Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Fowler
I need to preface my remarks by stating I am not a lawyer; never even played one on TV.
The flaw I see in your first statement,"Billy bob is trying to get us all to think that a flood of foreign money is good for our political system", is that you seem to confuse the law with its consequences.
Correct me if I am wrong ( as if you require my permission), but the SC is to rule on contitutionality of a law. Period. End of the matter.
You seem to be saying that because, in your opinion, the flood of feared international money will be bad, that the SC should have ruled other than they did.
Its not their job to fix bad law. The Legislative branch needs to do its job, and write better law, if that is necessary. But to say that the SC should create a law seems to be against what is their assigned roll.
The opinion expressed above is my own. I have not parroted talking points from any source.
|
My problem with the SCOTUS ruling is that I can find nowhere in the US Constitution that grants corporations the same rights as a person, in fact, I cannot even find the word "corporation", and yet, the SCOTUS did exactly that, ruling that Congress has no right to regulate their participation in the political process. The ruling was 5-4, meaning four of the justices agree with me. As far as "Congress doing it's job", Congress did do exactly that, and the Supreme Court struck them down based on this invented baloney crafted by the Republican appointees on the bench. Congress had done its job, and they did not like it, and decided to pass a decision that directly benefits their own political faction, allowing billions of dollars from corporate fatcats, national or international, to freely flow into our campaigns without regulation. Perhaps you can show me where a corporation is equal to yourself, politically, in the COTUS.