Democrats are nothing but failures, from a constitutional point of view, that is. The Supreme Court annoyed progressives once again, by ruling in favor of Ted Cruz, on Monday. The Texas senator loaned some of his own money to his campaign. His opponents cried foul when he cashed the check paying it back. Apparently, that’s a whole lot worse, to them, than murdering poor, defenseless embryos.
Democrats wrong again
Democrats, Chief Justice John Roberts wrote, need to pass out those pocket constitutions that deplorable patriots carry around. The only problem is that they aren’t printed in emoji only text.
Nobody on the left seems able to decipher the cryptically printed English language, which is why they keep filing frivolous court challenges.
On Monday, May 16, SCOTUS ruled 6-3 that “a federal cap on candidates using political contributions after an election to recoup personal loans made to their campaign was unconstitutional.”
No matter how much Democrats hate it, we still have a constitution and it guarantees things like free political speech. Left-leaning Justice Elena Kagan typed up the snit laden dissent for her politically oriented colleagues, Justice Stephen Breyer and Justice Sonia Sotomayor.
The issue was crystal clear to all the court conservatives. “The question is whether this restriction violates the First Amendment rights of candidates and their campaigns to engage in political speech,” Roberts notes.
“There is no doubt” that the Democrats are trying to squelch protected “electoral speech.” That might not be so bad if the left could at least come up with some sort of justification for doing it. They can’t.
No quid pro quo
“Any such law must be at least justified by a permissible interest,” Roberts added. He also pointed out that the Democrats couldn’t come up with a single case of so-called “quid pro quo” corruption. There was only one conclusion they could draw. The “provision burdens core political speech without proper justification.”
Justice Kagan was totally bent out of shape that the majority killed a law meant to combat “a special danger of corruption.” By loaning your own money out and then actually taking it back, the left considers it a way to “line a candidate’s own pockets.”
“In striking down the law today,” Kagan babbled, “the Court greenlights all the sordid bargains Congress thought right to stop.”
Allowing Cruz to have his own money back “can only bring this country’s political system into further disrepute.” Democrats have their own special method of accounting, as Kagan explained for the minority in detail.
“Repaying a candidate’s loan after he has won election cannot serve the usual purposes of a contribution: The money comes too late to aid in any of his campaign activities.” Huh? It’s a loan, not a contribution, he expected it back and got it. That’s not how Democrats see it. “All the money does is enrich the candidate personally at a time when he can return the favor — by a vote, a contract, an appointment.”
When did collecting your own money back become a favor? When the New World Order assumed control and erased our national borders. Newest Justice Amy Coney Barrett really cheesed off the Deep State by spelling that out. “Cruz had emphasized that the after-election repayment scheme would simply replenish his coffers from money he had loaned. This doesn’t enrich him personally, because he’s no better off than he was before. It’s paying a loan, not lining his pockets.“
