4 ms·

This may be totally untrue, but I had a history professor who said that when a company made an argument that it had equal protection under the law from the 15th

This may be totally untrue, but I had a history professor who said that when a company made an argument that it had equal protection under the law from the 15th Amendment, they managed to hire the only living writer of the amendment as their lawyer. Given that it was written under secrecy, his word was all anyone had to go on. Regardless, the Citizen's United decision was actually pretty clearly pro-free speech, and abuses by companies may well be cleaned up as time goes on and more cases reach the Supreme Court (or so said Scalia when I asked him, honestly it did sound like he was a little embarrassed about how his opinion turned out)

alexeldeib 6y ago
> or so said Scalia when I asked him When you asked him about it? That piqued my interest, what was the context? Why'd he seem embarrassed? The name drop begs for more details :)
ikiris 6y ago
I don't believe that Scalia has ever been embarassed by his blatant intellectual dishonesty in efforts to justify a conclusion he'd like to reach.
- memling 6y ago
  > his blatant intellectual dishonesty Sincerely curious: do you have examples? Scalia's a controversial justice, to say the least, for a variety of reasons, but I don't quite understand this criticism. (I do understand not liking his jurisprudence or his abrasive style.) He and Justice Ginsburg, for example, were famous friends while holding opposite opinions about how to interpret and read the U.S. Constitution; one would think she would've called him out on blatant dishonesty (intellectual or otherwise)
dragonwriter 6y ago
> but I had a history professor who said that when a company made an argument that it had equal protection under the law from the 15th Amendment, That seems...implausible: Section 1 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2 The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > they managed to hire the only living writer of the amendment as their lawyer. Given that it was written under secrecy, his word was all anyone had to go on. The Court (and courts in general) don't tend to look to authorial intent as the original intent that matters, but legislative intent (the intent of the body/(-ies) adopting the provision.) So, the word of the “only living author” wouldn’t be the only thing anyone had to go on; they’d have the records of legislative debates. And an authorial position (even if well-documwnted) that wasn't actively considered in legislative debate would probably not be considered to have much weight.
enkid 6y ago
It's been ten years. Have there been any meaningful restrictions on those rights in that time? I don't know of any.

alexeldeib 6y ago

> or so said Scalia when I asked him When you asked him about it? That piqued my interest, what was the context? Why'd he seem embarrassed? The name drop begs for more details :)

ikiris 6y ago

I don't believe that Scalia has ever been embarassed by his blatant intellectual dishonesty in efforts to justify a conclusion he'd like to reach.

memling 6y ago
> his blatant intellectual dishonesty Sincerely curious: do you have examples? Scalia's a controversial justice, to say the least, for a variety of reasons, but I don't quite understand this criticism. (I do understand not liking his jurisprudence or his abrasive style.) He and Justice Ginsburg, for example, were famous friends while holding opposite opinions about how to interpret and read the U.S. Constitution; one would think she would've called him out on blatant dishonesty (intellectual or otherwise)

dragonwriter 6y ago

> but I had a history professor who said that when a company made an argument that it had equal protection under the law from the 15th Amendment, That seems...implausible: Section 1 The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. Section 2 The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation. > they managed to hire the only living writer of the amendment as their lawyer. Given that it was written under secrecy, his word was all anyone had to go on. The Court (and courts in general) don't tend to look to authorial intent as the original intent that matters, but legislative intent (the intent of the body/(-ies) adopting the provision.) So, the word of the “only living author” wouldn’t be the only thing anyone had to go on; they’d have the records of legislative debates. And an authorial position (even if well-documwnted) that wasn't actively considered in legislative debate would probably not be considered to have much weight.

enkid 6y ago

It's been ten years. Have there been any meaningful restrictions on those rights in that time? I don't know of any.