• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Recent Supreme Court Dissents Don't Make a Lick of Sense

From my other blog...

The Ninth Court is a continual embarrassment to American jurisprudence. With the recent addition of Sotomayor, the Supreme Court is no closer to (once and for all) completely ignoring that particular bunion of 'Progressive' thought that emerges from the Ninth Court's pens like some sort of bizarre tropical fungus. Sadly enough, Sotomayor managed to do some particularly insightful judicial virtuosity in the latest Supreme Court decision HOLDER, ATTORNEY GENERAL, et al. v. HUMANITARIAN LAW PROJECT et al.

Remember CITIZENS UNITED V. FEDERAL ELECTIONS COMMITTEE? Part of Sotomayor's opinion read that "In sum, over the course of the past century Congress has demonstrated a recurrent need to regulate corporate participation in candidate elections to " '[p]reserv[e] the integrity of the electoral process..."

To preserve the integrity of the electoral process, to use Sotomayor's words, requires that corporations (which are too destructive to the electoral process) be regulated. At least, from her point of view which sees corporations as almost entirely as some sort of anti-Christ figure. Yet, in her latest opinion regarding donating and supporting terrorist organizations she wrote that "Not even the 'serious and deadly problem' of international terrorism can require automatic forfeiture of First Amendment rights."

What? What? This is some sort of bad joke, it must be. If this is to be believed, Sotomayor is arguing that a corporation's donations to political candidates is not within the protections offered by the 1st Amendment, yet donations to terrorist organizations are theoretically within those protections? I am not a lawyer, or have a degree in law, yet I believe the electoral process is much more maligned by the activities of terrorist organizations than corporate donations. I know this may sound extremely right-wing, but terrorist organizations are much, much more corrosive on a proper election cycle than any nefarious "far right-wing conspiracy" corporation.
Top Bottom