Supreme Court
The Supreme Court of the United States has decided that, practice and precedent to the contrary, the First Amendment gives corporations and unions the power to spend as much of their general treasuries as they care to influence candidate elections—just as long as always they do it independently of the candidates themselves. The conclusion may be good or bad, but it had little to do with the cause before it, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission.
The confirmation of U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor came with few surprises.
Everyone anticipated questions from Republicans about public statements Sotomayor made about her life influences, comments some interpreted to mean she could not rule on cases without bias.
The job description for U.S. Supreme Court justice does not include the ability to predict the future. Federal appeals court judges must rule on constitutionality, not probability.
But through the years, the “likelihood” of something occurring based on a law or an action under review by the court seems to have crept its way into rulings.
That may have merit, and it may not.
Depending upon your interpretation of the Second Amendment the United States Supreme Court is about to make America a more dangerous, or a safer, place.
Before the court are twenty-nine words and three commas: “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” How you diagram the sentence determines the amendment’s meaning.
