Now I am certain SCOTUS is going to have to revisit their decision regarding corporate entities having the right to run a whole bunch of lies on TV. The lies and myths during the GOP primaries merely indicate why SCOTUS should be and is probably regretting their decision in Citizens United.
Now we have to endure mega-rich PACS funded by presidential candidates and their buddies. So, whomever is richer, allows the presidential candidate to easily state, hey, I did not run that ad. It was a PAC ad. Just because my rich buddies gave this PAC all this money, does not mean I did it. Right. And I have a Brooklyn Bridge for sale.
I have too much work to do, as it is. Would someone sue one of these SuperPacs. So, SCOTUS can revisit the issue and clearly establish entities are not kind of like people afforded the constitutionally protected right of free speech, like we, the people get.
I remember in Kansas, I volunteered to get a revisit of Roe v. Wade on a blog. If women have a protected liberty interest, why then does a father and a fetus not have a protected liberty interest, also to choose life before abortion. I think a father of a fetus should file an injuntion to stop a woman from killing his progeny. Then, take it all the way to SCOTUS so we can get Roe v. Wade reversed.
Fathers of children and fetuses under the equal protection clause must have the same protected liberty interest as women do. So, who gets to choose, when the father and mother disagree?
Sometimes, SCOTUS can be very human. And like humans can err. To fix errors from the past, someone merely has to give SCOTUS another opportunity to fix their prior errors. Roe v. Wade needs to be reversed. Who states so?
Entities . . . err I mean kind of like persons, entities called SuperPacs. We give no rights to fetuses or to the father of a child, yet corporations are human-like and entitled to free speech? Give me a break. Who is going to speak on behalf of a fetus, a thing as defined by most states, like Kansas.