 |
|
Subject: it believed и прочие непонятности 72. In Citizens United, the limitations on corporate political spending were substantially weakened, thereby vastly increasing the importance of pleasing large donors in order to win elections. The majority of justices place great faith in modern technology. Shareholder objections raised through the procedures of corporate democracy, it believed, “can be more effective today because modern technology makes disclosures rapid and informative.... With the advent of the Internet, prompt disclosure of expenditures can provide shareholders and citizens with the information needed to hold corporations and elected officials accountable for their positions and supporters.” Citizens United v. Fed. Election Comm’n, 558 U.S. 310, 370, 130 S. Ct. 876, 916, 175 L. Ed. 2d 753 (2010). The Court found that the appearance of influence or access, furthermore, will not cause the electorate to lose faith in our democracy. The dissenting justices, on the other hand, found, “[g]oing forward, corporations and unions will be free to spend as much general treasury money as they wish on ads that support or attack specific candidates, whereas national parties will not be able to spend a dime of soft money on ads of any kind. The Court’s ruling thus dramatically enhances the role of corporations and unions—and the narrow interests they represent—vis-à-vis the role of political parties—and the broad coalitions they represent—in determining who will hold public office.” Citizens United, 558 U.S. at 412.Вроде бы, разобрался, но хотелось бы перепроверить себя. Во-первых, правильно ли я понимаю, что the majority of justices - это не судьи вообще, а лишь те, которые рассматривали конкретное дело? Во-вторых, верно ли, что it believed, которое идет ниже, относится к the majority ? В-третьих, как лучше перевести general treasury money? Мой вариант - "фонды общего назначения" (т.е., не предназначенные непосредственно на финансирование выборов). |
|
имхо, justices зд - судьи см.(кас. Citizens United v. FEC) https://www.theconglomerate.org/2010/01/many-have-already-weighed-in-on-citizens-united-mostly-focusing-on-its-first-amendment-implications-im-a-private-law-type-w.html и внутри статьи ссылка - "... my oral argument post ,...", где есть упоминание о " justices and advocates" |
|
+http://www.theracetothebottom.org/rttb/citizens-united-and-the-sec-part-1.html It wasn't supposed to be this way. Justice Kennedy saw a solution: Corporate governance. As he reasoned in Citizens United: Shareholder objections raised through the procedures of corporate democracy, . . . can be more effective today because modern technology makes disclosures rapid and informative. |
|
и подтверждение)) см. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf Reversed in part, affirmed in part, and remanded. KENNEDY, J., delivered the opinion of the Court, in which ROBERTS, C. J., and SCALIA and ALITO, JJ., joined, in which THOMAS, J., joined as to all but Part IV, and in which STEVENS, GINSBURG, BREYER, and SOTOMAYOR, JJ., joined as to Part IV. ROBERTS, C. J., filed a concurring opinion, in which ALITO, J., joined |
|
///Во-первых, правильно ли я понимаю, что the majority of justices - это не судьи вообще, а лишь те, которые рассматривали конкретное дело? // Нет, это судьи верховного суда, и они все рассматривали конкретное дело. "the majority " - это 5 и более судей из 9. ............... /// it believed, которое идет ниже, относится к the majority/// Да. .......... ///general treasury money? /// Свободные средства/деньги https://www.multitran.com/m.exe?s=свободные оборотные средства&l1=2&l2=1 |
| Благодарю за помощь! |
| You need to be logged in to post in the forum |