I’m not disagreeing with you but your looking at it as a matter principle. In practice more money does mean more speech and everything else. I, too, believe that the supreme court should be more principled but I also think the supreme court are people. By that I mean, they are the people who make the rules. They aren’t law makers but they put the laws into practice. I give this court zero credit, I honestly do, but isn’t there something honest about what the court has done? What we are see now is the law as they see the law exists. It might be deeply wrong from anyone persons perspective but if that’s actually how government functions would law work if we tried to apply it in a different way?
HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
If money is free speech then anyone with more money gets more free speech, which isn’t how rights work. You have the same freedoms and limitations to those freedoms that I do, regardless of who has more money. We’re supposed to be equal under the law, but SCOTUS thinks $ome are more equal than others.
Clinicallydepressedpoochie@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
HenchmanNumber3@lemm.ee 5 weeks ago
The law would work differently if they, as designated interpreters of the law, interpreted the law differently. If they said you can’t have infinite dark money running campaigns because that violates the rights of poor voters, then things would be very different. Plenty of SCOTUS cases have made significant changes to how the law is interpreted and enforced. Congress also seems to very rarely pass laws to counter SCOTUS decisions. So yeah, if we had fewer federalists and conservatives on SCOTUS and more progressives, I think it would have been decided differently, as well as other significant cases.
NeoNachtwaechter@lemmy.world 5 weeks ago
The ones with a lot of money are the only ones who have rights anyway.