[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
U.S. Constitution Title: Justice Defends Ruling on Finance (Justice Thomas) Justice Defends Ruling on Finance By ADAM LIPTAK Published: February 3, 2010 WASHINGTON — In expansive remarks at a law school in Florida, Justice Clarence Thomas on Tuesday vigorously defended the Supreme Court’s recent campaign finance decision.
Mark Wilson/Getty Images Justice Clarence Thomas said he had stopped attending State of the Union speeches.
And Justice Thomas explained that he did not attend State of the Union addresses — he missed the dust-up when President Obama used the occasion last week to criticize the court’s decision — because the gatherings had turned so partisan. Justice Thomas responded to several questions from students at Stetson University College of Law in Gulfport, Fla., concerning the campaign finance case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. By a 5-to-4 vote, with Justice Thomas in the majority, the court ruled last month that corporations had a First Amendment right to spend money to support or oppose political candidates. “I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.” The part of the McCain-Feingold law struck down in Citizens United contained an exemption for news reports, commentaries and editorials. But Justice Thomas said that reflected a legislative choice rather than a constitutional principle. He added that the history of Congressional regulation of corporate involvement in politics had a dark side, pointing to the Tillman Act, which banned corporate contributions to federal candidates in 1907. “Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.” It is thus a mistake, the justice said, to applaud the regulation of corporate speech as “some sort of beatific action.” Justice Thomas said the First Amendment’s protections applied regardless of how people chose to assemble to participate in the political process. “If 10 of you got together and decided to speak, just as a group, you’d say you have First Amendment rights to speak and the First Amendment right of association,” he said. “If you all then formed a partnership to speak, you’d say we still have that First Amendment right to speak and of association.” “But what if you put yourself in a corporate form?” Justice Thomas asked, suggesting that the answer must be the same. Asked about his attitude toward the two decisions overruled in Citizens United, he said, “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.” Justice Thomas would not directly address the controversy over Mr. Obama’s criticism of the Citizens United ruling or Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.’s mouthed “not true” in response. But he did say he had stopped attending the addresses. “I don’t go because it has become so partisan and it’s very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there,” he said, adding that “there’s a lot that you don’t hear on TV — the catcalls, the whooping and hollering and under-the-breath comments.” “One of the consequences,” he added in an apparent reference to last week’s address, “is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches. It’s just an example of why I don’t go.” Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest “Go back and read why Tillman introduced that legislation,” Justice Thomas said, referring to Senator Benjamin Tillman. “Tillman was from South Carolina, and as I hear the story he was concerned that the corporations, Republican corporations, were favorable toward blacks and he felt that there was a need to regulate them.” The irony is inescapable, and delicious. And our resident internet forum lawyers missed it completely...(laughing) Which is why they only play lawyers on the internet....rotfl Its getting uglier out there... #2. To: Badeye (#1) (Edited) I think my prediction of 3 GOP Senate seats lost, and between 6 - 8 House seats is proving to be correct. But I think I nailed this one. We'll see. Badeye posted on 2006-11-03 16:11:09 ET Reply Trace ACtual results: House +31 Dems Senate +6 Dems #3. To: Badeye (#0) “I found it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company,” Justice Thomas said. “These are corporations.” That leaves a mark.
#4. To: dont eat that (#3) Not just on the NYT and the WaPo, but also on that idiot McCain's cheek. Bush should have veto'd it in the first place. Its getting uglier out there... #5. To: Badeye (#0) “If it’s wrong, the ultimate precedent is the Constitution.” That is worth quoting.
#6. To: A K A Stone (#5) Exactly, aka, exactly. Its getting uglier out there... Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest |
|
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|