By now, much has been written about the eight members of the Supreme Court being ambushed by Wonderboy's grossly misleading and inaccurate characterization of the recent ruling nullifying some unconstitutional elements of the McCain-Feingold campaign finance law.
Some feel the court members should have had some warning about the diatribe. Others feel it's appropriate for the president, representing the executive branch, to call to attention its disagreement with the judicial branch over a particular issue.
But what's not in dispute is that Wonderboy described the decision, and its effects, completely erroneously.
For instance, he said it removed a century-old ban on corporate contributions to political campaigns.
That's not true. It simply allowed institutions, such as labor unions, corporations and non-profits, to spend their own money at any time to express their political opinions. McCain-Feingold improperly sought to muzzle free speech by restricting the time before an election during which political speech by such entities could be expressed.
Additionally, while the ruling made no mention of foreign entities, our First Lawyer claimed that it did.
If the sitting First Rookie, who is a Harvard-trained lawyer, can't get these legal points straight, just what is he supposed to be qualified to do?
It's ludicrous to see a State of the Union address contain such factual errors, and in the context of being used to browbeat the highest court in the land.
Especially when the court, for once, has rolled back government control of speech, and restored the rights of freedom of expression.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment