My Take on SCOTUS Ruling

[Antonio the Sixth]

Were you equally outraged by the Citizens United ruling?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Were you equally outraged by the Citizens United ruling?

I have no problem with criticizing government and don't support the BCRA. We, as a citizenry, have the right to be critical of government and those that place themselves in the public light. We should not be limited by arbitrary days before an election to discontinue the discussion; fair or unfair and regardless of party. Hopefully the electorate will do its own research and make an informed decision when voting and not be persuaded by platitudes. Unlikely, but my opinion. Any limitations on free speech by either party or political persuasion should be immediately be shunned. For example, there is a plan by a group to burn an American flag by a protest group in New York shortly before the 4th of July. I served in the Nave shortly after our involvement in Vietnam. I disapprove and find the act abhorrent. That said, I support their right to exercise their free speech and their right to petition the government even if I disagree with their message.

In other words, you're OK with the SCOTUS overriding existing legislation and going against the will of an overwhelming majority of citizens when you agree with the decision, but you're against doing the same thing when you disagree with it. Thanks for clarifying.

[Antonio the Sixth]

For the record, I asked you that because I share some of your qualms about the decision. I have read pretty compelling argument from Roberts' dissent and I'm honestly not sure if this decision is the correct one from a legal standpoint, and would appreciate to have a serious discussion on Constitutional interpretation.

What I can't stand is the utter hypocrisy of conservatives like you, who while about "judicial activism" when the Court legalizes SSM based on the 14th Amendment, but are perfectly fine when the same Court exploits an utterly ludicrous interpretation of the 1st Amendment to allow candidates to effectively spend an unlimited amount of money. If you are utterly blind to right-wing judicial activism, you have no right to complain about left-wing judicial activism.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Were you equally outraged by the Citizens United ruling?

I have no problem with criticizing government and don't support the BCRA. We, as a citizenry, have the right to be critical of government and those that place themselves in the public light. We should not be limited by arbitrary days before an election to discontinue the discussion; fair or unfair and regardless of party. Hopefully the electorate will do its own research and make an informed decision when voting and not be persuaded by platitudes. Unlikely, but my opinion. Any limitations on free speech by either party or political persuasion should be immediately be shunned. For example, there is a plan by a group to burn an American flag by a protest group in New York shortly before the 4th of July. I served in the Nave shortly after our involvement in Vietnam. I disapprove and find the act abhorrent. That said, I support their right to exercise their free speech and their right to petition the government even if I disagree with their message.

In other words, you're OK with the SCOTUS overriding existing legislation and going against the will of an overwhelming majority of citizens when you agree with the decision, but you're against doing the same thing when you disagree with it. Thanks for clarifying.

Isn't that the approach most people take?   

I for one make an effort to separate my judgment on constitutional interpretation from my policy preferences, as the post above yours attempted to illustrate. I can understand that others take a more partisan approach to these matters, but then don't go whining "RIP Constitution " when you lose.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Antonio, if you are looking for the constitutional comparison, Citizens United is not a good choice. I think that CU followed fairly logically from Buckley v Valeo (1976), and that should be the focal point of concern for those concerned about campaign spending. In Buckley SCOTUS held that individual expenditures could not be limited since money was required to exercise free speech. Buckley also identified the importance of political association as well as political expression. If political association is as important then a group of smaller donors should be able to band together to compete against a wealthy individual. CU just identifies that associations acting through a corporation are such an entity. The concern should be whether the Buckley holding that essentially money equals free speech is appropriate.

Oh, I definitely agree with that. I already said on this forum that I consider Buckley to be the single most harmful SCOTUS ruling still in effect to this day. It's just that Citizens United is more relevant to the point I was trying to make. Buckley v. Valeo, while it set a ludicrous and dangerous judicial principle (the money = speech parallel) at least had the decency to balance this principle out with other policy considerations, and deferred to Congress for judging the property of limiting donations. This resulted in McCain-Feingold being upheld in McConnell v. FEC. Then in the past five years, the court decided to throw this balance out of the window and just go all the way to make sure campaigns are flooded with money in every possible way. Whether you think they were right or not, you can't deny that it was a clear display of judicial activism, certainly more so than the SSM decision.

[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.