Red Mosquito

Green Habit wrote:Down go the aggregrate contribution limits.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 6_e1pf.pdf

broken iris wrote:

Green Habit wrote:Down go the aggregrate contribution limits.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 6_e1pf.pdf

This logically follows the decision on Citizens United, but that doesn't mean either of those decisions were just or good for our society.

WASHINGTON—Saying they had awaited this day for decades, activists across the country celebrated yesterday following the Supreme Court’s landmark decision to grant full and universal suffrage to American currency.

The decision from the nation’s highest court, which was greeted with cheers from advocates and interest groups that have long worked tirelessly on behalf of money, ensures that U.S. dollars can no longer be disenfranchised, and for the first time in history, guarantees that every single one of them will be free to participate in the democratic process with no restrictions whatsoever.

“This is an absolutely historic day for American money; after years of fighting and struggling, our government has finally declared that U.S. cash, irrespective of amount, can no longer be barred from the American electoral system,” said University of Pennsylvania historian Dr. James Mattis, who argued that, while the goal took decades to achieve and at points appeared bleak—particularly during the repressive McCain-Feingold years—few could deny that suffrage for all U.S. capital was inevitable. “This has been a long time coming, and we can now say with certainty that the fight to ensure that every single American dollar has a say in our government is finally over. Now, at long last, all U.S. money has a voice in Washington—a strong, loud, clear voice that can no longer be suppressed or silenced by anyone.”

“This was a long and difficult march, and many fortunes were tragically suppressed along the way, but finally achieving universal suffrage for money makes all those difficult times completely worth it,” continued Mattis. “This is truly a great moment for money across the country.”

Mattis explained that the fight for currency’s suffrage in America dates as far back as the nation’s founding, noting that while pro-cash advocates faced countless setbacks over the course of history, money has always come together in the face of legislative restrictions and judicial rulings to eventually triumph over all legal and political obstacles.

According to historians, the movement suffered arguably its biggest blow from the Federal Election Campaign Act of 1971, which stripped many amounts of currency from playing any role in government. However, a group of defiant advocates in Washington crusaded for the rights of money, and in a major victory for U.S. currency proponents, the Supreme Court struck down several FECA provisions in 1976 as unconstitutional, beginning a gradual shift that has seen money gain a larger and larger voice in both local and national elections in the years since.

According to Mattis, such events blazed the trail for the Supreme Court’s watershed Citizens United ruling in 2010, which was at the time the country’s most significant milestone for currency suffrage. Building on the momentum from that ruling, Mattis noted that money was able to win over many sympathetic legislators in Congress and fund television and radio ad blitzes that successfully promoted its cause, eventually culminating in Wednesday’s decision.

For many longtime advocates of currency suffrage, who have for years maintained that American cash has been denied a significant enough role in determining the direction the country is headed in and who have bravely stood up in the face of popular sentiment against monetary suffrage, yesterday’s ruling was especially satisfying.

“After all these years of tireless effort, it is deeply validating to see the Supreme Court come to its senses and give all money the freedom to engage in the political process,” said 80-year-old business magnate and lifelong currency suffrage proponent Sheldon Adelson. “Frankly, this ruling is long overdue. This isn’t the 1800s anymore; you can’t just leave major political decisions to limited groups of money—you have to hear from all of it. Over the decades, a lot of stubborn, resistant people have tried to rally against expanding the rights of money, but at the end of the day, those efforts to thwart the progress of money’s role in American government failed. Slowly but surely, the strength of cash prevailed. When you have enough cash working together for a single cause, no one can silence its voice.”

“I couldn’t be happier right now,” added Adelson, his eyes welling with tears of joy. “You have no idea what this means to me.”

Sources noted, however, that yesterday’s Supreme Court decision only narrowly passed by a vote of 5 to 4, having been pushed through despite vocal opposition from hardened, dissenting justices who have long attempted to impede the progress of U.S. currency. However, members of the court’s majority took a bold and historic stand in favor of money, arguing that universal currency suffrage is an unimpeachable right and that their decision corrects a longstanding historical wrong.

