The Supreme Court is defending the First Amendment, and "court reform" is a euphemism for eliminating the independence of the judiciary in order to dismantle those First Amendment protections.
Supreme Court justices are taking bribes to deliver outcomes their cronies want, and "court reform" is a euphemism for holding justices selling our country accountable.
Harlan Crow just loves to sprinkle robust black men in gowns with money, six star vacations, and RV's as much as he loves painting by Adolf Hitler and Nazi memorabilia.
We shouldn't kink shame or say that he expects any quo to his quids.
> those who want to destroy the independence of the judiciary.
Bit late to whine about that fait accompli.
It'll take decades to wind back Mitch McConnell's two decade deep tainting of the US justice system with Federalist Society stooges.
He might love to shower his friends with gifts, and might find friendship with exactly the kind of minds that are bright enough to become Supreme Court justices.
>It'll take decades to wind back Mitch McConnell's two decade deep tainting of the US justice system with Federalist Society stooges.
Appointing justices when a space opens up is the standard way of doing it, and federalist judges adhere to the Constitution, so outside of a certain ideological camp, there is nothing wrong with appointing them.
The lifetime tenure gives the Supreme Court justices a degree of independence that would vanish should every congress and president be able to totally capture the court in a single four year cycle by adding any arbitrary number of new justices to out vote the sitting justices.
I think even the most conservative of conservatives couldn't really argue our Supreme Court is defending the First Amendment. There's no speech restriction here - rather it's an attempt to further enrich the establishment by ensuring only career politicians and the ultra-rich can campaign. If anything, this is a speech restriction, because I do not have the ability to have my own campaign speech.
There is a very obvious argument that restricting the right to pay for political advertisements violates the First Amendment. You can read the argument here:
Yes, there is an argument, that doesn't mean I agree with the argument or that's it's even reasonable. You can make an argument for anything, certainly we've made arguments for eugenics in the past.
In my opinion, corporations are fundamentally different than individuals and only the naivest reading of the constitution would extend such rights to them.
In addition, even if you can argue it, you still have to face the reality that this is harmful. Just because you're able to play an "erm, akchually!" game doesn't mean you can ignore consequences. There are many things which are technically correct but in practice are awful.
Exhibit A: you could argue the second amendment extends to fully automatic miniature machine guns. And we allowed those for a long time. In practice, there's virtually no benevolent use for such weapons and outlawing them is a no-brainer. Outlawing such weapons was a large factor in dismantling the American mafias of the past. Now nobody really cares, and we've all moved on - obviously, it was not such an important right in the first place.
You haven't actually contended with the legal reasoning provided for this position — that corporations are entitled First Amendment protections — by the courts. So you're just assuming they're wrong, without any kind of substantiation. Your reaction is entirely politically motivated as opposed to motivated by careful and objective study of the law.
My response it motivated by outcomes, your response is motivated by an extreme devotion to far-right ideology.
We both understand that such rulings undermine democracy and are detrimental to our country as a whole. However, that is what you want, because you are an extremist. You merely pretend to use law as a cover, when in reality you're jumping at any and all opportunities to undermine democracy.
There exists not a single reasonable person who believes giving large, powerful corporations the power to influence elections is a good thing. You know, and understand, that is a bad thing.
I do not care if the "law", as you understand it, promotes bad things. They are still bad.
In addition, before this ruling and others the opposite has been argued. You, too, are not participating in "careful and objective study of the law". We have many, many years of legal precedent being overturned here. Why, then, does that precedent not matter?
Please, drop the facade of objectivity because I don't care. Either say what you intend to say or do all of us a favor and stay silent. I grow tired of those so ashamed of their own beliefs they dare not speak them.
>My response it motivated by outcomes, your response is motivated by an extreme devotion to far-right ideology.
>We both understand that such rulings undermine democracy and are detrimental to our country as a whole
You're displaying an unearned sense of moral superiority, built on the assumption that you fully understand my motivations and intentions. You're convinced that my viewpoint must stem from some sort of malicious intent and/or ideological blindness, rather than from genuine differences in opinion.
When you claim it's 'obvious' I'm wrong, you’re essentially weaponizing your own beliefs to silence dissent. Rather than engaging with the substance of my argument, you’re claiming your argument is correct on the basis of the very premise that is under contention. It's circular reasoning that you're badgering me with as a bullying tactic. It's authoritarian extremism.