On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Theo10011 <de10011(a)gmail.com> wrote:
This is an area I have no expertise in. My nascent
understanding of the
legal implication of those legislations aside, I, like others usually defer
to more respected opinions. The Citizens United ruling for example has been
criticized by President Barak Obama....
I don't believe I suggested that Citizens United hasn't been
criticized by knowledgeable people. (I'm a critic too.) President
Obama, as a former constitutional law professor, for example, has
surely read both Bellotti and Citizens United. What I said,
specifically, was that when I read popular discussions of Citizens
United online, more often than not I'm reading commentary from someone
who hasn't read the cases.
You can read more about them in the rather large
section on the criticism
section of the ruling page.
(
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission…)
My habit is to read the decision directly rather than read the
Wikipedia entry. No reflection on Wikipedia, of course -- it's just
that as a practicing attorney I am professionally driven to consult
primary sources.
Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings,
money is speech and
corporations are people, albeit according to a naive but widely help
understanding of it, one that is shared by several prominent professors at
law.
My own habit is to read the cases directly, since I often must discuss
them with fellow lawyers who have also read the cases.
We are Media too, Mike.
Just so. And it's something I never forget. All media must be received
skeptically.
--Mike