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.
Sentiment: NEGATIVE
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.
Free speech has been used by the Supreme Court to give immense power to the wealthiest members of our society.
The fairest and most democratic process in terms of Supreme Court nominees is let the American people have a voice.
When I worked in the Department of Justice, in the office of the solicitor general, it was my job to argue cases for the United States before the Supreme court. I always found it very moving to stand before the justices and say, 'I speak for my country.'
The kind of corruption the media talk about, the kind the Supreme Court was concerned about, involves the putative sale of votes in exchange for campaign contributions.
The DISCLOSE Act is a testament to the wisdom of the Supreme Court's decision in Citizens United. The First Amendment sought to place political speech beyond the government's control, and we can be glad that it did.
We want to bear witness today that we know the relation between corporate greed and what goes on too often in the Supreme Court decisions.
Our lawyers had their chat with the Supreme Court Justice, and promised to repast the chat to other members of the Supreme Court to find out whether they wanted to hear us out.
The First Amendment doesn't give anybody the right to be heard. People don't have to listen to you.
For the Supreme Court, the right for everyone to say 'I do' is where the story ends, but for artists, it's where the story just starts to get interesting.
No opposing quotes found.