The Supreme Court defends the rights of rich and conservative – to the hell almost all the rest.
On October 7, 2022, in Washington, on October 7, 2022 in Washington, Colombia District, and the Supreme Court.
(Alex Wong / Getti Image)
It seems that republican judges believe that some people receive freedom of speech and others do not. Since it is a court caused by a conservative complaint, it seems that people have the right to say conservative things that love republican but not like the right to say that things criticize conservatives. Speech is good when speech is the money seeking to give preference to national reasons but there is a no Well, if the speech contributes to democratic reasons – for example, the speech of trade unions or speech that supports the rights to racial minorities and LGBT -community. The court defends a minority rights that have the right to trait almost everyone else.
The court considered a speech (criticism of wealthy conservatives) as bad, even when it insists that other speeches (the costs of wealthy conservatives) were good. In one of these cases Americans for the Welfare Fund vs bonta (The Americans for the Welfare Fund is a hand of the Network of Petrochemical Koch), the court found California invalid law, which demanded non -profit organizations to disclose the state with a major donor. The judges have reduced the demand that the information about the donors would be revealed to the public, which could be subjected to donors, prepare for this, oral charges of violation. During the arguments, Clarence Thomas thus issued this problem: “Do you think it would be reasonable for those who want to make a significant contribution to the organization that was accused of racist, homophobic or white supreme, what are they chilled?” The question believes that donors will be restrained from supporting a homophobia or racism. It reflects a specific speech as a problem (accusations in racism or homophobia against conservative organizations), defending other speeches (monetary contributions to conservative organizations).
The court also considered the contribution to the trade unions as fundamentally different from the contribution to the corporation. This is an invalid fee for the action for the public sector that allow public employers to collect collections from UNUNION staff. The court said the fees for fair shares could cause non -working employees who do not support the reports that they do not support. But the same goes for corporate political expenses, since corporate employees and shareholders may disagree with all the expressive activities of the corporation and political costs. But this does not seem to worry republican judges. Otherwise, the union, republican judges said that the trade union speech could sometimes be … A little too much to guarantee the protection of the first amendment. The court passed a law that allowed the union organizers to talk to agricultural land for three hours a day in less than half days a year. He concluded that the trade union speech could overcome the control of real estate owners over their land (and workers). According to, it is not good to overcome wealthy capital interests, but wealthy interests overcome everyone when it comes to political costs. It’s just equality, yes!
Whether Samuel Alita’s justice is made, like some people (in particular, people who are not Republicans) spend their money. Basically, the appeal to the Federalistic Society of the 2020 Justice Alita claimed that “in certain quarters religious freedom quickly becomes restless” and noted that “when the states considered or went forward and adopted their own version of RFRA (the law on the restoration of religious freedom).” Why did economic boycots, when people and businesses decided not to support the states with certain types of laws, the problem? Court financing decisions believe that there is the first amendment to spend money for political reasons, even if these costs can overcome everyone else. Apparently, this is normal when Republican costs are drowning with everyone else, but this is not in order when other people’s expenses are drowning.
It seems that republican judges believe that they, as Republicans, also have the right to isolate criticism. The Supreme Court “daily kills”, the justice of Alita dug The Wall Street JournalAnd “no one, practically no one protects us.” Alita insisted that a certain speech is unacceptable based on its content – like everything that is too criticized by the court. “Saying or in mind that the court becomes an illegitimate establishment or questioned our honesty, crosses an important line,” according to justice. He stated that critics of simple use of certain words, such as the “term” shadow doctor “” “nourishes unprecedented efforts to intimidate the court.” Speaking at the conference, Alita’s Justice mocked the people who said it means his opinion abolished Rooe v. Wade. He nominated former Prime Minister Boris Johnson, who criticized Oak But “paid the price”. (Johnson resigned against the backdrop of an investigation into ethics.) In his speech at the Federalistic Society, Alita called some Democratic Senators “AMIKU” “Aculation” and won the post from the blog of Professor Harvard Law. During one recent oral argument, he “joked” about how a “public court employee … maybe … maybe … every time they (press) write what we don’t like, she can call them and curse them.”
Current Issue
It’s not just the judges who think about it. In 2012, Leonard Leo pulled some maneuvers to send money from his organizations to Virginia (Ginny) Thomas (Justice’s wife Thomas) via Kelaan Konwee (Conway was later head of Trump and President Trump). Leo told Konwey that of course, there should be no “not mentioned about Ginny.” When financial exchange emerged as a result, Leo said: “Knowing how disrespectful, malicious and gossip can be people, I have always tried to protect the privacy of Thomas and Ginny.” Tell me again: Conservative reasons for the financing of speech are good, and the speech criticizing conservatives, bad – yes!
Alita was not even limited The Wall Street Journal. A month after he defended his free trip to private work in JournalHe shared his thoughts in an interview with Journal. One of the journalists Alita talked, he was a lawyer presented by Leonard Leo in the investigation of the DC Prosecutor General on the Leo Organizational Network. At the time of the interview, the lawyer also participated in the tax case he had to hear. Alita’s justice stated the reporter/lawyer: “I know it is a controversial look, but I am ready to say it. … No provision in the Constitution gives them (Congress) powers to regulate the Supreme Court – the period.”
All power that the court has accumulated over the last two centuries, and more is not enough. Must be good to be king.
