Read justice john paul stevens’s dissenting opinion in the citizens united case. at bottom, the court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the american people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining self government since the founding, and who have fought against the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of theodore roosevelt. –justice stevens dissenting opinion citizens united v. federal elections commission what does justice stevens say about the court’s ruling? a. corporate money will make elections more likely to reflect the public will. b. corporate money will have no influence on elections. c. corporate money has changed since the days of theodore roosevelt. d. corporate money will make elections less likely to reflect the public will.

Justice Stevens did say about the Court’s ruling  that Corporate money will make elections less likely to reflect the public will.

Associate Justice John Paul Stevens  was said to have declared that the court's ruling stands as a kind of "a rejection of the common sense of the American citizen, who have seen a need to hinder corporations from looking low at self government."

The Court was said to have ruled, in5-4, that the First Amendment hinders or place a limits on corporate funding of independent broadcasts in terms of candidate election.

Learn more about  Court’s ruling from

link

as university of miami psychologists debra lieberman and adam smith pointed out in a recent article in the journal current directions in psychological science, humans have social and psychological mechanisms to deter incest. with very few exceptions, marriages between brothers and sisters and between parents and their children are verboten in every human culture. the primary psychological anti-incest mechanism is the yuck response. even the idea of sex with their mom or dad, bro or sis is upsetting to most people. the psychologist jonathan haidt has found that nearly everyone is repelled by the prospect of brother-sister sex, even in hypothetical situations in which there is no chance of pregnancy).

the biological cost of incest

this raises an interesting question: just what’s so bad about incest? sure, having sex with your dad or your sister seems gross — but why? some anthropologists have argued that incest taboos are learned social conventions. this explanation, however, doesn’t make sense to me as it does not explain the widespread existence of anti-incest mechanisms in creatures ranging from cockroaches to chimpanzees. second, the incest taboo is about as close to a universal law as human moral rules get.

why should mechanisms to avoid incest be so widespread both in nature and across human societies? the answer is simple. the problem with having sex close with relatives is that there is an astonishingly high chance that your offspring will be born with a serious birth defect.