SCOTUS Fracturing?

[rosejm]

So, I've been wondering for a while how long it would take for liberals to complain about 1st Amendment protection for ideas/campaigns they didn't agree with...
Complaints from students/faculty or media outlets is to be expected and occurs regularly. Hearing a member of the Supreme Court (Elena Kagan) is doing so should raise some alarm bells.

Isn't freedom of speech to apply in all instances, not just the ones where you happen to agree with the speaker?
Apparently, the historical tactics applied here aren't as palatable when the goal doesn't align with their perspectives.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/06/30/us/politics/first-amendment-conservatives-supreme-court.html

 

[Twangbanger]

The Liberal Court Compass has two poles: The Powerless, and The Man.
Once they've determined the alignment of a case with respect to True North, the decision is always to benefit the former against the latter.

The court they envision is not a blind arbiter. It is a leveler of outcomes.

 

[John224]

First you pick the outcome, then you work backward to get to that conclusion.

 

[KellyinAvon]

Amazing how the story could make this leap:

Labor unions not being able to collect money involuntarily and use it to donate to political campaigns: BAD!

Corporations being able to donate money to political campaigns: BAD!

 

[jamil]

The Liberal Court Compass has two poles: The Powerless, and The Man.
Once they've determined the alignment of a case with respect to True North, the decision is always to benefit the former against the latter.

The court they envision is not a blind arbiter. It is a leveler of outcomes.

That’s what the wise Latina speech was all about.

 

[jamil]

Amazing how the story could make this leap:

Labor unions not being able to collect money involuntarily and use it to donate to political campaigns: BAD!

Corporations being able to donate money to political campaigns: BAD!

I think both = bad.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

I think both = bad.

Jamil, I'll disagree with you on the second one. The first was about compelling involuntary contributions; it did not ban the unions from donating their voluntarily collected dues to political campaigns.

Recall what Citizens United was about... banning an anti-Hillary Clinton movie (basically a Michael Moore type affair) in the run-up to the election as being an in-kind campaign contribution by a corporation. Pure censorship of views.

While corporate money in campaigns might be "bad", the banning of it leads down a much worse road in this all-things-weaponized environment, IMO.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Isn't freedom of speech to apply in all instances, not just the ones where you happen to agree with the speaker?

Not to them. Rights are merely stalking horses, not ends to themselves.

Read this book, it helps you see where they are going by studying the past: https://www.amazon.com/Destructive-Generation-Second-Thoughts-Sixties/dp/1594030820

 

[T.Lex]

SCOTUS unanimous ruling in favor of employees against arbitration clauses, although a very narrow one. Kavanaugh did not participate, but Gorsuch authored the opinion.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-prime-inc-v-oliveira/

And, although certain INGOers may get migraines from this idea, at least one commentator has suggested that progressives can win in SCOTUS by adopting originalist arguments. This link has an explanation of how that might work.

https://slate.com/news-and-politics...extualism-supreme-court-liberal-strategy.html

 

[MinutemanPatriot]

The only free speech the Left cares about is THEIR KIND of speech; Conservatives, Christians, and Republicans be damned. Leftists weaponize their agenda, and it's OK by them, but if conservatives defend their rights using their rights, well then all of a sudden those bad nasty conservatives are "weaponizing this", and "weaponizing that"... Leftists are masters of projection.

Personally, I'm so sick of Leftists after 50 years on God's green earth that I'm ready to "weaponize helicopters" in a tried and true method to get rid of Commiecrats.

 

[SheepDog4Life]

SCOTUS unanimous ruling in favor of employees against arbitration clauses, although a very narrow one. Kavanaugh did not participate, but Gorsuch authored the opinion.

https://www.scotusblog.com/case-files/cases/new-prime-inc-v-oliveira/

Extremely narrow and a simple application of existing law, IMO... exemption from arbitration for contracts of employment for workers involved in interstate transport reads the law. Applies to truckers, even if independent contractors, says the court. It would be shocking to me if this wasn't unanimously decided.