|
njlauren -> RE: The ignorance of liberals (7/9/2014 10:21:57 PM)
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: Sanity
Who on FOX News lies, joe. FOX News isn't one person, there are many people and shows that make up FOX News - and they can't all be nearly as lowly as the crew at MSNBC
And while all the far left channels were idolizing, revering, worshiping and licking the feet of "The One" perhaps its good if one network remained grounded and didn't spew DNC propaganda 24/7. Many leftists (even here on collarchat) are only now beginning to realize that many of the pundits on FOX have been correct all along, and that our little big-eared community organizer is nowhere near presidential material and he is far from ready for his prime time gig
As to the article TheHeretic linked to, the following paragraph made me laugh out loud:
quote:
Or take the Los Angeles Times‘ David Savage, who argued just last week that the Supreme Court’s decisions under Chief Justice John Roberts “rely on well-established rights, such as freedom of speech and free exercise of religion, but extend those rights for the first time to corporations, wealthy donors and conservatives.” Perhaps it’s just poorly written. Surely a man who has been responsible for informing Californians about the Supreme Court since 1986 doesn’t actually believe that conservatives, corporations or wealthy donors were not covered by the Bill of Rights until John Roberts came along. As James Taranto of the Wall Street Journal notes, “that is as ignorant as it is tendentious.”
Um, actually, until Citizens United, Corporations were not covered by the Bill of RIghts, court precedent for the past 200 years before Citizens united has held that corporations are not people and as such, don't have the same rights. For example, a corporation cannot claim free speech, or at least hasn't been able to up until this point, and among other things, it is why the FTC can regulate claims made in advertising, because corporations have no right of free speech. Likewise, corporations had no right of freedom of religion because they were not a person and thus were not covered by the Bill of Rights. As has been the tack of the right wing of Scotus, they have totally ignore Stare Decis and have overturned more long held law then any other court in US history. If he really said that about conservatives, he is wrong, or about wealthy donors. I am assuming with 'wealthy donors' he is talking about campaign contributions, and that one as a free speech issue is dicey. The issue there isn't whether wealthy donors are covered by freedom of speech, they are, it is whether campaign contributions as free speech can have boundaries and limitations on it, because of harm. A well off donor can afford a lot more speech and that can affect elections and influence things in a way that violates the idea of democratic elections, using the same kind of reasoning of harm that underlies not being able to yell fire in a movie theater. But yes, well off donors and conservatives are covered by the bill of rights since they are people, but savage is correct about corporations, SCOTUS for almost 200 year has said that corporations are not people, and the decision to make them people has consequences far beyond citizen united or hobby lobby, it could be a throwback to 19th century practices, and i think a lot of the people who cheer corporations as people are gonna find out good and hard what it means to them. Among other things, it could mean that safety regulations get thrown out, that truth in advertising gets thrown out, and the basic answer is 'don't like what they advertised? Sue them" (of course, leaving out that corporations ability in terms of going to court pales against what a person can bring).
|
|
|
|
