reach the SCOTUS or note his hypocrisy publicly.

....if electoral participation is, in fact, the most basic right of all in our democracy, can it be limited at all?

so the posture of the up-coming cases with the effect of doing so is very important.

“(t)here is no right more basic in our democracy than the right to participate in electing our political leaders.” Especially if you have millions of dollars to back it up.

the use of jingoistic rhetoric notwithstanding, this decision is an effort to stifle political speech.

the rich have absolutely zero evidence that an aggregate limit of an eight of a million dollars *per election cycle* in any way keeps them from having a voice in politics.

all letting them exceed that already stupendously high limit does is give them enough voice to shout down and stifle the political speech of those who can't compete financially.

this decision leads to *less* political speech, not more, and by roberts' rhetoric, a disenfranchisement of americans. not that he cares about those who can't afford to cough of more than an eight of a million dollars per election cycle.

-Laelth

...the you can consider his words as something other than the babel of a corrupt and dangerous hack.

Neo-Redemption Gerrymandering of the Electoral College,
Suffer Loss of Representatives to Congress
http://gp.org/greenpages-blog/?p=3368

The "Democratize the Electoral College" civil actions (Mal-Apportionment Penalty-MAP initiative - www.electors.us) demonstrates how "voter suppression" tactics, "Winner-take-all", and "Gerrymandered Districts" in national presidential elections violates the proportional electoral mandate of the second section of the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution adopted during Reconstruction.