Computer users are in a different room. I didn't realize I was so old fashioned...
Showing posts with label law school. Show all posts
Showing posts with label law school. Show all posts
Liveblog: Civil Procedure Final
Computer users are in a different room. I didn't realize I was so old fashioned...Who Hoots For You?
There have been some whispers about this in the news, but as this subject now consumes my life and I am way delinquent in posting, I thought I would share:
The Supreme Court is preparing to decide a case, Citizens United vs. FEC. The dispute in this case has revolved around a movie that Citizens United produced entitled "Hillary the Movie." You may remember something about this-- the movie portrayed Secretary Clinton in an unfavorable light, and as it was due to be released during the Democratic primaries, the FEC ruled that it counted as political speech and therefore disallowed it. Various lower courts have upheld this ruling, but the Supremes agreed to hear the case during the last term. Interestingly (ominously) the Court asked for a second hearing on the case (somewhat of a rarity) asking the parties to be prepared to discuss the precedent cases upon which much of our modern campaign finance restrictions are built.
The nature of the questioning at this second round of oral arguments (the first appearance before the court by Elena Kagan in her new capacity as Solicitor General, ironically arguing against the previous Solicitor General, Theodore Olson) strongly suggests the Court is seriously considering overturning this precedent, referred to generally as Austin. That the Colbert Report is one of the only places where this case and its potential implications has been discussed in media is telling.
Colbert and Jeffrey Toobin muse upon what might happen if the court rules in favor of Citizens United. Essentially, corporations would be considered to have the same rights as persons. As the court has held in prior rulings that money is equivalent to speech, this could potentially render restrictions on personal and corporate donations to political causes completely invalid. Corporations would be free to provide unlimited support to candidates, and even to pay for and air programming favoring one candidate or another. Here is the money section from Colbert if you don't feel like watching:
ps- yes I think the mexican joke gimmick is funny too
The Supreme Court is preparing to decide a case, Citizens United vs. FEC. The dispute in this case has revolved around a movie that Citizens United produced entitled "Hillary the Movie." You may remember something about this-- the movie portrayed Secretary Clinton in an unfavorable light, and as it was due to be released during the Democratic primaries, the FEC ruled that it counted as political speech and therefore disallowed it. Various lower courts have upheld this ruling, but the Supremes agreed to hear the case during the last term. Interestingly (ominously) the Court asked for a second hearing on the case (somewhat of a rarity) asking the parties to be prepared to discuss the precedent cases upon which much of our modern campaign finance restrictions are built.
The nature of the questioning at this second round of oral arguments (the first appearance before the court by Elena Kagan in her new capacity as Solicitor General, ironically arguing against the previous Solicitor General, Theodore Olson) strongly suggests the Court is seriously considering overturning this precedent, referred to generally as Austin. That the Colbert Report is one of the only places where this case and its potential implications has been discussed in media is telling.Colbert and Jeffrey Toobin muse upon what might happen if the court rules in favor of Citizens United. Essentially, corporations would be considered to have the same rights as persons. As the court has held in prior rulings that money is equivalent to speech, this could potentially render restrictions on personal and corporate donations to political causes completely invalid. Corporations would be free to provide unlimited support to candidates, and even to pay for and air programming favoring one candidate or another. Here is the money section from Colbert if you don't feel like watching:
COLBERT: Now when I ran for President in 2008, as the Hail to the Cheese Doritos Stephen Colbert campaign for President, I was told that I actually couldn't do that, that I was breaking federal election law by being sponsored by that corporation. But if this goes through, if this court case, if they win, does that mean that I retroactively won the election?Keep an eye on this one kids.
TOOBIN: I don't think it means that.
COLBERT: But could you do that? Could I actually just wear a NASCAR suit and just have logos all over me and run for President as the sort of Gatorade Thirst for Justice campaign for President?
TOOBIN: You definitely could. No question.
[...]
TOOBIN: That's what's potentially the next legal challenge. Because if giving money is a form of speech, as the Court has held at various times, you can't prohibit a company from giving money. And then presumably the next step would be that you couldn't have limits on how much individuals could give either. That's the potential implication of this decision.
COLBERT: So right now, corporations would actually have more power as people than people, until people catch up with corporations.
ps- yes I think the mexican joke gimmick is funny too
This is why every sorority had a meetings chair
I recently discovered a kid I went to high school with is engaged to Alyssa Milano. And then, I procrastinating by scanning a popular legal-world blog, and discovered the above video. Everyone I know is famous and all their deals are live.
