Go Back   Bloggingheads Community > Life, the Universe and Everything
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Notices

Life, the Universe and Everything Post comments about everything else here.

 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #25  
Old 07-04-2011, 06:09 AM
sugarkang sugarkang is offline
 
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Cali, Small-Govt Liberal
Posts: 2,186
Default Re: Protecting the interests of the wealthy!!

I finally read the opinion in Arizona v. Bennett. I've provided actual quotes and plain language (layman) interpretations side by side for easy comparison in case anyone wants to know what actually happened.

Quote:
Kagan (Dissent): Next, the majority notes that the Act allows participating candidates to accept private contributions if (but only if) the State cannot provide the funds it has promised (forexample, because of a budget crisis). Ante, at 23 (citing§16–954(F)). That provision, the majority argues, shows that when push comes to shove, the State cares more about “leveling” than about fighting corruption. Ante, at 23. But this is a plain misreading of the law. All the statute does is …
Layman Kagan: Arizona is not trying to “level the playing field.” It’s true, if that were the justification, the law would not be valid. Rather, Arizona is trying to “fight corruption,” which is a perfectly valid justification for abridging freedom of speech.

Quote:
Roberts 1 (Majority):Leveling the playing field” can sound like a good thing. But in a democracy, campaigning for office is not a game. It is a critically important form of speech. The First Amendment embodies our choice as a Nation that, when it comes to such speech, the guiding principle is freedom—the “unfettered interchange of ideas”—not whatever the State may view as fair.
Layman Roberts 1: Leveling the playing field is some shit that voters would probably think is a good idea. However, the U.S. Supreme Fucking Court doesn’t decide by its own arbitrary whim what is or is not fair. If NAMBLA is supported by 0.001% of the population, we’re not going to all of a sudden mandate that they get 50% airtime. Fair is subjective and so we don't go mucking about with the marketplace of ideas.

Quote:
Roberts 2: But it is not the amount of funding that the State provides that is constitutionally problematic. It is the manner in which that funding is provided—in direct response to the political speech of privately financed candidates and independent expenditure groups.
Layman Roberts 2: In response to Kagan's strawman about leveling the playing field: we don’t give a shit if you want to level the playing field or not; it’s not even the relevant issue and certainly not the justification for our ruling. You can pass a campaign finance law based on leveling the playing field, if you like. Arizona is free to rewrite the laws to make it fair and constitutional.

How is the “liberal” court trying to limit speech? Here's an example: let's say that Candidate Gay (Democrat) is privately financed and is running against Mike Huckabee (Republican) who is publicly financed. Every time Candidate Gay spends $1, Huckabee gets a matching $1 from public funds. Well, shit. This is no good. Why would Candidate Gay spend any money? It's just going to get matched by public funds "for free." That amounts to free, anti-gay marriage money paid by public taxes. Candidate Gay feels that he cannot exercise his political speech by using private contributions from his donors.

Quote:
Roberts 3: Evaluating the wisdom of public financing as a means of funding political candidacy is not the Court’s business.
Layman Roberts 3: We uphold principles, even when we dislike the outcome. If you want to pass a law that levels the playing field, please fucking rewrite it so that it doesn't conflict with our most important right: freedom of fucking speech. You do not use the United States Supreme Court to do social engineering at your whim. We are a government of laws, not of women who eat at Chinese restaurants on Christmas.

Where the fuck is Justice Brennan when you need him?
__________________
The mixing of populations lowers the cost of being unusual.
Reply With Quote
 


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:37 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.