Thursday, February 04, 2010

Court Overrules Racist Legislation - Democrats and Liberals Enraged

OK, that's not exactly what happened. The court did not overturn the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907, though from the outcry against the Citizen's United decision, many on the left thought that they did. If they had, then the President's comments about "100 years of precedent" being overturned would have been correct. And the title of this post would have correct also. As it is, the title's fake but accurate. And therefore, by the standards of the left, fine to be going on with.

So why, exactly, was the Tillman act passed in the first place? Here's Justice Thomas:
“Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.”

It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.”
Hmmm...


The justice was speaking to a group of students at a law school in Florida, and had some other interesting things to say about Citizen's United.
“I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.”

The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle.

...

Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process.

“If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.”

“But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same.

Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.”
I always enjoy reading Justice Thomas' opinions and comments. He's a brilliant guy...

Labels: , ,

|

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

Comment?

<< Home

Links to this post

Links to this post:

Create a Link