April 13, 2010
President Barack Obama is reviewing several candidates to replace retiring Justice John Paul Stevens.
“I’d like to nominate a moderate, but to balance the court, I think we need to get the left-wing equivalent of Scalia and Roberts in there,” Obama told reporters. “Someone that radical may be hard to find, though.”
Obama’s short list is said to include William Ayers, Ward Churchill, Louis Farrakhan, and Noam Chomsky.
Senator Lamar Alaxander (R-TN) suggested in a statement today that he might filibuster any candidate who is not Rush Limbaugh, Sarah Palin, or Newt Gingrich.
“We need a Justice who represents the will of the real Americans,” Alaxander stated, “not some elitist who uses facts and logic in their reasoning.”
January 29, 2010
Yep, Hugo Chavez can now pour millions of dollars into political campaigns in United States elections. If there’s a candidate who’s unfriendly to Venezuela, Chavez can run commercials on TV bashing him or her in an effort to influence the election.
CITGO was purchaced by the Venezuelan government-owned Petróleos de Venezuela in 1990, and since corporations are entitled to free speech, CITCO can finance political campaigns promoting the candidate of their choosing or to defeat candidates they don’t like.
The Saudi government also owns companies in the U.S, so they have the same rights of “free speech.” Same for China and many other countries.
The issue was raised by Justice John Paul Stevens in his dissent in the case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission: “It would appear to afford the same protection to multinational corporations controlled by foreigners as to individual Americans.”
As President Obama said in his State of the Union address the other night, “With all due deference to separation of powers, last week the Supreme Court reversed a century of law that I believe will open the floodgates for special interests — including foreign corporations — to spend without limit in our elections. And I’d urge Democrats and Republicans to pass a bill that helps to correct some of these problems.”
Sometimes it takes a radical push from one side to get real reform. Maybe we’ll get some real campaign finance reform as a result of this radical ruling from the activist right-wing Supreme Court judges.
January 21, 2010
WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court has ruled that corporations may spend freely to support or oppose candidates for president and Congress, easing decades-old limits on their participation in federal campaigns.
By a 5-4 vote, the court on Thursday overturned a 20-year-old ruling that said corporations can be prohibited from using money from their general treasuries to pay for their own campaign ads.
The biggest problem with our elections is there’s too much money involved, and candidates become indebted to these big spenders, so what does SCOTUS do? The allow for even more spending!
Critics of the stricter limits have argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority apparently agreed.
“The censorship we now confront is vast in its reach,” Justice Anthony Kennedy said in his majority opinion, joined by his four more conservative colleagues.
However, Justice John Paul Stevens, dissenting from the main holding, said, “The court’s ruling threatens to undermine the integrity of elected institutions around the nation.”
There are restrictions to freedom of speech. You can’t yell “fire!” in a crowded movie theater, you can’t slander someone, you can’t cause a public disturbance… There may be ways of fixing this, like requiring ads to display who paid for them.