bruce, seems to me in this case the SCOTUS did make law. They hijacked a case dealing with a narrow issue of law, decided on their own to broaden the issue, informing the lawyers to argue the broad issue, not the narrow issue. And by writing such a sweeping decision based on a non-existent constitutional right of free speech for artificial entities such as corporations. It’s mind boggling. I still am waiting to read the rationale why people have limits on campaign contributions and corporations don’t. Guess they’re more people than people and thus have more rights.
bruce, there is no doubt that this is judicial activism, the very thing conservatives claim to dislike. They did take a narrow issue and on their own expand it to a very broad, sweeping issue. In the process, there are some 30 states that have laws on the books that will either be repealed or will be overturned. There’s a midwest state (a red state BTW) that has had a law on the books since 1912 that will be overturned. (The 1912 law was enacted after a major scandal of a company buying votes.) This decision is both amazing judicial overreach (activism) and usurping state rights. More hypocrisy from the conservative crowd.
What this decision says is that money equals free speech. Therefore, those with more money have more free speech. It’s an amazing decision. Just think about the ramifications of this decision on the election of judges. How easy it will be for corporations to buy a judgeship with their candidate and have that candidate in their pocket when a case involving the corporation goes to court.
The influence of money, and special interests with money, will have profoundly more influence on the governance of our country than they already do. That serves no one BUT the special interests.
BCS – your analysis is very much to the point. All those who have said they were opposed to “activist” justices, who were opposed to the judicial system overruling the legislatures, should be outraged by this decision. But they will find a way to argue that it’s nothing like that at all, it’s just affirming the Bill of Rights. My readin of the Bill of Rights does not find any mention of corporations.
Note also the recent string of 5 to 4 rulings. These show the deep division in US society now. I had some hope that Obama would be able to build a moderate majority, but that project doesn’t seem to be working well. On the one hand, I think the Democrats have made some serious mistakes, but on the other hand, the Republicans have simply dug in their heels. If there are any moderate Republicans left they should take back their party. Where is Colin Powell? Where is Olympia Snowe?
But there is no point in trying to impeach any of the justices. They are safe barring serious crime or corruption. And I don’t think the country could take another impeachment process.
I would recommend a good reading of the last years of the Roman Republic, during which the various players (they weren’t really organized as parties, though sometimes they talked that way) battered each other back and forth, until finally Caesar saw that the only way to protect himself was to take personal power. There’s no exact analogy, but still there is a danger of a deeply divided republic and two groups that are interested only in their own power or protection, rather than in the interest of the country.
Such dispair! Even you fennec, “…I despair for the future of our society…from the same guy that thumbed your nose at the terrorist threat in these United States!
Consider this. Scott Brown, having been marginalized by the left, won the senate seat having spent 1/3 as much as the ‘highly regarded’ Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley.
Consider this too. Chief Justice Roberts said that some high court decisions turn out to be so wrong that they deserve to be overruled. In his own words, “If the court could not revisit earlier rulings, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional and the government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.”
Sounds like a very reasoned jurist to me.
Was a President (George W.) Bush’s nominee, whereas Sonia ..” I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” Sotomayor was President Obama’s wise choice.
You tell me who you think fits the bill for judicial activism!
I’m not opposed to judicial activism. I am opposed to people who say they are opposed to judicial activism, until it suits them. I don’t like this decision because it’s a bad decision, not because it’s judicial activism.
But we have to think a little about what judicial activism might mean. Parts of the Constitution were written in rather general terms, and each generation has to come to an understanding of what those terms mean.
The Supreme Court has a tradition, however, of making as narrow a decision as possible, and also a tradition of letting laws stand unless they have to be struck down. They have to be struck down when something is seen to be seriously wrong – as, for example, in Brown v. Board of Education, which was, by the way, decided unanimously. If the court is going to be activist, it’s a good idea to get unanimity or at least a large majority.
No one has argued that the court should not revisit earlier rulings, only that it do so in a reasonable way. Roberts in particular has argued that these changes should be few.
The dissent in this case argued at length that it would have been possible to decide this particular case more narrowly and to decide it in a way that would allow existing laws to stand. Roberts wrote a separate decision defending himself, because he knew he was vulnerable to this criticism. Some will believe that his defense is adequate, others will not.
ah yes fennec
Sandra Day O’connor, a nominee for the Supreme Court by someone as reviled as Ronald Reagan! That is nonsense that the ‘institutions’ of the Supreme Court has been undermined by this decision. Chief Justice John Roberts is considered a ‘minimalist’. True. terrorist threats by themselves cannot undermine this country; nor can the determination of our Supreme Court on one matter.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
bruce, seems to me in this case the SCOTUS did make law. They hijacked a case dealing with a narrow issue of law, decided on their own to broaden the issue, informing the lawyers to argue the broad issue, not the narrow issue. And by writing such a sweeping decision based on a non-existent constitutional right of free speech for artificial entities such as corporations. It’s mind boggling. I still am waiting to read the rationale why people have limits on campaign contributions and corporations don’t. Guess they’re more people than people and thus have more rights.
