Posted on 02/22/2016 8:28:52 PM PST by Behind Liberal Lines
Democratic presidential candidates made a battle cry out of reversing the U.S. Supreme Court's Citizens United decision long before the death of Justice Antonin Scalia. As a consequence of Scalia's death on Feb. 13, will Democrats get their wish?
Campaign-finance experts on both sides agree that Scalia's death leaves the 5-4 ruling vulnerable if he is replaced by a nominee of President Barack Obama or a future Democratic president. Both of Obama's previous appointees, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan, dissented from the decision. Scalia was an enthusiastic member of the majority.
"Citizens United is undoubtedly the recent precedent that would most be threatened" if a Democratic nominee is confirmed, said Cato Institute senior fellow Ilya Shapiro, who participated in a brief for the winning side in the case. "All it would take is a conflicting law passed in a blue state that could end up before the new Supreme Court as soon as next term."
(Excerpt) Read more at nationallawjournal.com ...
This is just one thread by which modern order would be unraveled..
Strengthen the things that remain
According to Trumpbots, all these are evil donors anyway, so they must cheer for it.
As P.J. O'Rourke said, term limits aren't enough. We need jails.
Leftists never stop trying, never stop probing - always looking for ways to pass their agenda and undermine their opposition.
So in turn, what can conservatives do that will continuously push their agenda? How to undermine their opposition for the long term?
“How to undermine their opposition for the long term?”
There’s only one way. And it isn’t pretty.
L
Americans need to decide if a 9 person, unelected, unanswerable super legislature fits with freedom.
I don’t think it does.
this would make trump happy. He likes self financing
The silver lining. Citizens United is corruption legalized.
We need a President who supports the First Amendment.
But now that corporations are pretending to be liberal in order to sell products to an increasingly liberal and secular population, I don't know if its that good for conservatives that both union dues and corporate profits can be used to buy politicians who undermine the exceptional nature of the USA.
I don’t understand why Conservative and Tea Party folk would want to have the big money guys running everything. And as for “strict construction” and Originalism, I doubt that our founding fathers ever intended for Money to be Speech or for Corporations to be People.
Very well put. I agree with you.
So let’s say that you two, and the far left, get your wish; Citizens United gets overturned, and corporations lose their “personhood”.
Now, Corporations no longer have a first amendment right to publish. How many of the books in your house were published by a person, rather than a corporation? How many of the music recordings that you have were published by a person, rather than a corporation? How many of the movies that you have, how many of the radio stations that you listen to, and the television stations that you watch, are owned by a sole person, rather than a corporation?
Because of your myopia, you can kiss that all of that goodbye.
Oh, and if you think corporations losing their personhood ends with the loss of their first amendment rights, you would be wrong; they’ll lose their second amendment rights at the same time. So, kiss all those corporate-owned gun manufacturers goodbye as well.
Furthermore, what big money guys do you think are running Citizens United?
Just replying to be polite. Otherwise, your response is so far out in left field it can’t be pulled back into a reasonable discussion.
You're the one siding with Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, Justices Stevens, Ginsburg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and all the other leftists that want to overturn Citizens United v. FEC. In your own words:
"Citizens United is corruption legalized."
And when gleeaikin states:
"I don't understand why Conservative and Tea Party folk would want to have the big money guys running everything. And as for "strict construction" and Originalism, I doubt that our founding fathers ever intended for Money to be Speech or for Corporations to be People."
You reply:
"Very well put. I agree with you."
You and gleeaikin are the ones way out in left field.
Furthermore, neither one of you can tell me which "big money guys" are running Citizens United.
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.