Link to original source. (http://livewire.talkingpointsmemo.com/entries/former-supreme-court-justice-stevens-criticizes-court-over)

"Ex-Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, who retired in 2010 after serving on the court for 35 years, issued a sharp criticism toward his former conservative colleagues Wednesday.

In a speech at the University of Arkansas, Stevens took aim at the court’s conservative bloc for inconsistently applying the law in its controversial decision on campaign finance reform in the 2010 case, Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. Stevens wrote a blistering dissent in that case, and on Wednesday he revisited the decision that gave outsized influence to corporations, advocacy groups and wealthy individuals in political campaigns.

“The court must then explain its abandonment of, or at least qualify reliance upon, the proposition that the identity of the speaker is an impermissible basis for regulating campaign speech,” Stevens told the audience. “It will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection for some nonvoters than that of other nonvoters."

More here. (http://www.cnn.com/2012/05/30/politics/stevens-campaign-spending/index.html)

Of course he does. He did, after all, write the dissent in Citizens United (it was actually a partial concurrence / partial dissent).

When your position in an argument is a pretty clear loser on the basis of logic and/or propriety, reframe the argument so that it looks like something very different than what it actually is. It's an age-old rhetorical tactic.

Perhaps this might help the good judge;

George Will: Rigging free speech (http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/will053112.php3)

At issue is the court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which held, unremarkably, that Americans do not forfeit their First Amendment rights when they come together in corporate entities or labor unions to speak collectively. What do liberals consider the constitutional basis for saying otherwise?

Of course he does. He did, after all, write the dissent in Citizens United (it was actually a partial concurrence / partial dissent).

When your position in an argument is a pretty clear loser on the basis of logic and/or propriety, reframe the argument so that it looks like something very different than what it actually is. It's an age-old rhetorical tactic.

Sounds like his...inner lawyer...is acting up.


:lol:

umm, BOY...you're people are all in favor of the court's decision...at least they were in favor of it...BEFORE ROMNEY'S CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS SURPASSED TEH WON'S!! :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme

umm, BOY...you're people are all in favor of the court's decision...at least they were in favor of it...BEFORE ROMNEY'S CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS SURPASSED TEH WON'S!! :killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme:killingme

Do you just make things up? You don't seem to have any actual knowledge.