2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumSupremes says that lying is "a-ok" with them
Whenever I think I can't be surprised by all this bullshit somehow they manage to leave me slack-jawwed. The USSC has agreed to take a case that would allow those running for office (in office?) and groups in organizations running political campaign ads to lie and cheat as much as they would like. USA USA USA
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/06/16/scotus-sba-list_n_5499404.html
Response to angrychair (Original post)
Adam051188 This message was self-deleted by its author.
silverweb
(16,402 posts)[font color="navy" face="Verdana"]They're going to hear the case. No ruling has been made yet.
Let's continue to hope they do the right thing before we get hysterical, okay?
joshcryer
(62,277 posts)And there might even be a push for it (the FCC can implement it without new laws).
So they'll probably vote for lying.
imthevicar
(811 posts)OK With police lying to us, than this will be a walk in the park. The Roberts court will go down in history as the Neo-Robbert's Baron court.
Pakid
(478 posts)Republicans have been lying at every turn for years and getting away with it. The so called news media in America is a joke it looks the other way every time a Republican lies
Cicada
(4,533 posts)If ads can be banned for "lying" then in red states many truthful democratic ads will be banned.
The decision in the court was unanimous - I think both sides see the problem.
Fred Sanders
(23,946 posts)MurrayDelph
(5,301 posts)Thomas, Roberts, and Scalia wouldn't be there today.
blkmusclmachine
(16,149 posts)dsc
(52,169 posts)The case was about whether the group had the right to sue over the law. The group placed a bill board ad which they were forced to remove. They then sued but were denied standing on the grounds that they couldn't prove the law would be enforced against them in the future. This says they can sue. On the merits, I do think that having a group of political appointees given power to force campaigns not to run ads based on what that group determines is false is rife with potential for abuse.
JayhawkSD
(3,163 posts)I knew when the court agreed to hear this case that the ruling was going to result in a mass outcry of "SCOTUS makes it legal to lie in political ads." Sigh.
stevenleser
(32,886 posts)... campaigns not to run ads based on what that group determines is false is rife with potential for abuse."
NYC Liberal
(20,138 posts)Princess Turandot
(4,787 posts)Monday.
This was a standing case i.e. the plaintiff wanted the right to take the state of Ohio to court over the law in question, which the state would not grant them. It was not a validation of lying.
And it was a 9-0 vote. So unless Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor and Kagan suddenly had ethics transplants, it is very likely that the decision was a correct one.
FBaggins
(26,775 posts)Because they said nothing of the sort.
It's also useful to point out that this was a unanimous decision.