If they overturn Roe, why not Citizens?

[independentusa]

People on the right say that Roe is not based on any language found in the constitution, but on a decision saying that the right to an abortion is founded on an interpretation of the constitution privacy rights. The present far right members of the court will soon overturn Roe and the right applauds such a decision. So if Roe is based not on direct language found in the constitution, then what bout Citizens decision, which in part is based on the Buckley Vs Valeo decision. Now there is no language in our constitution that says that money is equal to speech and there seems to be nothing in the records that our forefather's writings did either. Both court decisions concerning political contributions are based again on interpretations of the First Amendment. Nothing about limiting spending on ads for political campaigns is there language found in that amendment. It like Roe is based on "interpretations" of an amendment. So if you are going to overturn Roe, which the right considers unconstitutional, then you should also overturn Citizens and Buckley vs Valeo, since they are both only based on interpretations of the constitution and not based a direct language of it.

 

[Phys251]

People on the right say that Roe is not based on any language found in the constitution, but on a decision saying that the right to an abortion is founded on an interpretation of the constitution privacy rights. The present far right members of the court will soon overturn Roe and the right applauds such a decision. So if Roe is based not on direct language found in the constitution, then what bout Citizens decision, which in part is based on the Buckley Vs Valeo decision. Now there is no language in our constitution that says that money is equal to speech and there seems to be nothing in the records that our forefather's writings did either. Both court decisions concerning political contributions are based again on interpretations of the First Amendment. Nothing about limiting spending on ads for political campaigns is there language found in that amendment. It like Roe is based on "interpretations" of an amendment. So if you are going to overturn Roe, which the right considers unconstitutional, then you should also overturn Citizens and Buckley vs Valeo, since they are both only based on interpretations of the constitution and not based a direct language of it.

Since this Court is going to rule that precedent doesn't matter and that the Constitution doesn't matter, there's nothing stopping a future Court from doing exactly what you propose.

 

[Crovax]

Since this Court is going to rule that precedent doesn't matter and that the Constitution doesn't matter, there's nothing stopping a future Court from doing exactly what you propose.

If the SCOTUS couldnt overturn precedent then blacks still wouldn't be considered people. Go crawl back in your ignorance hole

 

[Phys251]

If the SCOTUS couldnt overturn precedent then blacks still would be considered people. Go crawl back in your ignorance hole

You, sir, just exploded millions of irony meters.

 

[Cope]

People on the right say that Roe is not based on any language found in the constitution, but on a decision saying that the right to an abortion is founded on an interpretation of the constitution privacy rights. The present far right members of the court will soon overturn Roe and the right applauds such a decision. So if Roe is based not on direct language found in the constitution, then what bout Citizens decision, which in part is based on the Buckley Vs Valeo decision. Now there is no language in our constitution that says that money is equal to speech and there seems to be nothing in the records that our forefather's writings did either. Both court decisions concerning political contributions are based again on interpretations of the First Amendment. Nothing about limiting spending on ads for political campaigns is there language found in that amendment. It like Roe is based on "interpretations" of an amendment. So if you are going to overturn Roe, which the right considers unconstitutional, then you should also overturn Citizens and Buckley vs Valeo, since they are both only based on interpretations of the constitution and not based a direct language of it.

They would need to do that before any real meaningful political funding reform could take hold.

 

[Crovax]

You, sir, just exploded millions of irony meters.

Yes I had a typo, and it was apparently the end of the world for yoy

 

[Indlib]

People on the right say that Roe is not based on any language found in the constitution, but on a decision saying that the right to an abortion is founded on an interpretation of the constitution privacy rights. The present far right members of the court will soon overturn Roe and the right applauds such a decision. So if Roe is based not on direct language found in the constitution, then what bout Citizens decision, which in part is based on the Buckley Vs Valeo decision. Now there is no language in our constitution that says that money is equal to speech and there seems to be nothing in the records that our forefather's writings did either. Both court decisions concerning political contributions are based again on interpretations of the First Amendment. Nothing about limiting spending on ads for political campaigns is there language found in that amendment. It like Roe is based on "interpretations" of an amendment. So if you are going to overturn Roe, which the right considers unconstitutional, then you should also overturn Citizens and Buckley vs Valeo, since they are both only based on interpretations of the constitution and not based a direct language of it.

