He did try to rule based on the Constitution. It says NOTHING about companies having any free speech rights. NADA. ZIP. SCOTUS was 100% wrong in pulling that fabrication out of their ass.
Rights are given to citizens (NOT Foreigners in the US either!) and to the states. The Federal government has a very limited set of rights directly related to duties they must carry out.
The Constitution should be paramount. NOT prior rulings of federal judges or even SCOTUS. Yes, it takes more effort to decide when a precedent was faulty and does not follow the Constitution, but it must be done.
An obvious example would be a US District Court judge ruling that SCOTUS does not have the authority to review any cases. Then an appeals court upholds the District Court judge, and lastly SCOTUS itself upholds the appeals court, based on precedent.
Yes, they really are that stupid and stubborn at times.
SCOTUS only relies on SCOTUS precedent, not lower district's precedent. Rights are not even given by the government or even the constitution, we just have them endowed by our creator and this fact is codified by our constitution. Also saying the rights in the constitution was only meant for citizens is untrue. They are restrictions placed on our government to protect everyone from it within the united states. Some of these supreme court rulings establishing that date back to the 1800's.
saying the rights in the constitution was only meant for citizens is untrue.
They are restrictions placed on our government
This is correct.
to protect everyone from it within the united states.
This is not. Otherwise slavery would never have been allowed. Women would not have been prohibited from voting. The founding fathers certainly didn't misunderstand the constitution that they wrote themselves.
Some of these supreme court rulings establishing that date back to the 1800's.
That's another SCOTUS fabrication. The expansion of the 14th amendment rights were derived from battles between the states, the federal government and private entities building railroad or owning land the railroads wanted. The application to include all people was a further judicially created expansion of this.
Using SCOTUS to support SCOTUS decisions is like using CNN to fact check CNN.
It is not false, SCOTUS overturns lower court precedent all the time, DC banning all handguns for example, the lower court set precedent upholding the ban. SCOTUS overturned it. They will use lower courts precedent in their opinions but only rely on precedent previously made by SCOTUS.
Slavery was written into the constitution, that's a terrible example. Also originally it restricted the federal government from infringement on those rights, not from the states. That's why you see state constitutions sometimes having their own mimic of the bill of rights in it. Like you mentioned the 14th amendment expanded it to the states, and Scalia disagreed with that ruling!!! But since it was SCOTUS precedent he followed it.
Those rights protected everyone within the US from the federal government originally, and expanded it to the states with the SCOTUS ruling on the 14th.
He did try to rule based on the Constitution. It says NOTHING about companies having any free speech rights. NADA. ZIP. SCOTUS was 100% wrong in pulling that fabrication out of their ass.
Rights are given to citizens (NOT Foreigners in the US either!) and to the states. The Federal government has a very limited set of rights directly related to duties they must carry out.
The Constitution should be paramount. NOT prior rulings of federal judges or even SCOTUS. Yes, it takes more effort to decide when a precedent was faulty and does not follow the Constitution, but it must be done.
An obvious example would be a US District Court judge ruling that SCOTUS does not have the authority to review any cases. Then an appeals court upholds the District Court judge, and lastly SCOTUS itself upholds the appeals court, based on precedent.
Yes, they really are that stupid and stubborn at times.
SCOTUS only relies on SCOTUS precedent, not lower district's precedent. Rights are not even given by the government or even the constitution, we just have them endowed by our creator and this fact is codified by our constitution. Also saying the rights in the constitution was only meant for citizens is untrue. They are restrictions placed on our government to protect everyone from it within the united states. Some of these supreme court rulings establishing that date back to the 1800's.
SCOTUS only relies on SCOTUS precedent
This is false.
This is correct.
This is not. Otherwise slavery would never have been allowed. Women would not have been prohibited from voting. The founding fathers certainly didn't misunderstand the constitution that they wrote themselves.
That's another SCOTUS fabrication. The expansion of the 14th amendment rights were derived from battles between the states, the federal government and private entities building railroad or owning land the railroads wanted. The application to include all people was a further judicially created expansion of this.
Using SCOTUS to support SCOTUS decisions is like using CNN to fact check CNN.
It is not false, SCOTUS overturns lower court precedent all the time, DC banning all handguns for example, the lower court set precedent upholding the ban. SCOTUS overturned it. They will use lower courts precedent in their opinions but only rely on precedent previously made by SCOTUS.
Slavery was written into the constitution, that's a terrible example. Also originally it restricted the federal government from infringement on those rights, not from the states. That's why you see state constitutions sometimes having their own mimic of the bill of rights in it. Like you mentioned the 14th amendment expanded it to the states, and Scalia disagreed with that ruling!!! But since it was SCOTUS precedent he followed it.
Those rights protected everyone within the US from the federal government originally, and expanded it to the states with the SCOTUS ruling on the 14th.