The solution to voters potentially being misled by a judicial candidate's political speech is more speech - not government censorship.
Sentiment: POSITIVE
When politicians seek to restrict political speech, it is invariably to protect their own incumbency and avoid having to defend their policies in the marketplace of ideas.
There is no reason for the government to limit political speech.
The fundamental problem is that there's no credibility in the judicial system, which is a system that's been completely politicized. This is retaliation and selective repression.
Judges should avoid commenting on a candidate for public office.
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.
Democracy is not about making speeches. It is about making committees work.
No government ought to be without censors; and where the press is free no one ever will.
As long as it is supported by Democratic politicians and by liberal Hollywood players, censorship is a useful tool to stifle dissent.
Private religious speech can't be discriminated against. It has to be treated equally with secular speech.
To suppress free speech is a double wrong. It violates the rights of the hearer as well as those of the speaker.
No opposing quotes found.