The Supreme Court made plenty of headlines last week. Today's "One First" is devoted to some of the biggest things that happened *away from* those headlines.
At last, Hawaii develops State law to prohibit corporate political contributions at State level, to stop Citizen's United, and other States begin to borrow this device. So I wonder if the illegitimate far-right cabal of kings that undermines rule of law at SCOTUS are tossing out solid precedent on limits to contributions to national parties as a way to continue right-wing corporate rule?
Thank you Steve, for providing your skillful explaining of Supreme Court rulings and goings on. Now more than ever, I believe in more transparency from this court. And some changes in the way it functions.
The Court’s decision to strike down the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on “coordinated party expenditures”—the caps on how much party committees can spend in coordination with their own candidates—as a First Amendment violation is consistent with the principles that money is speech and organizations are people. In other words, “We the People”, the three words in the opening of the Constitution which mean the government’s power comes from the consent of the governed, not from kings or rulers, is now replaced by, or becomes only one constituency competing - in practice at a financial disadvantage – with “We the corporations” and “We the oligarchs”. I suppose these 6 Supremes do not believe the adage that Money is Power. It may not always always determine the outcome, but its influence is undeniable.
P.S. On the personal level I like the French phrase, ""L'argent ne fait pas le bonheur, mais il permet d'être malheureux dans le confort" - "Money can't buy happiness, but it allows you to be miserable in comfort".
Money is a token to represent property, not speech, as every economist knows, but SCOTUS likes the lie that money is speech, not property, because lies are speech and mightily protected.
And in the past property was protected to justify the Fugitive Slave Act and the compensation paid to loyal Union slave owners in the US, and more broadly by Great Britain and France when in the 19th century they outlawed slavery and took away the slaveowners' human property in the territories they controlled. Ah, the alleged (by some) foundation of the US as a Christian nation including the restrictions on speech by women to preach God's word.
Oh come on. Nina Totenberg commits a fireable offense, and the "real problem" is no cameras in the courtroom? Seriously?
Somehow all the other journalists in Washington manage to cover things that don't happen with television cameras around, using informed sources. But when this particular elderly reporter screws up badly, we can't hold her to account but instead have to criticize the Court for not adding to the endless politicization of its proceedings by letting cameras in?
No way. This incident was a result of Totenberg's incompetence. Anyone doing their job properly would not have made it, and we don't need to televise or broadcast meaningless SCOTUS proceedings just so NPR reporters past retirement age don't embarrass themselves.
I ask you to forgive my ignorance at outset of this question, perhaps I should know the answer, but I do not. What happens to the emergency/shadow docket when the Court rises or when we actually close the term? Also, what is the current status/scorecard on such docket as of now. Thanks.
How does someone get along with colleagues who write opinions completely contradictory to each other released on the same day, who, in one opinion, claims the Constitution is "color blind" and then, in another, says it specifically refers only to Black Americans even though that is nowhere in the text, who insists that there are other reasons than race to remove TPS from Haitians but ignores and omits the blatantly racist statements and lies told about them or who claims to be an originalist but then says the Framers couldn't have anticipated the future developments in society as a basis for their opinion?
At last, Hawaii develops State law to prohibit corporate political contributions at State level, to stop Citizen's United, and other States begin to borrow this device. So I wonder if the illegitimate far-right cabal of kings that undermines rule of law at SCOTUS are tossing out solid precedent on limits to contributions to national parties as a way to continue right-wing corporate rule?
Thank you Steve, for providing your skillful explaining of Supreme Court rulings and goings on. Now more than ever, I believe in more transparency from this court. And some changes in the way it functions.
The Court’s decision to strike down the Federal Election Campaign Act’s limits on “coordinated party expenditures”—the caps on how much party committees can spend in coordination with their own candidates—as a First Amendment violation is consistent with the principles that money is speech and organizations are people. In other words, “We the People”, the three words in the opening of the Constitution which mean the government’s power comes from the consent of the governed, not from kings or rulers, is now replaced by, or becomes only one constituency competing - in practice at a financial disadvantage – with “We the corporations” and “We the oligarchs”. I suppose these 6 Supremes do not believe the adage that Money is Power. It may not always always determine the outcome, but its influence is undeniable.
P.S. On the personal level I like the French phrase, ""L'argent ne fait pas le bonheur, mais il permet d'être malheureux dans le confort" - "Money can't buy happiness, but it allows you to be miserable in comfort".
Money is a token to represent property, not speech, as every economist knows, but SCOTUS likes the lie that money is speech, not property, because lies are speech and mightily protected.
And in the past property was protected to justify the Fugitive Slave Act and the compensation paid to loyal Union slave owners in the US, and more broadly by Great Britain and France when in the 19th century they outlawed slavery and took away the slaveowners' human property in the territories they controlled. Ah, the alleged (by some) foundation of the US as a Christian nation including the restrictions on speech by women to preach God's word.
Stay safe from overcrowded news cycles, and "irresponsible escapades."
Oh come on. Nina Totenberg commits a fireable offense, and the "real problem" is no cameras in the courtroom? Seriously?
Somehow all the other journalists in Washington manage to cover things that don't happen with television cameras around, using informed sources. But when this particular elderly reporter screws up badly, we can't hold her to account but instead have to criticize the Court for not adding to the endless politicization of its proceedings by letting cameras in?
No way. This incident was a result of Totenberg's incompetence. Anyone doing their job properly would not have made it, and we don't need to televise or broadcast meaningless SCOTUS proceedings just so NPR reporters past retirement age don't embarrass themselves.
Thank you, Professor!
I ask you to forgive my ignorance at outset of this question, perhaps I should know the answer, but I do not. What happens to the emergency/shadow docket when the Court rises or when we actually close the term? Also, what is the current status/scorecard on such docket as of now. Thanks.
Michael
How does someone get along with colleagues who write opinions completely contradictory to each other released on the same day, who, in one opinion, claims the Constitution is "color blind" and then, in another, says it specifically refers only to Black Americans even though that is nowhere in the text, who insists that there are other reasons than race to remove TPS from Haitians but ignores and omits the blatantly racist statements and lies told about them or who claims to be an originalist but then says the Framers couldn't have anticipated the future developments in society as a basis for their opinion?