Justice John Roberts is a judicial activist of the worst kind.

[Dinner]

As in the partisan hack kind but I think we all knew that just based upon the fact that Bush nominated him. In the middle of a case Justice Roberts told the parties he wasn't really interested in how the case was being argued and instead he wanted them to make the case about federal campaign finance laws in general. It seems obvious that Roberts wants to over turn more then a century of campaign finance laws which restrict the amounts of money (and when that money can be spent) corporations and unions can use to influence election. If Roberts gets his way then we, the average citizens, are going to be royally screwed as tens if not hundreds of billions in big money flood into the political process and corruption is taken to a whole new level. This is some scary ****.



It was nice to see John McCain come out strongly, again, for what is best for the country even though his own party desperately wants more corporate money in politics.

[DinoDoc]

Free speech

[RGBVideo]

blah blah blah REPUBLICAN JUSTICE blah blah blah BUSH blah blah blah DON'T SUPPORT DEMOCRATIC IDEAS blah blah PARTISAN HACKS blah blah blah [****ty youtube video] blah blah blah JOHN MCCAIN

you know, this reminds me a lot of robocon

[DinoDoc]

Seriously though, on what basis do you argue the notion that it should be within the government's power to censor speech based on the source funding used to finance it so long as the public knows where the money came from?

[Dinner]

On the grounds that speech is not censored only money.

[Dinner]

you know, this reminds me a lot of robocon

Do you realize I was praising John McCain who is a Republican? Seriously, you're getting boring with this broken record which you repeat without even stopping to look at the facts.

[dannubis]

What else do you expect from right wingers lately?

[Ben Kenobi]

you know, this reminds me a lot of robocon

Greatest post ever.

[Dinner]

See VJ? You have Ben on your side and that's like an automatic fail.

[Solomwi]

On the grounds that speech is not censored only money.

Those grounds have been tried before, and wholly rejected.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Justice Roberts told the parties he wasn't really interested in how the case was being argued and instead he wanted them to make the case about federal campaign finance laws in general.

OH NOES!! A Supreme Court justice wants to hear a particular case to make a decision on the law in general, not just the specific dispute they are having! THAT NEVER HAPPENS!!

[Kuciwalker]

You know, if I were a SCOTUS justice ruling on a law that directly and massively infringed on freedom of speech, I would be eager to overturn it too.

[Kuciwalker]

Though, I think we should definitely ban all of the corporate money from The New York Times Company from politics

[chequita guevara]

You know, if I were a SCOTUS justice ruling on a law that directly and massively infringed on freedom of speech, I would be eager to overturn it too.

How is anyone's freedom of speech affected? Everyone still has the right to speak.

[Dinner]

You know, if I were a SCOTUS justice ruling on a law that directly and massively infringed on freedom of speech, I would be eager to overturn it too.

The supreme court has up held campaign finance laws nearly a dozen times in the last century and they've NEVER found it harms anyone's speech because money /= speech. It's pretty much as established as law can be but here comes activist John Roberts trying to pick an ideological bone redirecting everything so he can be an activist. I guess he lied at his confirmation hearing about respecting precedent.