believecommonsense over 14 years ago
bruce, there is no doubt that this is judicial activism, the very thing conservatives claim to dislike. They did take a narrow issue and on their own expand it to a very broad, sweeping issue. In the process, there are some 30 states that have laws on the books that will either be repealed or will be overturned. There’s a midwest state (a red state BTW) that has had a law on the books since 1912 that will be overturned. (The 1912 law was enacted after a major scandal of a company buying votes.) This decision is both amazing judicial overreach (activism) and usurping state rights. More hypocrisy from the conservative crowd.
What this decision says is that money equals free speech. Therefore, those with more money have more free speech. It’s an amazing decision. Just think about the ramifications of this decision on the election of judges. How easy it will be for corporations to buy a judgeship with their candidate and have that candidate in their pocket when a case involving the corporation goes to court.
The influence of money, and special interests with money, will have profoundly more influence on the governance of our country than they already do. That serves no one BUT the special interests.
mhenriday over 14 years ago
USA : the best elections money can buy ! And people are outraged at baseball players taking steroids !…
Henri
lonecat over 14 years ago
BCS – your analysis is very much to the point. All those who have said they were opposed to “activist” justices, who were opposed to the judicial system overruling the legislatures, should be outraged by this decision. But they will find a way to argue that it’s nothing like that at all, it’s just affirming the Bill of Rights. My readin of the Bill of Rights does not find any mention of corporations.
Note also the recent string of 5 to 4 rulings. These show the deep division in US society now. I had some hope that Obama would be able to build a moderate majority, but that project doesn’t seem to be working well. On the one hand, I think the Democrats have made some serious mistakes, but on the other hand, the Republicans have simply dug in their heels. If there are any moderate Republicans left they should take back their party. Where is Colin Powell? Where is Olympia Snowe?
But there is no point in trying to impeach any of the justices. They are safe barring serious crime or corruption. And I don’t think the country could take another impeachment process.
I would recommend a good reading of the last years of the Roman Republic, during which the various players (they weren’t really organized as parties, though sometimes they talked that way) battered each other back and forth, until finally Caesar saw that the only way to protect himself was to take personal power. There’s no exact analogy, but still there is a danger of a deeply divided republic and two groups that are interested only in their own power or protection, rather than in the interest of the country.
johndh123 over 14 years ago
Ok folks,
Such dispair! Even you fennec, “…I despair for the future of our society…from the same guy that thumbed your nose at the terrorist threat in these United States! Consider this. Scott Brown, having been marginalized by the left, won the senate seat having spent 1/3 as much as the ‘highly regarded’ Massachusetts Attorney General, Martha Coakley. Consider this too. Chief Justice Roberts said that some high court decisions turn out to be so wrong that they deserve to be overruled. In his own words, “If the court could not revisit earlier rulings, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional and the government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants.” Sounds like a very reasoned jurist to me. Was a President (George W.) Bush’s nominee, whereas Sonia ..” I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life” Sotomayor was President Obama’s wise choice. You tell me who you think fits the bill for judicial activism!
lonecat over 14 years ago
I’m not opposed to judicial activism. I am opposed to people who say they are opposed to judicial activism, until it suits them. I don’t like this decision because it’s a bad decision, not because it’s judicial activism.
But we have to think a little about what judicial activism might mean. Parts of the Constitution were written in rather general terms, and each generation has to come to an understanding of what those terms mean.
The Supreme Court has a tradition, however, of making as narrow a decision as possible, and also a tradition of letting laws stand unless they have to be struck down. They have to be struck down when something is seen to be seriously wrong – as, for example, in Brown v. Board of Education, which was, by the way, decided unanimously. If the court is going to be activist, it’s a good idea to get unanimity or at least a large majority.
No one has argued that the court should not revisit earlier rulings, only that it do so in a reasonable way. Roberts in particular has argued that these changes should be few.
The dissent in this case argued at length that it would have been possible to decide this particular case more narrowly and to decide it in a way that would allow existing laws to stand. Roberts wrote a separate decision defending himself, because he knew he was vulnerable to this criticism. Some will believe that his defense is adequate, others will not.
johndh123 over 14 years ago
ah yes fennec Sandra Day O’connor, a nominee for the Supreme Court by someone as reviled as Ronald Reagan! That is nonsense that the ‘institutions’ of the Supreme Court has been undermined by this decision. Chief Justice John Roberts is considered a ‘minimalist’. True. terrorist threats by themselves cannot undermine this country; nor can the determination of our Supreme Court on one matter.
kissnow over 14 years ago
what a mess in deed we have no answers for this one but fire every one and start over. by impeech them all.