Essentially any 9th amendment unenumerated rights are at risk with this court.

Will they overturn the right to travel, presumption of innocence and the right to marry (among others) and make them state issues?

 

[jnug]

The country at present is a train wreck. Get the right people to the SC and the appellate courts and you can do just about anything you please.

 

[Noodlegawd]

People on the right say that Roe is not based on any language found in the constitution, but on a decision saying that the right to an abortion is founded on an interpretation of the constitution privacy rights. The present far right members of the court will soon overturn Roe and the right applauds such a decision. So if Roe is based not on direct language found in the constitution, then what bout Citizens decision, which in part is based on the Buckley Vs Valeo decision. Now there is no language in our constitution that says that money is equal to speech and there seems to be nothing in the records that our forefather's writings did either. Both court decisions concerning political contributions are based again on interpretations of the First Amendment. Nothing about limiting spending on ads for political campaigns is there language found in that amendment. It like Roe is based on "interpretations" of an amendment. So if you are going to overturn Roe, which the right considers unconstitutional, then you should also overturn Citizens and Buckley vs Valeo, since they are both only based on interpretations of the constitution and not based a direct language of it.

Citizen's United doesn't say that money is equal to free speech.

 

[ttwtt78640]

People on the right say that Roe is not based on any language found in the constitution, but on a decision saying that the right to an abortion is founded on an interpretation of the constitution privacy rights. The present far right members of the court will soon overturn Roe and the right applauds such a decision. So if Roe is based not on direct language found in the constitution, then what bout Citizens decision, which in part is based on the Buckley Vs Valeo decision. Now there is no language in our constitution that says that money is equal to speech and there seems to be nothing in the records that our forefather's writings did either. Both court decisions concerning political contributions are based again on interpretations of the First Amendment. Nothing about limiting spending on ads for political campaigns is there language found in that amendment. It like Roe is based on "interpretations" of an amendment. So if you are going to overturn Roe, which the right considers unconstitutional, then you should also overturn Citizens and Buckley vs Valeo, since they are both only based on interpretations of the constitution and not based a direct language of it.

CU had nothing to do with campaign contributions - it was blocking an attempt by the FEC to limit political speech by some (carefully selected?) corporations or groups ‘too close to federal election time’.

Obviously, the FEC was not about to tell MSNBC, ABC, CBS, NPR or Fox News what they could or could not say about candidates ‘too close to federal election time’, yet decided to try to protect Hillary from ‘outside’ media (corporate?) interests while allowing (all?) others to say whatever they wished.

 

[Deuce]

People on the right say that Roe is not based on any language found in the constitution, but on a decision saying that the right to an abortion is founded on an interpretation of the constitution privacy rights. The present far right members of the court will soon overturn Roe and the right applauds such a decision. So if Roe is based not on direct language found in the constitution, then what bout Citizens decision, which in part is based on the Buckley Vs Valeo decision. Now there is no language in our constitution that says that money is equal to speech and there seems to be nothing in the records that our forefather's writings did either. Both court decisions concerning political contributions are based again on interpretations of the First Amendment. Nothing about limiting spending on ads for political campaigns is there language found in that amendment. It like Roe is based on "interpretations" of an amendment. So if you are going to overturn Roe, which the right considers unconstitutional, then you should also overturn Citizens and Buckley vs Valeo, since they are both only based on interpretations of the constitution and not based a direct language of it.

Assuming Alito's reasoning goes in as the draft implies (NOTE: This is not at all guaranteed to happen), then this would absolutely be on the table. Anything not "deeply rooted in tradition" is no longer a right if its not specifically enumerated in the constitution. I don't think all the cheering Republicans have thought this through. Imagine the sort of covid control measures that can be implemented with such a broad reduction in constitutional protections.

