Skip to main content

View Diary: SCOTUS OKs Corporate Election(ish) Speech (241 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Then what's up with the hate speech straw man? nt (0+ / 0-)
    •  INTENT... (0+ / 0-)

      The problem with "intent" as an argument

      Intent in an inherent part of our laws... I think I said it twice now...INTENT...

      Chief Justice Roberts holds that an intent-based test would violate the First Amendment:

      Shall I say it again??????

      The "rule of law"; it applies to you and me, but not the rich, the Republican or the celebrity. Welcome to America!

      by MotleyPatriot on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 01:05:40 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Speech is protected by the first amendment (0+ / 0-)

        Whether its intent is hateful or not. Hate speech is not illegal.

        •  ok... let me try to explain this a bit slower... (0+ / 0-)

          the concept of intent is found in many of our laws already...

          for Roberts to say that we cannot have an intent-based test in re: to a law is contradictory to the laws we already have in place...

          I don't care what Amendment you want to discuss... intent is already an inherent part of our law system.

          Now... I'm not going to try and explain this any slower... either grasp the concept or don't.

          The "rule of law"; it applies to you and me, but not the rich, the Republican or the celebrity. Welcome to America!

          by MotleyPatriot on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 06:21:55 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  and yes... it IS legal in California until the (0+ / 0-)

          law that was passed is challenged and deemed unconstitutional by precedent, just as the anti-gay laws in Texas were still laws until they were challenged and deemed unconstitutional in Lawrence v Texas.

          That is why we had the Supreme Court rule in the Hamdi decision one way, then we had the Military Commissions Act passed by Congress.  It too will have be challenged again for it to be deemed unconstitutional by a court of law, which should cite the precedent set by Hamdi (if I read that decision correctly).  Laws are not just "deemed" unconstitutional because there is precedent... they have to be challenged in a specific case.

          The "rule of law"; it applies to you and me, but not the rich, the Republican or the celebrity. Welcome to America!

          by MotleyPatriot on Mon Jun 25, 2007 at 06:35:49 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site