On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Theo10011 de10011@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