 

[MamboDervish]

People on the right say that Roe is not based on any language found in the constitution, but on a decision saying that the right to an abortion is founded on an interpretation of the constitution privacy rights. The present far right members of the court will soon overturn Roe and the right applauds such a decision. So if Roe is based not on direct language found in the constitution, then what bout Citizens decision, which in part is based on the Buckley Vs Valeo decision. Now there is no language in our constitution that says that money is equal to speech and there seems to be nothing in the records that our forefather's writings did either. Both court decisions concerning political contributions are based again on interpretations of the First Amendment. Nothing about limiting spending on ads for political campaigns is there language found in that amendment. It like Roe is based on "interpretations" of an amendment. So if you are going to overturn Roe, which the right considers unconstitutional, then you should also overturn Citizens and Buckley vs Valeo, since they are both only based on interpretations of the constitution and not based a direct language of it.

The Citizens United decision is actually the end of a very, very long line of court decisions, starting way back in 1886 with Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, where the Supreme Court declined to even vote on that decision, but the court clerk who had railroad interests essentially lied while writing the Head Notes of the decision, and a string of subsequent court decisions were predicated on that Head Notes lie. Actually reversing Citizens United might require unraveling a 130+ year old tapestry that has consistently voted in favor of corporations, at the expense of the American electorate.

It might be easier at this point to simply make a new constitutional amendment to effectively overturn it.

 

[notquiteright]

People on the right say that Roe is not based on any language found in the constitution, but on a decision saying that the right to an abortion is founded on an interpretation of the constitution privacy rights. The present far right members of the court will soon overturn Roe and the right applauds such a decision. So if Roe is based not on direct language found in the constitution, then what bout Citizens decision, which in part is based on the Buckley Vs Valeo decision. Now there is no language in our constitution that says that money is equal to speech and there seems to be nothing in the records that our forefather's writings did either. Both court decisions concerning political contributions are based again on interpretations of the First Amendment. Nothing about limiting spending on ads for political campaigns is there language found in that amendment. It like Roe is based on "interpretations" of an amendment. So if you are going to overturn Roe, which the right considers unconstitutional, then you should also overturn Citizens and Buckley vs Valeo, since they are both only based on interpretations of the constitution and not based a direct language of it.

Deck ain't stacked that way... ✌️

 

[Mr Person]

Orignalism is a stupid lie designed to bootstrap opinions that reach results Republicans like into credibility. But that won't stop a Republican-appointed judge from insisting that when he issued a ruling on whether it is a search for police to aim infrared scanners at houses from the street, he was divining the glorious intent of someone who lived two hundred years before anyone would be in a position to ask the question (Kyllo). It also won't stop them from idiotically pretending there was just one intended meaning for any given provision. In reality, the constitution was just as much if not more of a political compromise.

In fact, all but two framers agreed that the power of judicial review granted by Article III function like English common law. Meaning that the law would necessarily grow and change over time. (And frankly, it'd have to regardless of what the framers intended: new questions arise all the time. They have to be answered). Roe was built on this shifting ground, like all decisions.


This was never about intellectual objections to decisionmaking. It was about religion.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

People on the right say that Roe is not based on any language found in the constitution, but on a decision saying that the right to an abortion is founded on an interpretation of the constitution privacy rights. The present far right members of the court will soon overturn Roe and the right applauds such a decision. So if Roe is based not on direct language found in the constitution, then what bout Citizens decision, which in part is based on the Buckley Vs Valeo decision. Now there is no language in our constitution that says that money is equal to speech and there seems to be nothing in the records that our forefather's writings did either. Both court decisions concerning political contributions are based again on interpretations of the First Amendment. Nothing about limiting spending on ads for political campaigns is there language found in that amendment. It like Roe is based on "interpretations" of an amendment. So if you are going to overturn Roe, which the right considers unconstitutional, then you should also overturn Citizens and Buckley vs Valeo, since they are both only based on interpretations of the constitution and not based a direct language of it.

Don't confuse them with logic and reasoning! It makes them cranky.

 

[Gateman_Wen]

You, sir, just exploded millions of irony meters.

Freud strikes again!

