A quick read of the majority decision in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project (08-1498) leads me to a question. Since I cannot ask the Honorable Justices in the majority for an explanation beyond what was written in the decision, and since I have neither the inclination, the money, or the academic credentials to get into law school, I'll just ask here and accept whatever enlightened, and/or crackpot answers I get:
In light of the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (08-205), how can the First Amendment rights of a group be curtailed with one hand (Humanitarian Law Project), and granted with the other (Citizens United)?
The potential consequences of the speech in both cases seem to me to be equally harmful. So how can two similar majorities (the difference being that Justice Stevens joined the majority in Humanitarian Law Project and the minority in Citizens United) find that the First Amendment protects one and not the other?
Ok, that's two question. Sue me.