Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Antonin Scalia vs. John Paul Stevens
http://reason.com/blog/2010/01/21/antonin-scalia-vs-john-paul-st ^ | January 21, 2010 | Damon W. Root

Posted on 01/23/2010 3:00:57 AM PST by free1977free

Counting the majority opinion and the various partial concurrences and dissents, today’s landmark First Amendment decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission clocks in a hefty 183-pages. But one thing that jumped right out while reading the dissent (it’s also a concurrence, in parts) written by Justice John Paul Stevens and joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor, is Stevens' angry tone. He calls the idea that the First Amendment forbids distinctions between individuals and individuals organized as a corporation “a glittering generality” with no foundation in the law, and later declares, “Under the majority's view, I suppose it may be a First Amendment problem that corporations are not permitted to vote, given that voting is, among other things, a form of speech.” Well!

But most significantly, Stevens accuses the majority of making “only a perfunctory attempt to ground its analysis in the principles or understandings of those who drafted and ratified the Amendment.” Stevens even cites the influential legal conservative Judge Robert Bork to impugn the majority’s originalist credentials. That's not something you see everyday.

Justice Antonin Scalia, however, isn’t having it:

I write separately to address JUSTICE STEVENS’ discussion of “Original Understandings”... This section of [Stevens'] dissent purports to show that today’s decision is not supported by the original understanding of the First Amendment. The dissent attempts this demonstration, however, in splendid isolation from the text of the First Amendment. It never shows why “the freedom of speech” that was the right of Englishmen did not include the freedom to speak in association with other individuals, including association in the corporate form. To be sure, in 1791 (as now) corporations could pursue only the objectives set forth in their charters; but the dissent provides no evidence that their speech in the pursuit of those objectives could be censored....

The [First] Amendment is written in terms of "speech," not speakers. Its text offers no foothold for excluding any category of speaker, from single individuals to partnerships of individuals, to unincorporated associations of individuals, to incorporated associations of individuals--and the dissent offers no evidence about the original meaning of the text to support any such exclusion. We are therefore simply left with the question whether the speech at issue in this case is "speech" covered by the First Amendment. No one says otherwise.


TOPICS: Business/Economy; Government; Politics; Society
KEYWORDS: antoninscalia; bork; conservatives; constitution; decision; feingold; firstamendment; freespeech; justices; mccain; obama; originalism; scalia; scotus; senate; stevens; supremecourt; wiselatina
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last
I invite you all to read the pdf file of the SC decision. I also wish to point out another passage Scalia addresses, I mean the foolishness about “corporations aren’t people” doesn’t pass muster. Scalia addresses this in the opinion:

The dissent says that “ ‘speech’ ” refers to oral communications of human beings, and since corporations are not human beings they cannot speak. Post, at 37, n. 55. This is sophistry. The authorized spokesman of a corporation is a human being, who speaks on behalf of the human beings who have formed that association—just as the spokesman of an unincorporated association speaks on behalf of its members.

1 posted on 01/23/2010 3:00:59 AM PST by free1977free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: free1977free
Justice John Paul Stevens...Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, and Sonia Sotomayor

Like they used to say in Mad Magazine...Yecccch!

2 posted on 01/23/2010 3:03:32 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian conservative, atheist prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: free1977free

If the combat between Scalia and Stevens is judged by intellect, logic, clarity (and truth), Scalia is the tiger and Stevens is the meal. It is such a joy to read Scalia’s opinions.


3 posted on 01/23/2010 3:04:15 AM PST by Woebama (Never, never, never quit)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: free1977free
Thansk for the post.

Didn't Reagan nominate Scalia and Thomas? Since the ObamaMarxists, with Bush's help, have all but obliterated 20 years of Reagan's REAL economic recovery, at least Reagan lives on through the grace of having theses justices as the vanguard of upholding the Constitution against the traitors and tyrants in our midst.

4 posted on 01/23/2010 3:18:59 AM PST by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Darkwolf377

John Paul Stevens....... another nightmare of an appointment from a Republican ....... considering the number of appointments that R. presidents made in the recent decades, too much of the output of the SCOTUS is an utter disgrace (until today!)

