Citizens united turns 4 Years old.

[Kasz216]

DJEVOLVE said:

Kasz216 said:

DJEVOLVE said:

4 years ago Today the supreme court had a 5 to 4 decision, all Republican appointed judges votes yes, all Democratic appointed judges voted no. Those 5 supreme court justices put on by Republican presidents voted that corporations are people, allowing corporations to essentially spend as much money on elections as they want. Meaning they can buy Congressmen. So don't tell me they are all the same. The supreme court votes 5 to 4 all the time. With the Republican appointed judges voting against the people and for the corporations over and over.

 

No they didn't.

I mean, at least read and understand a ruling before you argue it's wrong.

 

 "If the First Amendment has any force, it prohibits Congress from fining or jailing citizens, or associations of citizens, for simply engaging in political speech."

What the citizens united decision said was that an individuals free speech is sacrosanct whether said person is speaking alone, or pooling their money to make a point.

What the ruling said was that Corporations are a group of people and that Freedom of Speech was not invalidated by people assembling together.

 

And additionally, that since there is no legal distinction between coprorations and legal corproations such a law would basically allow the government to go after news orginzations if they wanted to.

 

Also, a judges duty is to follow the law.  Not pick sides.

 

So Money is speech. Meaning a large corporation can buy any politician they want.

Judges do pick sides and if you have not figured that out you have not been paying attention. 5-4 decisions all the time. Laws are open to speculation, that's why we even have courts.

To say I don't understand is your usual stance for someone that you don't agree with, I understand it fine. I just made it easier for others to understand.

You will go on to state you're some law professor but in fact you're a vgchartz mod that has a very biased view in political topics, thats it.  So you can downplay this as much as you want but the case has allowed massive amounts of money into politics and is not good for either side.

No, it's my usual stance for people who don't understand what they're talking about.

Which, seems to fit pretty perfectly.... based on your own admission after reading part of the actual ruling.  Though then later on you continued with the made up the statement that the supreme court said corproations were people... so... cognitive dissonance at it's finest i guess.

Money isn't speech... however, money allows you to buy speech and platforms in which to speak.

By restircting money, you are resticting speech.

 

Is there anything of the above you actually disagree with?  If so, we can have a further discoruse based on it... but you seem uninterested in argueing it so far.

Now you can argue that by not restricting the speech of corporations that democracy is greatly harmed... (Academic Research seems to disagree)

but such an arguement is largely irrelevent, since we're talking about the actual law here.  There are plenty of good reasons to steal, yet even if you steal for the best reason... it's a crime.

 

Judges do pick sides... but in this case, it was the Democratic judges who picked sides, weighting the damage they thought the ruling would cause, vs the actual law of the land.

 

If there is a bone to pick with the ruling.  It's misplaced to blame the Republican judges.   Instead you should complain about the first ammendment and seek modifications there.