Posted on 01/23/2010 3:00:57 AM PST by free1977free
Counting the majority opinion and the various partial concurrences and dissents, today’s landmark First Amendment decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission clocks in a hefty 183-pages. But one thing that jumped right out while reading the dissent (it’s also a concurrence, in parts) written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, is Stevens' angry tone. He calls the idea that the First Amendment forbids distinctions between individuals and individuals organized as a corporation “a glittering generality” with no foundation in the law, and later declares, “Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” Well!
But most significantly, Stevens accuses the majority of making “only a perfunctory attempt to ground its analysis in the principles or understandings of those who drafted and ratified the Amendment.” Stevens even cites the influential legal conservative Judge Robert Bork to impugn the majority’s originalist credentials. That's not something you see everyday.
Justice Antonin Scalia, however, isn’t having it:
I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”... This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored....
The [First] Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals--and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.
Liberal heads are exploding. They think obongo can’t win unless this is reversed. That tells me all I need to know.
To carry Stevens' logic a bit further - if his interpretation is correct, we would have the right to practice religion individually, but not form a church.
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”It does not grant a right to free speech to individual persons, as the left has argued. It restricts congress from making any law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech. Period. The First Amendment is not about what people may or may not do. It is about what congress may or may not do.
Do you mind if I quote you elsewhere, using only your screen name? (Or I can just say "unidentified forum poster" if you wish.) That is absolutely on the money. I might "bold" "period" and underline the last sentence...
:-)
Go ahead. I post here to share my thoughts, not keep them to myself.
May I also add that the “Press” is an aggregate form of speech that has a monetary cost. Corporations are merely paying to report their opinion.
Except it turned out that Bork comes up lame on the Second Amendment. He has offered the bizarre opinion that the Second Amendment does NOT protect an individual's right to keep and bear arms.
Sounds like Bork needs to read Federalist #29.
I am thrilled!
I have been hoping someone would post the pdf file.
Thank you, free1977free!!!!
That’s fairly bizarre alright - hard to imagine with his stellar record. Whaddyagot to back up that assertion?
Google is your friend, but you can start right here at FR. Are Bork's own words good enough for you?:
This should be a matter for the states to decide where people at the local level have a direct say. I don't think Bork would disagree with that.
Bork has always stood for understanding original intent, and against a judge's replacement with his own personal morals, in Constitutional law. As a judge, Bork gave you his best reading of the intended law and not policially-motivated interpretations, which is whay he refused to speak in his defense when Kennedy and the Socialists (sounds like the name of a band) were reaming him - because he dosen't believe in mixing the law with politics.
As a private citizen, he may personally feel that way about guns, I don't know. On the bench and as a judge, however, Bork would give you his best reading of original intent which is why he was one of the most respected judges in following the integrity of the law.
Amen with that.It is time for Justice Kennedy to make the move to the right for our unborn Brother’s and Sister’s.
I agree with you, generally, about Bork, but there are essentially two ways to view the Second Amendment and Bork’s is the way that agrees with Ginsberg, Breyer, et al. No thanks.
Could be. Point is, whatever Bork’s personal opinions are, he is distinguished because his record reflects a belief in putting his personal opinions aside when sitting as a judge. That’s why I believe we missed a potentially great SCOTUS Justice when the DemoMarxists crucified him. They didn’t crucify him for nothing. He would have been the vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.