MaxedOutMama
Wednesday, September 09, 2009
Citizens United v. FEC
I haven't posted today because I am listening to the oral argument before the Supreme Court on the rehearing of Citizens United v. FEC. It is here on C-Span.
More about the case. Oyez. ABA list of briefs, including the awesome list of amicus briefs.
For you, bro, here's the NRA's contribution. Among the authorities listed are de Tocqueville and two Federalist papers. It begins:
More about the case. Oyez. ABA list of briefs, including the awesome list of amicus briefs.
For you, bro, here's the NRA's contribution. Among the authorities listed are de Tocqueville and two Federalist papers. It begins:
The Government has had an epiphany in response to the Court’s request for supplemental briefing: despite arguing to the contrary in case after case before this Court, the Government has now decided that nonprofit advocacy corporations whose “operations are financed ‘overwhelmingly’ by individual donations” – like Citizens United and the NRA – are, after all, “distinctly atypical” corporations when it comes to regulating their political speech. Supplemental Br. for the Appellee (“FEC Suppl. Br.”) at 2-3 & n.1. One might have hoped that the Government would confess error and join Citizens United and its brethren in their struggle to recover their political voices, lost since passage of BCRA. But, no – that would mark a substantial inroad into Title II in favor of core political speech, and so the Government instead only pays lip service to speech by nonprofits for the sake of keeping them mute.Also I am in a bad mood because of this DU thread advocating that Obama just issue a proclamation to extend Medicare eligibility to everyone. Despite creditable efforts to convince the board that this was beyond any president's constitutional authority, many on the board are unswayed. It was a dispiriting experience on several levels.
Comments:
<< Home
I'm tempted to click over to DU to find out by what right the Executive can take control of the purse strings...
Then again maybe not.
It's just Chinatown, MOM.
Then again maybe not.
It's just Chinatown, MOM.
It was a dispiriting experience on several levels.
Politics isn't supposed to be "spiriting". This is why I hate right-wing bible thumpers and progressives equally. They both equate political life with "holy orders".
Politics isn't supposed to be "spiriting". This is why I hate right-wing bible thumpers and progressives equally. They both equate political life with "holy orders".
# posted by 
: 3:04 PM
: 3:04 PM
Charles - no, political life should be largely pragmatic without forgetting ideals - such as those comprised in the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc. Those are lofty enough ideal up which to live.
What's upsetting about the reaction is that it is all wish and no realism.
Post a Comment
What's upsetting about the reaction is that it is all wish and no realism.
<< Home
