5 ms·

My understanding of the case is different that yours. I don't want to get into a political disagreement so I'll leave it at that. I think it is unfortunate tha

My understanding of the case is different that yours. I don't want to get into a political disagreement so I'll leave it at that. I think it is unfortunate that Hillary made that statement about SCOTUS, but at the same time it is not unprecedented for SCOTUS to reverse itself. Look at Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board of Education. There are many others as well. Also, it seems disingenuous to call out Hillary for this and not Donald Trump (and many more republicans) who only want to nominate SCOTUS justices who will strike down Roe v. Wade.

MrZongle2 10y ago
"Also, it seems disingenuous to call out Hillary for this and not Donald Trump (and many more republicans) who only want to nominate SCOTUS justices who will strike down Roe v. Wade." Every election, the boogeyman of a Republican-stacked SCOTUS tearing down Roe v. Wade is brought up. There have been five Republicans in office following the ruling (Nixon [in office at the time], Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43) and it has yet to happen, under far more conservative atmospheres. I don't buy the fearmongering on this front.
- blackguardx 10y ago
  Trump[1] and Cruz have said this. Are they lying? In the past, the supreme court wasn't the political football it has become today. [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-cou...
  - ubernostrum 10y ago
    Slight counterpoint: I believe Republicans want to campaign on overturning Roe, and do want to chip away at it in ways which don't completely overturn, but that they want to be able to continue campaigning on overturning it, forever. They're not idiots. They know they have a topic that gets a lot of single-issue voters to go out and cast ballots every election. And they know public opinion is overwhelmingly against fully overturning Roe, so if they ever succeeded they'd be in trouble: a lot of the country would be against them, and the single-issue hotheads would no longer have a righteous cause to motivate them to vote. So what they want is the campaign issue, not the reality of actually overturning it.
  - MrZongle2 10y ago
    "Trump and Cruz have said this. Are they lying?" Are they politicians? More seriously: Obama said a lot of things that didn't come to pass. Was he lying? Clinton has said a lot of things on the campaign trail: is she telling the truth on everything? How much is truth, and how much is pandering to the target audience? Are candidates from the different parties held by a different standard in this regard?
- alistairSH 10y ago
  All of which refutes the OP's point. Justices overall are a conservative bunch (little-c, as in "don't make waves") and don't make a habit of throwing away decades of precedent, regardless of their personal beliefs.
bitwize 10y ago
I know about SCOTUS reversing itself, but I'd like to think they'd do it in favor of broadening our rights, not narrowing or invalidating them. Oliver Wendell Holmes issued his famous "shout fire in a crowded theater" quote in a majority opinion in which the Supreme Court upheld a law forbidding people from criticizing the draft. That was a dark time for free speech in America and I'd rather not see us return to it. I've criticized Trump on that and many other issues, but Trump is not likely to be elected. Hillary is.
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Corporate speech is a very tricky and nuanced topic. Here's a simple issue it brings up: if a corporation has a right to free speech, does it really? Suppose I'm a shareholder in a corporation. That corporation has some legal duties with respect to looking out for my interests; can I use that to force the corporation to engage in political speech? If the corporation backs a candidate who will negatively impact shareholder value, or insufficiently supports a candidate who will increase shareholder value, should I be able to sue the corporation over using its "free speech" right inappropriately?
  - jahewson 10y ago
    Free speech applies only to the government prosecuting or passing laws to restrict people (or in this case, corporations). You can sue whoever (or whatever corporation) you like. There's no such thing as a "free speech" defence against a private lawsuit.
    - bitwize 10y ago
      Tell that to Zoe Quinn, who got her restraining order forbidding Eron Gjoni from speaking about her publicly overturned -- on free speech grounds. (I think the Massachusetts court made the wrong decision in that case.)
      - jahewson 10y ago
        No, a restraining order is not a private matter, it's the government restricting an individual's speech. Exactly the sort of thing to which "free speech" applies. No supprises here.

MrZongle2 10y ago

"Also, it seems disingenuous to call out Hillary for this and not Donald Trump (and many more republicans) who only want to nominate SCOTUS justices who will strike down Roe v. Wade." Every election, the boogeyman of a Republican-stacked SCOTUS tearing down Roe v. Wade is brought up. There have been five Republicans in office following the ruling (Nixon [in office at the time], Ford, Reagan, Bush 41 and Bush 43) and it has yet to happen, under far more conservative atmospheres. I don't buy the fearmongering on this front.

blackguardx 10y ago
Trump[1] and Cruz have said this. Are they lying? In the past, the supreme court wasn't the political football it has become today. [1] http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-court-justices-to-overturn-roe-v-wade-abortion-case.html http://www.cnbc.com/2016/10/19/trump-ill-appoint-supreme-cou...
- ubernostrum 10y ago
  Slight counterpoint: I believe Republicans want to campaign on overturning Roe, and do want to chip away at it in ways which don't completely overturn, but that they want to be able to continue campaigning on overturning it, forever. They're not idiots. They know they have a topic that gets a lot of single-issue voters to go out and cast ballots every election. And they know public opinion is overwhelmingly against fully overturning Roe, so if they ever succeeded they'd be in trouble: a lot of the country would be against them, and the single-issue hotheads would no longer have a righteous cause to motivate them to vote. So what they want is the campaign issue, not the reality of actually overturning it.
- MrZongle2 10y ago
  "Trump and Cruz have said this. Are they lying?" Are they politicians? More seriously: Obama said a lot of things that didn't come to pass. Was he lying? Clinton has said a lot of things on the campaign trail: is she telling the truth on everything? How much is truth, and how much is pandering to the target audience? Are candidates from the different parties held by a different standard in this regard?
alistairSH 10y ago
All of which refutes the OP's point. Justices overall are a conservative bunch (little-c, as in "don't make waves") and don't make a habit of throwing away decades of precedent, regardless of their personal beliefs.

bitwize 10y ago

I know about SCOTUS reversing itself, but I'd like to think they'd do it in favor of broadening our rights, not narrowing or invalidating them. Oliver Wendell Holmes issued his famous "shout fire in a crowded theater" quote in a majority opinion in which the Supreme Court upheld a law forbidding people from criticizing the draft. That was a dark time for free speech in America and I'd rather not see us return to it. I've criticized Trump on that and many other issues, but Trump is not likely to be elected. Hillary is.

ubernostrum 10y ago
Corporate speech is a very tricky and nuanced topic. Here's a simple issue it brings up: if a corporation has a right to free speech, does it really? Suppose I'm a shareholder in a corporation. That corporation has some legal duties with respect to looking out for my interests; can I use that to force the corporation to engage in political speech? If the corporation backs a candidate who will negatively impact shareholder value, or insufficiently supports a candidate who will increase shareholder value, should I be able to sue the corporation over using its "free speech" right inappropriately?
- jahewson 10y ago
  Free speech applies only to the government prosecuting or passing laws to restrict people (or in this case, corporations). You can sue whoever (or whatever corporation) you like. There's no such thing as a "free speech" defence against a private lawsuit.
  - bitwize 10y ago
    Tell that to Zoe Quinn, who got her restraining order forbidding Eron Gjoni from speaking about her publicly overturned -- on free speech grounds. (I think the Massachusetts court made the wrong decision in that case.)
    - jahewson 10y ago
      No, a restraining order is not a private matter, it's the government restricting an individual's speech. Exactly the sort of thing to which "free speech" applies. No supprises here.