That guy is just *dreamy* smart and cool.
Frowning takes 68 muscles.
Smiling takes 6.
Pulling this trigger takes 2.
I'm lazy.
Posted on 02/03/2010 2:57:49 PM PST by reaganaut1
In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.
And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union addresses — he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last week to criticize the court’s decision — because the gatherings had turned so partisan.
Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates.
“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”
The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.
He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907.
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”
It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Ouch.
Absolutely!
Yep. too bad Thomas isn’t President. I think he’d actually do a pretty good job in the White House
When liberal and socialist parties seek to attack capitalism and corporations and shareholders and private sector, they in turn need to have a voice in the democratic process too. They are not just legal or fictitious or invisible entities, they are assembly of individuals, who have right to assemble and organize for the political speech. If you are going to tax them to death, they have right to be represented thru political process and speech. You can’t ta them and give them no representation or say in the political process. Since Dems are bent on destroying capitalism and private sector, it is all the more timely that corporation have right to oppose it.
I commend Justice Thomas for avoiding the usurper’s speech. Justice Thomas is a man of integrity and was wise to stay away.
Justice Thomas is one of my personal heroes...
http://teachingamericanhistory.org/library/index.asp?document=73
I have a soft spot in my heart for Thomas too. He is a good man.
Whoever said he had class? From what I have read, this is the real Obama -- a petulent thug.
That guy is just *dreamy* smart and cool.
GOD BLESS you Justice Thomas!
Justice Thomas is The Man.
I agree...he is a wonderful American.
Just leave Justice Thomas where he can do the most good! The U.S. Supreme Court is in a sorry state indeed when it takes a number of recent 5-4 decisions on such things as free speech, right to bear arms, etc. to reaffirm the protections guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution.
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.