A very, very narrow victory for free speech

One Vote Away From Fascism

• In a narrow 5-4 vote, the Supreme Court acted to protect the 1st Amendment from a Congress of both parties that wants to limit political free speech.
• The so-called "Conservative" Supreme Court is Schizophrenic.  One day they support guns and free speech, then the next day they openly piss on other Bill of Rights amendments and support a police state.
• The question of the day - "Do the judges actually read the Bill of Rights? or are they just making it up as they go?"

The Federal Court system is the only branch of government still operating as our Federalist Founding Fathers intended.  Our lifetime appointed judges are the only thing standing between us and the mindless anarchy of an insane Congress pandering to the mob for votes and building their personal power.

Even so, judges from both parties still act like the Bill of Rights does not exist.  What part of "Congress shall make no law" do they not understand?

On Wednesday the Conservative Supreme Court majority ruled that wealthy donors should not be limited in how many candidates they can contribute to during an election.  A blow for free speech and the 1st Amendment. 

But then the "Conservatives" left in place the Fascist donation cap limit on freedom of speech with a limit on what Big Brother Government will allow you to give to one candidate.

So we have half a victory.  Still half is better than the zero the lib justices wanted.

Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., in the controlling opinion in the 5-4 ruling, said that while the government has an interest in preventing corruption of federal officeholders, individuals have political rights that include being able to give to as many candidates as they want, in order to show support.

“Money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects,” the chief justice wrote. “If the First Amendment protects flag burning, funeral protests, and Nazi parades — despite the profound offense such spectacles cause — it surely protects political campaign speech despite popular opposition.”

Under the current limit, a donor can’t give more than $123,200 to candidates, parties and political action committees. Of that, just $48,600 can go directly to candidates.

That means if someone wanted to give the maximum donation, he could only contribute to nine candidates.

Chief Justice Roberts said it made no sense that someone couldn’t give to a 10th candidate or more — and said the government didn’t offer a clear line on where corruption would come into play.

Justice Roberts‘ ruling was joined by Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy and Samuel A. Alito Jr. Justice Clarence Thomas wrote an opinion joining in the judgment, though he would have gone further in undoing the limit on how much can be given to individual campaigns.
.
Via The Washington Times..
..

The Federalist Papers #78
"The interpretation of the laws is the proper and peculiar province of the courts. A constitution is, in fact, and must be regarded by the judges, as a fundamental law. It therefore belongs to them to ascertain its meaning, as well as the meaning of any particular act proceeding from the legislative body."
Alexander Hamilton
Founder, Federalist Party