WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday unanimously rejected a First Amendment challenge to a Nevada law that barred officials there from voting on matters in which they had a conflict of interest....
...Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the court, said the issue was straightforward. Voting, he wrote, is not speech protected by the First Amendment.
Remember, though, Bunky, that corporate contributions, even anonymous contributions in unlimited amount, is speech protected by the First Amendment. Contribute yes, vote no. You just can not make this stuff up.
Also in the Times this morning, here (surely you know how to read the Times by now and if you don't, well, you will just have to take our word), is a piece about how the Supremes are more and more basing their decisions on definitions they look up in a dictionary, which the consult to unravel difficult propositions that go beyond their legal training, such as (no, I am absolutely not making this up) what is the meaning of "of." And these, remember, are the selfsame guys who like to think they know exactly what our esteemed founders meant when he said stuff like "The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers." Sic. And I'm not kidding.