4 ms·

The Supreme Court is defending the First Amendment, and "court reform" is a euphemism for eliminating the independence of the judiciary in order to dismantle th

The Supreme Court is defending the First Amendment, and "court reform" is a euphemism for eliminating the independence of the judiciary in order to dismantle those First Amendment protections.

SauciestGNU 2y ago
Supreme Court justices are taking bribes to deliver outcomes their cronies want, and "court reform" is a euphemism for holding justices selling our country accountable.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  There is zero evidence of any bribery. This is just more salacious defamation by those who want to destroy the independence of the judiciary.
  - defrost 2y ago
    Sure. Harlan Crow just loves to sprinkle robust black men in gowns with money, six star vacations, and RV's as much as he loves painting by Adolf Hitler and Nazi memorabilia. We shouldn't kink shame or say that he expects any quo to his quids. > those who want to destroy the independence of the judiciary. Bit late to whine about that fait accompli. It'll take decades to wind back Mitch McConnell's two decade deep tainting of the US justice system with Federalist Society stooges.
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      He might love to shower his friends with gifts, and might find friendship with exactly the kind of minds that are bright enough to become Supreme Court justices. >It'll take decades to wind back Mitch McConnell's two decade deep tainting of the US justice system with Federalist Society stooges. Appointing justices when a space opens up is the standard way of doing it, and federalist judges adhere to the Constitution, so outside of a certain ideological camp, there is nothing wrong with appointing them. The lifetime tenure gives the Supreme Court justices a degree of independence that would vanish should every congress and president be able to totally capture the court in a single four year cycle by adding any arbitrary number of new justices to out vote the sitting justices.
consteval 2y ago
I think even the most conservative of conservatives couldn't really argue our Supreme Court is defending the First Amendment. There's no speech restriction here - rather it's an attempt to further enrich the establishment by ensuring only career politicians and the ultra-rich can campaign. If anything, this is a speech restriction, because I do not have the ability to have my own campaign speech.
- ETH_start 2y ago
  There is a very obvious argument that restricting the right to pay for political advertisements violates the First Amendment. You can read the argument here: https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/cu_sc08_opinion.pdf https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/cu_...
  - consteval 2y ago
    Yes, there is an argument, that doesn't mean I agree with the argument or that's it's even reasonable. You can make an argument for anything, certainly we've made arguments for eugenics in the past. In my opinion, corporations are fundamentally different than individuals and only the naivest reading of the constitution would extend such rights to them. In addition, even if you can argue it, you still have to face the reality that this is harmful. Just because you're able to play an "erm, akchually!" game doesn't mean you can ignore consequences. There are many things which are technically correct but in practice are awful. Exhibit A: you could argue the second amendment extends to fully automatic miniature machine guns. And we allowed those for a long time. In practice, there's virtually no benevolent use for such weapons and outlawing them is a no-brainer. Outlawing such weapons was a large factor in dismantling the American mafias of the past. Now nobody really cares, and we've all moved on - obviously, it was not such an important right in the first place.
    - ETH_start 2y ago
      You haven't actually contended with the legal reasoning provided for this position — that corporations are entitled First Amendment protections — by the courts. So you're just assuming they're wrong, without any kind of substantiation. Your reaction is entirely politically motivated as opposed to motivated by careful and objective study of the law.

The Supreme Court is defending the First Amendment, and "court reform" is a euphemism for eliminating the independence of the judiciary in order to dismantle those First Amendment protections.

SauciestGNU 2y ago

Supreme Court justices are taking bribes to deliver outcomes their cronies want, and "court reform" is a euphemism for holding justices selling our country accountable.

ETH_start 2y ago
There is zero evidence of any bribery. This is just more salacious defamation by those who want to destroy the independence of the judiciary.
- defrost 2y ago
  Sure. Harlan Crow just loves to sprinkle robust black men in gowns with money, six star vacations, and RV's as much as he loves painting by Adolf Hitler and Nazi memorabilia. We shouldn't kink shame or say that he expects any quo to his quids. > those who want to destroy the independence of the judiciary. Bit late to whine about that fait accompli. It'll take decades to wind back Mitch McConnell's two decade deep tainting of the US justice system with Federalist Society stooges.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    He might love to shower his friends with gifts, and might find friendship with exactly the kind of minds that are bright enough to become Supreme Court justices. >It'll take decades to wind back Mitch McConnell's two decade deep tainting of the US justice system with Federalist Society stooges. Appointing justices when a space opens up is the standard way of doing it, and federalist judges adhere to the Constitution, so outside of a certain ideological camp, there is nothing wrong with appointing them. The lifetime tenure gives the Supreme Court justices a degree of independence that would vanish should every congress and president be able to totally capture the court in a single four year cycle by adding any arbitrary number of new justices to out vote the sitting justices.

consteval 2y ago

I think even the most conservative of conservatives couldn't really argue our Supreme Court is defending the First Amendment. There's no speech restriction here - rather it's an attempt to further enrich the establishment by ensuring only career politicians and the ultra-rich can campaign. If anything, this is a speech restriction, because I do not have the ability to have my own campaign speech.

ETH_start 2y ago
There is a very obvious argument that restricting the right to pay for political advertisements violates the First Amendment. You can read the argument here: https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/cu_sc08_opinion.pdf https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/cu_...
- consteval 2y ago
  Yes, there is an argument, that doesn't mean I agree with the argument or that's it's even reasonable. You can make an argument for anything, certainly we've made arguments for eugenics in the past. In my opinion, corporations are fundamentally different than individuals and only the naivest reading of the constitution would extend such rights to them. In addition, even if you can argue it, you still have to face the reality that this is harmful. Just because you're able to play an "erm, akchually!" game doesn't mean you can ignore consequences. There are many things which are technically correct but in practice are awful. Exhibit A: you could argue the second amendment extends to fully automatic miniature machine guns. And we allowed those for a long time. In practice, there's virtually no benevolent use for such weapons and outlawing them is a no-brainer. Outlawing such weapons was a large factor in dismantling the American mafias of the past. Now nobody really cares, and we've all moved on - obviously, it was not such an important right in the first place.
  - ETH_start 2y ago
    You haven't actually contended with the legal reasoning provided for this position — that corporations are entitled First Amendment protections — by the courts. So you're just assuming they're wrong, without any kind of substantiation. Your reaction is entirely politically motivated as opposed to motivated by careful and objective study of the law.