 

[Gateman_Wen]

Assuming Alito's reasoning goes in as the draft implies (NOTE: This is not at all guaranteed to happen), then this would absolutely be on the table. Anything not "deeply rooted in tradition" is no longer a right if its not specifically enumerated in the constitution. I don't think all the cheering Republicans have thought this through. Imagine the sort of covid control measures that can be implemented with such a broad reduction in constitutional protections.

The 2 A only mentions regional militias, if we wanna get real literal minded about interpreting the Constitution.

 

[independentusa]

The Citizens United decision is actually the end of a very, very long line of court decisions, starting way back in 1886 with Santa Clara County vs. Southern Pacific Railroad, where the Supreme Court declined to even vote on that decision, but the court clerk who had railroad interests essentially lied while writing the Head Notes of the decision, and a string of subsequent court decisions were predicated on that Head Notes lie. Actually reversing Citizens United might require unraveling a 130+ year old tapestry that has consistently voted in favor of corporations, at the expense of the American electorate.

It might be easier at this point to simply make a new constitutional amendment to effectively overturn it.

Can you show me where the constitution says that the government can not control campaign financing or in any words that money is equal to free speech. You can not because there is no such even a suggestion of that in the constitution. The whole idea behind such decisions as Citizen's United is the court "interpreting" the constitutions meaning. That is the same thing as was done with Roe and Roe has been the law for over 50 years an the decision to overturn it is a political and right wing religious one. Justice Barret once said that "God's" law should rule over that of man and in this decision it did.

 

[ttwtt78640]

Can you show me where the constitution says that the government can not control campaign financing or in any words that money is equal to free speech. You can not because there is no such even a suggestion of that in the constitution. The whole idea behind such decisions as Citizen's United is the court "interpreting" the constitutions meaning. That is the same thing as was done with Roe and Roe has been the law for over 50 years an the decision to overturn it is a political and right wing religious one. Justice Barret once said that "God's" law should rule over that of man and in this decision it did.

You intentionally misrepresent the CU vs FEC decision. Why can MSNBC, ABC, NPR, CNN and Fox News corporations freely talk about and express opinions about political candidates ‘too close to federal election time’ while (carefully selected?) others (e.g. CU) may not?

The case went to the Supreme Court. During oral arguments, the government asserted its power to prohibit corporate speech was so broad that it could even prohibit companies from publishing books that contained a single line advocating for or against a candidate.

Citizens United: Affirming Government Can’t Ban Speech - Institute For Free Speech

Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is a 2010 Supreme Court decision that restored some of the First Amendment rights of corporations and unions that had been restricted under the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. The case was brought by Citizens United, a nonprofit organization...

www.ifs.org

On January 21, 2010, the Supreme Court issued a ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission overruling an earlier decision, Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (Austin), that allowed prohibitions on independent expenditures by corporations. The Court also overruled the part of McConnell v. Federal Election Commission that held that corporations could be banned from making electioneering communications. The Court upheld the reporting and disclaimer requirements for independent expenditures and electioneering communications. The Court’s ruling did not affect the ban on corporate contributions.

Citizens United v. FEC - FEC.gov

Summary of Citizens United v. FEC

www.fec.gov

 

[MamboDervish]

Can you show me where the constitution says that the government can not control campaign financing or in any words that money is equal to free speech. You can not because there is no such even a suggestion of that in the constitution.

Thank you. You're making my point.

The whole idea behind such decisions as Citizen's United is the court "interpreting" the constitutions meaning.

Not merely that, but also stare decisis. There has been well over a hundred years of Supreme Court precedence leading up to Citizens United, inexorably concluding that corporations are "people" and should have the rights of people, all tracing back to the bogus summary of the 1886 S. Clara County vs. S.P. Railway decision.

That is the same thing as was done with Roe and Roe has been the law for over 50 years an the decision to overturn it is a political and right wing religious one. Justice Barret once said that "God's" law should rule over that of man and in this decision it did.

Which decision are you referring to? Roe v. Wade, Citizen's United, or the more current leaked musings of today's Supreme Court?