Libs fret over Roe v Wade , but want Citizens United precedent tossed (Congress, illegal aliens)

[BobNJ1960]

I knew going into 2016, a Trump victory was most important to me, and our nation, based on 3 big issues: Illegal Aliens, Excessive Taxation, and not least by any means SCOTUS nominations.

Plessy vs Ferguson had its SC precedent invalidated by later SC courts. I hear no liberals moan about that. Libs want Citizen United precedent tossed.

Roe v Wade is simply one more precedent. Nothing any more, or any less, special about it, and certainly subject to all future courts interpretations as to whether the SC in 1973 ruled correctly, or in error.

Its going to be interesting in the months to come watching this fine court in action.

[Eumaois]

Citizens United is something we could have been done without! Corporations being afforded the same 1st Amendment rights as though they are people is scary. Their corporate lobbying, particular for copyrights (looking at you, Disney), blurs what's legal and what is practically speaking political and corporate corruption(s).

[Larry Caldwell]

I thought the honest politicians were looking to pass a constitutional amendment to eliminate Citizens United. If another group wants to eliminate Roe v. Wade they can do their own constitutional amendment. It's how the system works.

[ottomobeale]

Giving rights to an entity used for separating commercial risk from personal risk is idiotic.

Then again I would amend the constitution regarding elections including eliminating gerrymandering, limiting the time frame and money spent in elections, reducing party power, massively reducing lobbying while prohibiting outright it for former members of congress (looking at you Billy Tauzin), and others that escape me at the moment.

The US is not democratic at the federal level. It is an oligarchy who has learned freedom of speech is no threat to them buying the laws they desire.

[Delahanty]

If it weren't so pathetic that so many don't know their history, it would be funny.

Citizens United set no precedent. There's a long history of the SC affirming any number of constitutional rights, including 1A, belonging to corporate entities, and striking down laws which abridge them.

This Citizens United obsession is one reflection of how ignorant Americans are of the Constitution.

[KellyXY]

Whether dealing with individuals or corporations, I think that money (or more specifically giving it out) should not be considered a form of free speech (rather than getting into the "are corporations people" debate).

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by BobNJ1960

Libs fret over Roe v Wade , but want Citizens United precedent tossed

In a nutshell:

Roe v Wade is a decision that benefits individuals across all socioeconomic boundaries.

Citizens United benefits corporations and wealthy lobbying interests at the expense of the public.

The question becomes:

Should the court act in favor of the citizenry or special interests?

[Delahanty]

Originally Posted by Old Gringo

In a nutshell:

Roe v Wade is a decision that benefits individuals across all socioeconomic boundaries.

Citizens United benefits corporations and wealthy lobbying interests at the expense of the public.

The question becomes:

Should the court act in favor of the citizenry or special interests?

Another opinion which has no significance in the legal arena.

And, again, despite Rachel Madcow's snarky expression when talking about Citizens United and getting it all wrong, the decision set no precedent.

[Delahanty]

Originally Posted by KellyXY

Whether dealing with individuals or corporations, I think that money (or more specifically giving it out) should not be considered a form of free speech (rather than getting into the "are corporations people" debate).

Thankfully, people's opinions don't serve to restrict entitlements.

[Old Gringo]

Originally Posted by Delahanty

Another opinion which has no significance in the legal arena.

In your opinion.

And, again, despite Rachel Madcow's snarky expression when talking about Citizens United and getting it all wrong, the decision set no precedent.

It certainly confirms the Pub view that money > citizenry.