When is this bitch going to finally face the music?
Ginni Thomas Founded a Nonprofit With Funding From Harlan Crow
https://www.businessinsider.com/ginni-thomas-founded-nonprofit-with-funding-harlan-crow-2023-9
@markmetz
"Ginni Thomas laid the groundwork for a nonprofit two months before the 2010 Citizens United ruling, Politico reported."
AKA The Vast Right-wing Conspiracy.
@volkris @markmetz focusing solely on justices who wrote the opinion is a red herring ignoring corporate billionaires like Harlan Crow and his connection to Ginni Thomas. They incorporated a right wing PAC right before the decision demonstrating the grifting corruption, and right wing backing of justices who also themselves reached down into lower courts to grab the case.
The impact of that largesse alone is sufficient reason to put right wing intentions behind this, the connections ice it.
You don't think the claim of a vast right-wing conspiracy is at all in doubt considering the left-wing authorship?
I'd LOVE for people to ignore the red herring that is putting identity over content, but if we're going to claim this is a right-wing conspiracy, then we're already looking at authorship, which was left-wing.
I don't think these stories should matter, but if they do then let's get them right.
Fortunately we can go directly to the ruling itself to see if news stories are accurate.
Hilary Clinton didn't write the ruling, though she was the one critics were trying to speak out against when authorities tried to muzzle them, hence this case where the Court said that wasn't cool.
So a vast right wing conspiracy promoting a traditional liberal idea that government can't quash speech critical of The Man? A conspiracy focused on leveling the playingfield and speaking truth to power?
The case for a right wing conspiracy here just doesn't fly with the facts of the case.
https://www.fec.gov/resources/legal-resources/litigation/cu_sc08_opinion.pdf
@volkris @markmetz sadly, the ruling only reflects the interpretations of justices about law breaking. In a decision that ignored stare decisis and was effectively a declaration of the independence of the right wing justices from the constitution.
This in spite of the glaring facts of the corruption of Justices Thomas, and Alito at minimum. This is evidence that is in plain sight and being pursued.
This was, IIRC, where I came in, lol.
I really don't know why right wing keeps getting brought up when this was a ruling firmly in the tradition of the left wing.
It's like, there's this conspiracy theory that we really need to support regardless of the facts of the situation which would debunk it.
It's more important to promote this conspiracy theory than actually look at the liberal sway of the ruling? More important to promote the sensational clickbait account in the press than appreciate that the ruling was about speaking truth to power?
I just think this is a very unhealthy way to go.
@volkris @markmetz sorry, you're maintaining a bunch of rhetoric, supported by your skewed reading of a bad ruling by biased justices, a heavily right wing majority vote for it and you are hung up on your view of it being liberal swayed ruling?
As you've not provided anything but opinion on this, while the thread is based on a fact of Harlan Crow and his financial say over SCOTUS justices, I shall bow to your clearly superior opinions and biases over my facts.
Seeya.
Your proposing this conspiracy theory that just doesn't match the simple text coming out of the Supreme Court.
Your theory is debunked by the facts of the ruling.
This has nothing to do with my opinion. This is what the Supreme Court ruled, regardless of my opinion, and the conspiracy theory that you are spending just doesn't match up with the facts of the case.
Harlan Crow didn't declare that the federal government cannot suppress speech against public officials. That is a constitutional decision not up to Crow, one that is reflective of liberal values.
Again, if you think there's a conspiracy plot out there to protect our rights to criticize the rich and powerful, well...