“There is no right in American democracy more elementary and fundamental than the right to elect political representatives,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote in the court’s majority opinion. “Simply put, we cannot uphold the U.S. Constitution while continuing to deny and abridge money from full suffrage within all levels of government. All manner of U.S. dollars—from the biggest bank account to the smallest bills—deserve the opportunity to be heard within American democracy, as well as the full freedom to promote their political interests.”

“And as long as I have a say in the matter,” Roberts continued, “they will be heard.”

Green Habit wrote:The Court just ruled that a state (Michigan) constitutional amendment that forbids the use of racial affirmative action in college applications does not violate the federal Equal Protection Clause, as the Sixth Circuit found. Not sure if I like this result, but I'll read over the opinion, which is here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 2_j4ek.pdf

broken iris wrote:

Green Habit wrote:The Court just ruled that a state (Michigan) constitutional amendment that forbids the use of racial affirmative action in college applications does not violate the federal Equal Protection Clause, as the Sixth Circuit found. Not sure if I like this result, but I'll read over the opinion, which is here:

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/13 ... 2_j4ek.pdf

Do you disagree with the majority's reasoning or just not like the effect of the ruling?

Sonia Sotomayor wrote:In the wake of Grutter, some voters in Michigan set out to eliminate the use of race-sensitive admissions policies. Those voters were of course free to pursue this end in any number of ways. For example, they could have persuaded existing board members to change their minds through individual or grassroots lobbying efforts, or through general public awareness campaigns. Or they could have mobilized efforts to vote uncooperative board members out of office, replacing them with members who would share their desire to abolish race-sensitive admissions policies. When this Court holds that the Constitution permits a particular policy, nothing prevents a majority of a State’s voters from choosing not to adopt that policy. Our system of government encourages—and indeed, depends on—that type of democratic action.

But instead, the majority of Michigan voters changed the rules in the middle of the game, reconfiguring the existing political process in Michigan in a manner that burdened racial minorities. They did so in the 2006 election by amending the Michigan Constitution to enact Art. I, §26, which provides in relevant part that Michigan’s public universities “shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.”

As a result of §26, there are now two very different processes through which a Michigan citizen is permitted to influence the admissions policies of the State’s universities: one for persons interest ed in race-sensitive admissions policies and one for everyone else. A citizen who is a University of Michigan alumnus, for instance, can advocate for an admissions policy that considers an applicant’s legacy status by meeting individually with members of the Board of Regents to convince them of her views, by joining with other legacy parents to lobby the Board, or by voting for and supporting Board candidates who share her position. The same options are available to a citizen who wants the Board to adopt admissions policies that consider athleticism, geography, area of study, and so on. The one and only policy a Michigan citizen may not seek through this long-established process is a race-sensitive admissions policy that considers race in an individualized manner when it is clear that race-neutral alternatives are not adequate to achieve diversity. For that policy alone, the citizens of Michigan must undertake the daunting task of amending the State Constitution.

Antonin Scalia wrote:Some there are—many, perhaps—who are offended by public displays of religion. Religion, they believe, is a personal matter; if it must be given external manifestation, that should not occur in public places where others may be offended. I can understand that attitude: It parallels my own toward the playing in public of rock music or Stravinsky. And I too am especially annoyed when the intrusion upon my inner peace occurs while I am part of a captive audience, as on a municipal bus or in the waiting room of a public agency.

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm not very well versed in the Aereo case but I've been reading the opinion and it seems to make sense to rule the way they did. How is this different than CATV systems of the past, which copyright law was amended to cover?

Green Habit wrote:

cutuphalfdead wrote:I'm not very well versed in the Aereo case but I've been reading the opinion and it seems to make sense to rule the way they did. How is this different than CATV systems of the past, which copyright law was amended to cover?

I'm trying to untangle that as well, and it appears to hinge on what is defined as a "public" "performance". Both the majority and the dissent seem to feel very strongly about their definitions.