Corporate Speak Supreme Court Sytle

At the risk of beating a dead horse, was there ever any doubt which way Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas and Roberts would vote on the question: Can corporations spend as much as they want trying to elect government officials who will be indebted to them?

Is there any surprise they would wrap themselves in the flag of the First Amendment, saying money is speach and the Constitution forbids the Congress from passing laws abridging the right of free speach?

We must always bow in the direction of those bewigged eighteen century masters who would be thoroughly appaled at the notion of their descendants treating their makeshift document as some sort of holy writ.

So now we have James Madison, Thomas Jefferson,et al, who never heard an amplified voice, saw a television screen, not to mention video streaming, email or text messaging, or lived with advertizing agencies, marketers or multinational corporations, being cited as the authors of the ruling that corporations are no different from individuals when it comes to the court's desire to protect free speach.

Of course, it would have nothing to do with the desire of those moneyed interests to be sure their voice is heard over that of the hoi polloi.

The court wants to be sure we continue to have the best government money can buy, all three branches.

Scalia

(Edward Hoppper)



There's a new biography of Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court pugilist.
The book was reviewed in the Sunday Times Book Review and the author, who looks like a very pleasant lady, was interviewed on the PBS News Hour by Gwen Ifil.
Apparently, Justice Scalia (and I use that appellation advisedly) is conservative, although he sometimes annoys conservatives.

He is also an "Originalist," which means he believes in trying to decide cases in the 21st century based on the text of that 18th century document known as the United States Constitution, which was handwritten in some very cool script on animal skin at a time before there were automatic weapons, hydrogen bombs or even any way to amplify the human voice beyond cupping your hands around your mouth.

Another insight the author provides: Mr. Scalia is a Catholic.

This makes sense insofar as people who are raised Catholic may be undaunted by the idea of trying to make sense of the world by making reference to a single text written long ago.
"Everything you need to know is in this one book."

That sort of thing. Although, maybe I'm displaying my ignorance here. Maybe that's the Baptists. Catholics might say everything you need to know is told to you by the Pope or the Church, after they have read the book.

Anyway, Bong Hits for Jesus is not likely to find much sympathy from Justice Scalia. They didn't have Bong Hits in the 18th century, so that high school kid is out of luck.