My Take on SCOTUS Ruling

[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.

[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.