On Sun, Jan 22, 2012 at 7:32 PM, Theo10011 <[email protected]> wrote:
> This is an area I have no expertise in. My nascent understanding of the > legal implication of those legislations aside, I, like others usually defer > to more respected opinions. The Citizens United ruling for example has been > criticized by President Barak Obama.... I don't believe I suggested that Citizens United hasn't been criticized by knowledgeable people. (I'm a critic too.) President Obama, as a former constitutional law professor, for example, has surely read both Bellotti and Citizens United. What I said, specifically, was that when I read popular discussions of Citizens United online, more often than not I'm reading commentary from someone who hasn't read the cases. > You can read more about them in the rather large section on the criticism > section of the ruling page. > (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission#Criticisms) > My habit is to read the decision directly rather than read the Wikipedia entry. No reflection on Wikipedia, of course -- it's just that as a practicing attorney I am professionally driven to consult primary sources. > Well, that was my point, according to recent rulings, money is speech and > corporations are people, albeit according to a naive but widely help > understanding of it, one that is shared by several prominent professors at > law. My own habit is to read the cases directly, since I often must discuss them with fellow lawyers who have also read the cases. > We are Media too, Mike. Just so. And it's something I never forget. All media must be received skeptically. --Mike _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
