Supreme Court rules corporate contributions can't be limited

[Cali Coug]

Originalists everywhere cheer the decision. You know- because the founders believed that "individual" meant "corporation," and "speech" meant "campaign contribution."

Perhaps the decision can be legally defended- but it most definitely can't be on the grounds of originalism. Not that Scalia or Thomas actually care. They are, and always have been, results oriented rather than principled.

[MikeWaters]

I think ones reaction to this depends on whether one feels that the electorate, the citizens of America, as it were, are stupid or not.

I'm kinda undecided. Because I believe if the electorate is stupid, lazy, and uneducated, this country will fail. And it's not like there is zero evidence that this is the case.

[UtahDan]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Originalists everywhere cheer the decision. You know- because the founders believed that "individual" meant "corporation," and "speech" meant "campaign contribution."

Perhaps the decision can be legally defended- but it most definitely can't be on the grounds of originalism. Not that Scalia or Thomas actually care. They are, and always have been, results oriented rather than principled.

This decision doesn't have anything to do with campaign contributions does it? It is about electioneering communications funded by corporations. That is not a distinction without a difference.

Also, whatever the founders may have thought, SCOTUS has held many times over many years that speech protections apply to corporations, associations and other collections of human beings. Austin and McConnell are the departures from precedent there, not this case.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by UtahDan

This decision doesn't have anything to do with campaign contributions does it? It is about electioneering communications funded by corporations. That is not a distinction without a difference.

Also, whatever the founders may have thought, SCOTUS has held many times over many years that speech protections apply to corporations, associations and other collections of human beings. Austin and McConnell are the departures from precedent there, not this case.

Which is why I said "perhaps the decision may be legally defended." It just can't be on the grounds of originalism- or are you taking issue with that statement?

[Tex]

I'm sure Cali's baiting me, but I'll bite anyway.

I haven't read the opinions yet (though I cheer the decision, based on what I've heard), but the originalism dig by Cali is a complete red herring. As if Thomas or Scalia ever claimed that all decisions they make are originalist. Scalia has in fact said the exact opposite.

The results-oriented dig is also complete nonsense. I've heard Scalia speak a number of times of cases where his originalist approach has led him to a decision that he personally disagrees with. "Results-oriented" is the short definition of "judicial activist," and the ideological side most guilty of that is the Left.

Cf. Current Prop 8 challenge in federal court.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I'm sure Cali's baiting me, but I'll bite anyway.

I haven't read the opinions yet (though I cheer the decision, based on what I've heard), but the originalism dig by Cali is a complete red herring. As if Thomas or Scalia ever claimed that all decisions they make are originalist. Scalia has in fact said the exact opposite.

The results-oriented dig is also complete nonsense. I've heard Scalia speak a number of times of cases where his originalist approach has led him to a decision that he personally disagrees with. "Results-oriented" is the short definition of "judicial activist," and the ideological side most guilty of that is the Left.

Cf. Current Prop 8 challenge in federal court.

You tell me- why shouldn't they "all" be originalist- at least in areas where the founders spoke? The concept of an "individual" was well-established at the founding. On what originalist premise is it extended to corporations? Or do we not care that the definition of "individual" today means something different than it meant back at the founding? If we don't care about changes in the definition of that word, from an originalist perspective, then why care about changes in definitions of other words?

Could it be that originalism isn't, and never has been, and never can be, the anchor you want it to be?

Forgive me if I chuckle a bit that Scalia's statement that he isn't results oriented is conclusive proof that he isn't results oriented.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

You tell me- why shouldn't they "all" be originalist- at least in areas where the founders spoke? The concept of an "individual" was well-established at the founding. On what originalist premise is it extended to corporations? Or do we not care that the definition of "individual" today means something different than it meant back at the founding? If we don't care about changes in the definition of that word, from an originalist perspective, then why care about changes in definitions of other words?

We've been over this a dozen times already. I already know you think originalism is "nothing more than a hunt for substantiation for an opinion already held by the author." If you're going to repeat yourself over and over again, just stop.

For your benefit, here is what Scalia said to Peter Robinson less than a year ago (which I posted on this site at the time):

Look, I do not propose or suggest that originalism is perfect, and provides easy answers for everything. But that is not my burden. My burden is to show that it's better than everything else. The originalist has easy answers for many things, especially the most controversial things in modern times ...

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Forgive me if I chuckle a bit that Scalia's statement that he isn't results oriented is conclusive proof that he isn't results oriented.

His word is at least as good as yours.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

We've been over this a dozen times already. I already know you think originalism is "nothing more than a hunt for substantiation for an opinion already held by the author." If you're going to repeat yourself over and over again, just stop.

For your benefit, here is what Scalia said to Peter Robinson less than a year ago (which I posted on this site at the time):





His word is at least as good as yours.

Please address the substance of my questions if you actually want to engage on this point. Scalia is right- the burden is yours as an originalist.

[MikeWaters]

what's the counter argument? That congress has the ability to restrict corporate and union funded speech in any way it sees fit?

Only an individual alone has the unrestricted right to free speech?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Please address the substance of my questions if you actually want to engage on this point. Scalia is right- the burden is yours as an originalist.

I've already done that. Do a search.

Although technically I'm not an originalist, or anything else. I'm just a computer programmer who is a complete legal layman. But I like what I read about it.

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

what's the counter argument? That congress has the ability to restrict corporate and union funded speech in any way it sees fit?

Only an individual alone has the unrestricted right to free speech?

Sort of reminds me of the 5-4 Heller ruling a while back when DC tried to parse the "right to bear arms". Only then, they were trying to say that it didn't apply to individuals, but only militias. Judicial activists mold the constitution to fit whatever it is they're trying to do.