|
I love how the right says the SCOTUS is full of activist judges when they hand down a decision that can be construed as even remotely liberal, yet praises them when they do something like give corporations rights equal to that of an individual citizen. It simultaneously makes me want to laugh and throw something.
That is all, carry on.
I love how the right says the SCOTUS is full of activist judges when they hand down a decision that can be construed as even remotely liberal, yet praises them when they do something like give corporations rights equal to that of an individual citizen. It simultaneously makes me want to laugh and throw something.
That is all, carry on.
Did they give them the rights or did they strike down the law that took it away?
|
|
Did they give them the rights or did they strike down the law that took it away?I love how the right says the SCOTUS is full of activist judges when they hand down a decision that can be construed as even remotely liberal, yet praises them when they do something like give corporations rights equal to that of an individual citizen. It simultaneously makes me want to laugh and throw something.
That is all, carry on.
What's the difference? The way I remember it, by striking down they law they essentially gave them the same rights as individual citizens...which they are not. The thing is, when they struck down the law, part of the majority opinion IIRC was that corporations have the same first amendment rights to free speech that individuals do. How can we expect to have a true representative republic when those we elect in are immediately beholden to corporations? The average citizen no longer has any true say.
I love how the right says the SCOTUS is full of activist judges when they hand down a decision that can be construed as even remotely liberal, yet praises them when they do something like give corporations rights equal to that of an individual citizen. It simultaneously makes me want to laugh and throw something.
That is all, carry on.
As far as I can tell, the term "activist judge" is most often simply a synonym for "judge with whom I disagree." I find the term to polarizing and generally worse than useless.
What's the difference? The way I remember it, by striking down they law they essentially gave them the same rights as individual citizens...which they are not. The thing is, when they struck down the law, part of the majority opinion IIRC was that corporations have the same first amendment rights to free speech that individuals do. How can we expect to have a true representative republic when those we elect in are immediately beholden to corporations? The average citizen no longer has any true say.Did they give them the rights or did they strike down the law that took it away?I love how the right says the SCOTUS is full of activist judges when they hand down a decision that can be construed as even remotely liberal, yet praises them when they do something like give corporations rights equal to that of an individual citizen. It simultaneously makes me want to laugh and throw something.
That is all, carry on.
It's a very big difference.
First I adhere to the school of thought that says governments don't grant rights; they recognize them.
Secondly it's the judicial branch's responsibility to serve as a check to executive and legislative power. The legislature clearly exceeds its authority when it violates the Bill of Rights. Groups don't forfeit their individual right to free speech by forming a group whether that group is a corporation, church, or some other interest group.
Individuals can still have an impact particularly when they combine their political impact into "special interest groups".
I would argue that if we want less corrupt government we should strive for smaller government.
As far as I can tell, the term "activist judge" is most often simply a synonym for "judge with whom I disagree." I find the term to polarizing and generally worse than useless.I love how the right says the SCOTUS is full of activist judges when they hand down a decision that can be construed as even remotely liberal, yet praises them when they do something like give corporations rights equal to that of an individual citizen. It simultaneously makes me want to laugh and throw something.
That is all, carry on.
I must concede that there is a great deal of truth to this. I was going to argue to the contrary by saying something to the effect of, "Activist judges are those with an expansive view of judicial power.", but then I couldn't help but notice that I was simply illustrating your point. :)
It's a very big difference.First I adhere to the school of thought that says governments don't grant rights; they recognize them.
Secondly it's the judicial branch's responsibility to serve as a check to executive and legislative power. The legislature clearly exceeds its authority when it violates the Bill of Rights. Groups don't forfeit their individual right to free speech by forming a group whether that group is a corporation, church, or some other interest group.
Individuals can still have an impact particularly when they combine their political impact into "special interest groups".
I would argue that if we want less corrupt government we should strive for smaller government.
Well, BT, I respond by saying that members of groups already didn't forfeit their individual right to free speech. A corporation or other legal entity doesn't exist, so it's a bit of a stretch to say it has rights, above and beyond those of it's members, that society ought to be recognizing. But again, I think it comes down to how you look at it.
I find it helpful to just mentally bleep out the word "activist" and continue on with my business. :D
It's a very big difference.First I adhere to the school of thought that says governments don't grant rights; they recognize them.
Secondly it's the judicial branch's responsibility to serve as a check to executive and legislative power. The legislature clearly exceeds its authority when it violates the Bill of Rights. Groups don't forfeit their individual right to free speech by forming a group whether that group is a corporation, church, or some other interest group.
Individuals can still have an impact particularly when they combine their political impact into "special interest groups".
I would argue that if we want less corrupt government we should strive for smaller government.
Well, BT, I respond by saying that members of groups already didn't forfeit their individual right to free speech. A corporation or other legal entity doesn't exist, so it's a bit of a stretch to say it has rights, above and beyond those of it's members, that society ought to be recognizing.
But again, I think it comes down to how you look at it.
IIRC the case stemmed from the McCain Feingold law which I detest.
In any case if we restrict the collective free political speech of corporations and other political interest groups then we are well on our way down the slippery slope IMO.
I'm not happy with the concentration of power that the two big parties and major industries like banking and big pharma have, but I see this as much more of a failure of big intrusive government than free speech. I really believe that this is just one of many examples of the tension between government power and individual liberty. While my propensity to see said tension as a zero sum game may not be the majority opinion, I see this tension in every major policy issue of our time. I realize the way I look at all these issues is somewhat simplistic, but I really wish I could articulate more effectively the very real problems and unintended consequences of an ever expanding state.
