Jun. 26th, 2007
You hypocritical bastard
Jun. 26th, 2007 02:59 pmYes, I mean you, Mr Chief Justice Roberts. How can you sanctimoniously write
Oh, right, because speech is only free when it's paid for, not when it's a kid holding up a banner. The First Amendment apparently protects big-money political buyers like unions and PACs, but not actual individual Americans. Jeezus jumping jehosephat, how do people like this sleep at night?
(For those not following the reference, I'm ranting about Roberts' opinion striking down McCain-Feingold limits on political ad spending which differs remarkably from yesterday's ruling on Bong hits 4 Jesus.)
P.S. feste, note again Scalitomas voting en bloc.
Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censorand not include a footnote saying "Except where the speech concerns drugs and the censor is the governmental or in loco parentis authority figure?
Oh, right, because speech is only free when it's paid for, not when it's a kid holding up a banner. The First Amendment apparently protects big-money political buyers like unions and PACs, but not actual individual Americans. Jeezus jumping jehosephat, how do people like this sleep at night?
(For those not following the reference, I'm ranting about Roberts' opinion striking down McCain-Feingold limits on political ad spending which differs remarkably from yesterday's ruling on Bong hits 4 Jesus.)
P.S. feste, note again Scalitomas voting en bloc.
You hypocritical bastard
Jun. 26th, 2007 02:59 pmYes, I mean you, Mr Chief Justice Roberts. How can you sanctimoniously write
Oh, right, because speech is only free when it's paid for, not when it's a kid holding up a banner. The First Amendment apparently protects big-money political buyers like unions and PACs, but not actual individual Americans. Jeezus jumping jehosephat, how do people like this sleep at night?
(For those not following the reference, I'm ranting about Roberts' opinion striking down McCain-Feingold limits on political ad spending which differs remarkably from yesterday's ruling on Bong hits 4 Jesus.)
P.S. feste, note again Scalitomas voting en bloc.
Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censorand not include a footnote saying "Except where the speech concerns drugs and the censor is the governmental or in loco parentis authority figure?
Oh, right, because speech is only free when it's paid for, not when it's a kid holding up a banner. The First Amendment apparently protects big-money political buyers like unions and PACs, but not actual individual Americans. Jeezus jumping jehosephat, how do people like this sleep at night?
(For those not following the reference, I'm ranting about Roberts' opinion striking down McCain-Feingold limits on political ad spending which differs remarkably from yesterday's ruling on Bong hits 4 Jesus.)
P.S. feste, note again Scalitomas voting en bloc.