The activist Supreme Court strikes again
Arizona tried to protect Free Speech. Its election law specified that a candidate who did not wish to follow campaign spending limits could do so, but that the State would give other candidates matching funds. You can spend what you want to get your message out, but you shouldn't be able to shout down the voice of others. That sounds like a great balance of freedoms.
Well, not according to the Republican SCOTUS. The simple rule there: Whatever the wealthy want, the wealthy get. They've decided that fair play in elections is unconstitutional and that it's one dollar, one vote.
But even worse, notice how they did it. As the Post reports: "According to the court's order, the stay would dissolve in the unlikely event the court decided not to take the case, although such a decision might not come for months. There were no signed dissents from the stay, which came, as is customary, without explanation." If the Court actually hears the case, the law would stay in place until a decision was announced.
So what did the activist Court do? It issues a stay, barring Arizona from implementing the law -- right in the middle of an election cycle. That way, the Court doesn't have to hear the arguments until after the wealthiest candidates get to spend as much in unmatched dollars as they want. Only when it won't matter will the Court decide to hear the case and, given how and when they issued the stay, that's a foregone conclusion.
The Court stepped into an election cycle to intentionally impact the outcome of the elections. Gee, where have they done that before? They claimed crowning their own man President was not a precedent, but they continue to show it is.
The Court's corrupt.
Well, not according to the Republican SCOTUS. The simple rule there: Whatever the wealthy want, the wealthy get. They've decided that fair play in elections is unconstitutional and that it's one dollar, one vote.
But even worse, notice how they did it. As the Post reports: "According to the court's order, the stay would dissolve in the unlikely event the court decided not to take the case, although such a decision might not come for months. There were no signed dissents from the stay, which came, as is customary, without explanation." If the Court actually hears the case, the law would stay in place until a decision was announced.
So what did the activist Court do? It issues a stay, barring Arizona from implementing the law -- right in the middle of an election cycle. That way, the Court doesn't have to hear the arguments until after the wealthiest candidates get to spend as much in unmatched dollars as they want. Only when it won't matter will the Court decide to hear the case and, given how and when they issued the stay, that's a foregone conclusion.
The Court stepped into an election cycle to intentionally impact the outcome of the elections. Gee, where have they done that before? They claimed crowning their own man President was not a precedent, but they continue to show it is.
The Court's corrupt.