnell, supra, at 341 (opinion of KENNEDY, J.).

The judgment of the District Court is reversed withrespect to the constitutionality of 2 U. S. C. §441b’s re-strictions on corporate independent expenditures. The judgment is affirmed with respect to BCRA’s disclaimer and disclosure requirements. The case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. It is so ordered.

[K-oneTexas]

Do we have an attorney FReeper around who can read this 183 page opinion issued yesterday (http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf). It’s Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n.

[GBA]

Good for them. Now they should revisit and repair the travesty they committed with Kelo v. City of New London.

[Lazamataz]

I am starting to think that America is WILLING and ABLE to FIGHT to preserve its' freedom.

We are starting to show some green shoots of freedom again.

[Impy]

Major news.

I don’t know if the ruling effects the necessity of candidates saying “I approve this message”.