Corporations and the First Amendment

It's that thing about being able to dish it out but not being able to take it. It's why some others created the Island of Misfit Posters.

 

See, I can edit into my answer as well after the fact.

I have no problem having a discussion and "getting called on stuff" -- unfortunately for you, saying "absolutely not, you have no idea what you are talking about" doesn't qualify as that.

Oh, I see - because you say so?

 

This.

 

Sound like the people who continue to play on poker sites while calling them rigged.

 

So anyway....

 

This thread, I meant.

I'm just going to put Zag on Ignore. His, "Everything is so easy and everyone who doesn't think so is a wacko idiot" is old.

 

Ah, glad you're not leaving.

Edit: I should probably retract my insult too.

 

Let me amend my previous comment without having a ton of quotes in front of it..

Conservatives tend to view "activist judges" as those who interpret the Constitution widely, expanding the rights of people.
Liberals, as far as I can recall, haven't used the phrase "activist judge" in reference to a judge with a narrow view of the Constitution.

In the Declaration of Independence it says that men have "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness".
The Amendments to the Constitution grant most of those rights. How one interprets those rights determines if one is a textualist or an Activist. The textualists (who tend to have a conservative ideology) believe the Founding Fathers wrote exactly what they intended to say. I'm assuming the more liberal judges (referred to by conservatives as "activists") believe that the genius of the constitution is not only did the Founding Fathers leave a way to amend it so it could change with the times, but wrote it in such a way that it could be more widely interpreted as times change.

If you believe that the Founding Fathers could say in a few sentences (how long each amendment is) what it takes modern day legislators several hundred (or several thousand) pages to say, then you're a textualist. If you believe that what they wrote in those few sentences is open to a wider interpretation, then you can get called an activist.

 

So Bush/Reagan's Fascist Supreme Court Brigade throws open the floodgates for Wal-Mart to buy elections from now on, in addition to the goddamn foreigner billionaire running his conspiracy to control the world's media.

Super duper

 

Isn't George Soros an American citizen?

 

That sort of strict textualism can lead to some absolutely bizarre and unacceptable results. For example, someone could challenge the existence of the Air Force, since it is not among Congress's enumerated powers (only an Army and a Navy are).

Truth is the constitution is a mess, because the Framers were as apt to haggle and bicker and compromise as any modern-day lawmaker. So they would come to a watered down clause acceptable to all and figure that the government would figure it out as it went along.

 

Why is it that today's decision is being perceived as anti liberal?