'Bong hits' decision a step backwards for free speech
Oops! I guess that I can't say that. I'm only allowed to have free speech if I'm a rich special interest group:
At Supreme Court, two big GOP wins
... Five years ago, Congress passed the McCain-Feingold Act, part of which banned preelection ads that mentioned a candidate's name if they were paid for with corporate or union money. The court's decision Monday went most of the way to striking down that ban.
The ads involve "core political speech" that is protected by the 1st Amendment, Roberts said. "We give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship."
... The second ruling will allow more federal money to flow to church groups and religious organizations that do charitable work or provide social services. Bush set up a special office in the White House to give seminars for "faith-based" groups to show them how to apply for federal grants ...
The contention that "money is free speech" is the most asinine thing that I've ever heard. These new Supreme Court justices and the tool that appointed them are nothing more than little bitches for big business. A judiciary that should be a check to the power of the executive branch is instead a rubber stamp. And how Roberts can say, "We give the benefit of the doubt to speech, not censorship.", with absolutely no sense of irony is unbelievable.
The second part of the ruling is yet another blast to the wall between church and state. Seemingly, those that should know the Constitution the best have conveniently forgotten one of it's most basic tenets.
Welcome to the modern conservative movement. It's a vacuous ideology that stands for nothing that can't be bought. What kind of convoluted logic says money is free speech but free speech isn't actually free speech?
Many think the enduring negative legacy of this administration will be the Iraq war. But we shouldn't forget that what this Bush-loaded Supreme Court is doing now could affect our country for an even longer time. It's ironic that those who most loudly complained of "judicial activism" are doing exactly what they criticized.