Post by Godot showed up on Jan 21, 2010 18:38:18 GMT -5
Two moments of sanity in one week? First MA and now the USSC
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Scalia's concurring opinion is beautiful. He vivisects that political mediocrity, Stevens.
"But the dissent’s distortion of proper analysis is even worse than that. Though faced with a constitutional text that makes no distinction between types of speakers, the dissent feels no necessity to provide even an isolated statement from the founding era to the effect that corporations are not covered, but places the burden on petitioners to bring forward statements showing that they are (“there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone believed [the First Amendment] would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the corporate form,” post, at 34–35)."
If that horror Stevens had an intellectually honest bone in his body, he'd be having a a number of "Doh" moments tonight. You've been served, Stevens.
www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
Scalia's concurring opinion is beautiful. He vivisects that political mediocrity, Stevens.
"But the dissent’s distortion of proper analysis is even worse than that. Though faced with a constitutional text that makes no distinction between types of speakers, the dissent feels no necessity to provide even an isolated statement from the founding era to the effect that corporations are not covered, but places the burden on petitioners to bring forward statements showing that they are (“there is not a scintilla of evidence to support the notion that anyone believed [the First Amendment] would preclude regulatory distinctions based on the corporate form,” post, at 34–35)."
If that horror Stevens had an intellectually honest bone in his body, he'd be having a a number of "Doh" moments tonight. You've been served, Stevens.