My Take on SCOTUS Ruling

[Bojack Horseman]

"Nor shall any state deny to its citizens the equal protection of the laws."

You sound like my dad. He thinks that because marriage isn't mentioned in the original constitution or the first ten amendments, the other 17 shouldn't even be considered.

[muon2]

I don't find judicial activism when SCOTUS takes a precedent setting case to its logical conclusion. There's no question that CU opened the door to more money in elections, but that decision in and of itself doesn't constitute activism. The activism was in the original precedent (Buckley) to the extent that it equated promoting a particular candidate for election with promoting a political idea.

[politicallefty]

I don't find judicial activism when SCOTUS takes a precedent setting case to its logical conclusion. There's no question that CU opened the door to more money in elections, but that decision in and of itself doesn't constitute activism. The activism was in the original precedent (Buckley) to the extent that it equated promoting a particular candidate for election with promoting a political idea.

I'm not someone that likes to throw around the "judicial activism" label, as I think both sides can claim that in many cases depending on their particular perspective. I think what makes Citizens United particularly notably is that SCOTUS decided on its own to move the case from a simple statutory issue to a constitutional one that has had profound ramifications.

[muon2]

I don't find judicial activism when SCOTUS takes a precedent setting case to its logical conclusion. There's no question that CU opened the door to more money in elections, but that decision in and of itself doesn't constitute activism. The activism was in the original precedent (Buckley) to the extent that it equated promoting a particular candidate for election with promoting a political idea.

I'm not someone that likes to throw around the "judicial activism" label, as I think both sides can claim that in many cases depending on their particular perspective. I think what makes Citizens United particularly notably is that SCOTUS decided on its own to move the case from a simple statutory issue to a constitutional one that has had profound ramifications.

The Buckley ruling on self-expenditures by wealthy individuals was certainly a constitutional and not a statutory ruling. Since CU flowed from Buckley, how does one interpret it as a statutory to constitutional shift?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I don't find judicial activism when SCOTUS takes a precedent setting case to its logical conclusion. There's no question that CU opened the door to more money in elections, but that decision in and of itself doesn't constitute activism. The activism was in the original precedent (Buckley) to the extent that it equated promoting a particular candidate for election with promoting a political idea.

I'm not someone that likes to throw around the "judicial activism" label, as I think both sides can claim that in many cases depending on their particular perspective. I think what makes Citizens United particularly notably is that SCOTUS decided on its own to move the case from a simple statutory issue to a constitutional one that has had profound ramifications.

The Buckley ruling on self-expenditures by wealthy individuals was certainly a constitutional and not a statutory ruling. Since CU flowed from Buckley, how does one interpret it as a statutory to constitutional shift?

Do you forget that McCain-Feingold was upheld under the Buckley precedent a mere 8 years prior to Citizens United? CU didn't "flow" from Buckley, it embraced the most objectionable part of Buckley and turned it up to 11.

[politicallefty]

The Buckley ruling on self-expenditures by wealthy individuals was certainly a constitutional and not a statutory ruling. Since CU flowed from Buckley, how does one interpret it as a statutory to constitutional shift?

Sorry, I should have clarified my point more. The original Citizens United case was a simple statutory ruling that was heard at the Supreme Court. The majority chose not to rule in that case. Instead, they chose, on their own, to rehear the case on constitutional grounds. In the original case, both sides were content with hearing the case on limited statutory grounds. I think there's a difference between a constitutional case working its way up through the court system as opposed to the Court deciding on its own to rehear a case in order to move it from a statutory issue to a constitutional one.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

A lot of these debates seem to remember all the amendments except the ninth....

Anyway, if you want to blame anyone for Judicial 'interference' in what should be the job of the legislative branch then you must blame the founding father for creating a constitution so 'balanced' and so diffusive in its power (while vague on the actual limitations of that power) that it makes passing ordinary legislation impossible if there is a reasonable block against it. While I wouldn't want to compare it to Gay Marriage as such, there was no federal lynch law enacted despite decades of efforts due to the organized opposition of Southern Democrats and other conservatives, this is despite the clear and obvious unethical nature (to put it mildly) of lynching (of course, the reactionary lawyers of their day created all kinds of constitution interpretation to show that not only was lynching constitutional but federal anti-lynching legislation would be unconstitutional. If your constitution allows such interpretations you probably should think that there is something deeply flawed with it). In the end, it took decisions of the court, often reversing decades of jurisprudence, to enact a lot of modern America's civil rights law. Why? Because the nature of the legislature and 'states' rights' had made this the easiest route to enact reforms. The Tenth Amendment, a product of a political compromise between Hamilton and the Anti-federalists and no high principle, which have you begun your argument was one of those stated roadblocks for anti-civil rights (even if the amendment is a legal dead letter). Attempting to argue to those prior interpretations of the court were unconstitutional in themselves and thus invalid is missing the point - it was the same document that allowed Plessey v. Ferguson and Loving v. Virginia as well as Obergefell v. Hodges. What changed was something else...

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

You seem to forget that the court has also stood in the way of legislation over the decades. Citizens United merely harkens back to various 19th cases where corporate personhood and the 14th Amendment were uses to gut various laws regulating corporations. Labor laws were routinely struck down as interference with the right to freely enter into contracts, which is why the Child Labor Amendment was sent to the States and only failed of ratification because the court changed its tune. It struck down the Civil Rights Act of 1875 So thoroly that when Congress was again in the mood to try and pass similarly sweeping legislation, it had to base the laws on the Commerce Clause of all things.