You watch the Supreme Court in action on these cases, and they are a conflicted court. However, when it comes to speech issues generally, the court has been protective.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
In rendering its decision in our case, the Supreme Court equated money with speech because these days it takes the first to make yourself heard.
The Courtroom is a battlefield, and oral argument requires a fair amount of verbal jousting and sparring with the Justices.
So sometimes the facts are good and sometimes the facts are bad, the important thing from the point of view of a principle as broad and important as freedom of speech is that the courts articulate and set forth in a very protective way what those principles are.
The solution to voters potentially being misled by a judicial candidate's political speech is more speech - not government censorship.
Free speech has been used by the Supreme Court to give immense power to the wealthiest members of our society.
The judge decided in this case that both the state and the defense would have the opportunity to respond to certain kinds of press. This is one such instance.
The biggest problem I have in journalism is being quoted or misquoted and then being asked to defend something I haven't said.
One thing I know from personal experience, judges hate it when parties talk publicly about their cases. There are a lot of things about our criminal legal system that need to be changed, and this is just one of them. Prosecutors know how to play the press. Most defendants don't.
You have plaintiffs attorneys, you have defense attorneys. So there is no unified bar that will protect a particular judge who has made a courageous decision that's unpopular.
One cannot tell the High Court what to adjudicate. They must judge, and then the legislature must act accordingly.
No opposing quotes found.