Love it when Scalia slices and dices liberal idiocies


5 posted on 01/23/2010 3:20:30 AM PST by Enchante (Mr. Brown Goes to Washington...... kick a@@, take names, and scorch all the bastards, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: free1977free

Scalia is, as always, dead on.
The First Amendment says “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”

It does not grant a right to free speech to individual persons, as the left has argued. It restricts congress from making any law prohibiting or abridging the freedom of speech. Period. The First Amendment is not about what people may or may not do. It is about what congress may or may not do.


6 posted on 01/23/2010 3:21:45 AM PST by counterpunch (In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Bush 41 nominated Thomas.


7 posted on 01/23/2010 3:21:53 AM PST by scooby321
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Reagan nominated O’Connor, Scalia, Bork, and Kennedy.
Bush Sr. nominated Thomas and Souter.


8 posted on 01/23/2010 3:23:50 AM PST by counterpunch (In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

Professor Bork’s nomination, as you know, was not approved by the Senate.


9 posted on 01/23/2010 3:28:37 AM PST by free1977free
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: free1977free

“No law means no law.” - Hugo Black

Seems pretty simple if they could all just get their fingers off.
And the FCC should be confined to purely technical issues where signals cross state lines.


10 posted on 01/23/2010 3:33:26 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (IN A SMALL TENT WE JUST STAND CLOSER! * IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: free1977free; counterpunch

After Ted Kennedy “borked” Bork, potentially the one of the best SCOTUS Justices ever, wasn’t Justice Kennedy nominated in his place? If that’s true, it’s a substantial certainty that Roe v. Wade would have been overturned in the early 90’s, and millions of unborn saved from the on-going infanticide horror. Blood on the hands of Kennedy and his ilk, is how I see it.


11 posted on 01/23/2010 3:37:35 AM PST by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: scooby321

I wish we had 9 Thomases. But I would settle for five Thomases with four Scalias on his left.


12 posted on 01/23/2010 3:37:36 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (IN A SMALL TENT WE JUST STAND CLOSER! * IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Enchante
Love it when Scalia slices and dices liberal idiocies

It's fun to read the opinions of those who have a grasp of the principles AND the law, and know how to express their position well.

13 posted on 01/23/2010 3:38:16 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian conservative, atheist prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216
Since the ObamaMarxists, with Bush's help, have all but obliterated 20 years of Reagan's REAL economic recovery

We wouldn't be having this discussion without two of Bush's picks, and we can't give Reagan credit or blame for the economy until Bush showed up.

14 posted on 01/23/2010 3:39:54 AM PST by Darkwolf377 (Bostonian conservative, atheist prolifer)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

Yes. Yes. And yes.


15 posted on 01/23/2010 3:41:25 AM PST by counterpunch (In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Jim 0216

I met Blackmun, the American Eichmann, once.
Unfortunately it was before I was fully politically engaged.


16 posted on 01/23/2010 3:42:08 AM PST by UnbelievingScumOnTheOtherSide (IN A SMALL TENT WE JUST STAND CLOSER! * IT'S ISLAM, STUPID! - Islam Delenda Est! - Rumble thee forth)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch
The First Amendment is not about what people may or may not do. It is about what congress may or may not do.

This is clearer thinking than four of our SCOTUS justices. I haven't yet read the majority opinion yet, but can't image it being put more succinctly than you have here.

17 posted on 01/23/2010 3:42:50 AM PST by Jim 0216
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

wish that O’Connor, Kennedy, and Souter had never gotten on the court.....

not to mention Stevens and Blackmun earlier......

it was wonderful of GW to give us Roberts and Alito......


18 posted on 01/23/2010 3:45:00 AM PST by Enchante (Mr. Brown Goes to Washington...... kick a@@, take names, and scorch all the bastards, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

Don’t forget, though, GWB first tried to give us Harriet Miers.
We lead the fight against her here. And we won.


19 posted on 01/23/2010 3:46:26 AM PST by counterpunch (In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem. Government is the problem.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: counterpunch

oh, yes, it was quite the near fiasco with Harriet Miers


20 posted on 01/23/2010 3:48:55 AM PST by Enchante (Mr. Brown Goes to Washington...... kick a@@, take names, and scorch all the bastards, please!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021-4041-55 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson