You hypocritical bastard

[drwex]

Yes, I mean you, Mr Chief Justice Roberts. How can you sanctimoniously write

Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor

and 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.

Comments

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

I don't mind Justices Scalia, Thomas, and Alito voting en bloc when they're correct.

[drwex]

Ends do not justify means.

Money is not speech, it's property.

And we're talking about your misconception that those three are not so uniformly of a mind that it's reasonable to talk about them as one, not their merits in this vote.

[feste-sylvain.livejournal.com]

Oh, bullshit. Try speaking during the campaign season without money and see just how many ears you reach.

But if you want to be a die-hard anti-material altruist, then fine. Justify the ban above peoples' right to freely assemble (another part of the same enumerated amendment).

And I understand that all conservatives rook arike to you, bigot.