tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post1161109898011985626..comments2023-11-03T06:35:48.003-05:00Comments on Shark and Shepherd: "Corporate" free speechRick Esenberghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-42403172616049037642007-06-22T21:03:00.000-05:002007-06-22T21:03:00.000-05:00ITThat would be a column that McCabe did not write...IT<BR/><BR/>That would be a column that McCabe did not write and, therefore, a different post. You may not think that it's worth debunking the notion that Santa clara County was a momentous bit of judicial activism, but it's quite a chestnut on the left.<BR/><BR/>As to whether the first amendment rights of corporations, let's wait and see what the Court does next week and if that question is once again relevant. (I doubt it will be.)<BR/><BR/>I made no mention of the chronology of Jefferson's death, only the obvious point that a decision shortly after the 14th was ratified could hardly have disturbed a long standing interpretation of it.<BR/><BR/>And, as an aside, don't you think it's awful weak sarcasm that must declare itself?<BR/><BR/><BR/>Jack L.<BR/><BR/>I have no idea what your point is. <BR/><BR/>The ACLU, to take one example, supports WRTL's position in this case. Are they trying to destroy democracy? If so, I can only guess that their motivation is something other than restricting abortions.Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-22831479696611641512007-06-22T07:12:00.000-05:002007-06-22T07:12:00.000-05:00I've never quite understood the Right-to-lifers. Y...I've never quite understood the Right-to-lifers. You could virtually destroy democracy and they'd be okay with it as long as they could eliminate the women's choice. Seems to me to be throwing the baby out with the bath water. I prefer appealing to the mother's sensibilities to forced birth.Jack Lohmanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10214373845549362680noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-17403624937596397222007-06-21T16:52:00.000-05:002007-06-21T16:52:00.000-05:00I'm not conflating anything. But for the facts tha...<I>I'm not conflating anything.</I> <BR/><BR/>But for the facts that McCabe's larger point was the referenced distinguishability and your lack of success at "<A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fisking" REL="nofollow">Fisking</A>" that point, I'd allow for the lesser included offense of constructive conflating by dint of your failing to even address it. I suppose McCabe could have made it clearer -- and better supported -- but it was clear enough to me.<BR/><BR/>Complaining about the Court's recognition of corporations as persons, a subject you managed to address more directly, is something of a distracting sideshow to the question of whether corporate speech is entitled to the same level of First Amendment scrutiny as is individual speech in the context of political campaigns.<BR/><BR/>Several revered conservative oracles, including Byron White and William Rehnquist, evidently thought not.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps you could address it sometime; it might be more interesting than, <I>e.g.</I>, the chronology of Jefferson's death in relation to the ratification of the 14th Amendment. <BR/><BR/>I understand this is a relatively subtle question of First Amendment law, and as such would tend to send Dad29 and John McAdams lurching for the smelling salts, but your more sophisticated readership may find it edifying, and I certainly know that you are up to it.<BR/><BR/>[aside]And remember, kids, sarcasm is the soul of successful Fisking.[/aside]illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-88041525849379038062007-06-21T13:50:00.000-05:002007-06-21T13:50:00.000-05:00I'm not conflating anything. I am noting that McCa...I'm not conflating anything. I am noting that McCabe is wrong to suggest that the idea that corporations are "persons" within the meaning of the 14th amendment or the notion that they may enjoy constitutionally protected liberties was judicial "legislation."Rick Esenberghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07280070509167910367noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-1748228468182823152007-06-21T13:19:00.000-05:002007-06-21T13:19:00.000-05:00There is likewise "ample" legislative history and ...There is likewise "ample" legislative history and sound policy for the proposition that corporate speech (and its inbred cousin commercial speech) is distinguishable from individual speech for purposes of the First Amendment analysis.<BR/><BR/>Conflating them to the objective of attacking this element of Mr. McCabe's argument is not the most effective rebuttal, short of adding, "Five out of nine judges said so in <I>Bellotti</I>, although they were addressing the narrower question of a State referendum."illusory tenanthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08524761974822871419noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-20692053.post-80185418018773358162007-06-21T09:33:00.000-05:002007-06-21T09:33:00.000-05:00McCabe's version of "strict construction/stare dec...McCabe's version of "strict construction/stare decisis" would have left slave-holding as a Constitutional right, eh?Dad29https://www.blogger.com/profile/08554276286736923821noreply@blogger.com