A peek under the robes of an increasingly partisan court

courtAP101008146207

" ... just another political body"

In another 5-4 vote Monday, and without bothering to hear arguments in the case, the U.S. Supreme Court blithely tossed out a longstanding Montana law that barred corporations from making campaign contributions in state elections. States’ rights, it seems, must bow to corporate power in the Roberts court.

Or as Montana Attorney General Steve Bullock noted afterward, “It is a sad day for our democracy and for those of us who still want to believe that the United States Supreme Court is anything more than another political body.”

Bullock’s condemnation of the nation’s highest court as just “another political body” may sound harsh to some ears, but it is depressingly accurate. The Montana law had been on the books for 100 years, and for most of those 100 years its constitutionality had not been called into serious question. It was considered well within established law.

The absurd notions that have now forced its demise — corporations are people and speech is money — are novel law that has been imposed upon Montana and the rest of the country by an increasingly activist, inventive and yes, partisan Supreme Court.

Let’s be honest about this: The increasingly partisan nature of the court is not an accident. It did not occur by magic, but by concerted effort. For at least a quarter of a century, the Republican Party has made the creation of such a court one of its primary goals. The same sort of rigid ideological tests that the party has imposed on candidates for elective office have also been imposed on those it supports for nomination to the federal judiciary. Over a generation, that campaign has succeeded in creating a court that is far more friendly to the powerful than to the individual citizen.

The “smoking gun” in that evolution is of course the court’s “Citizens United” decision, in which the conservative majority decided that bans or limits on corporate expenditures are unconstitutional because “independent expenditures, including those made by corporations, do not give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption.”

That finding is ludicrous for a variety of reasons. It contradicts common sense, it contradicts history, it contradicts what we can see taking place in plain sight at this very moment and it contradicts the elected politicians who passed campaign-finance laws in the first place. Unlike the unelected justices, those politicians know the system intimately; they know firsthand what power can be wielded by unlimited money spent anonymously.

The people of Montana know it as well. I would strongly advise those interested in the issue to read last year’s 5-2 decision of the Montana Supreme Court (available here) as it attempted to uphold and defend their state’s law against the conservative judicial majority in Washington. The decision lays out in clear language that state’s difficult history in trying to fend off outside corporate control.

It’s also important to note that neither of the two dissenters on the Montana court embraced the logic of the Citizens’ United decision. Instead, they based their dissent on the fact that Montana had no choice but to bow to the federal court’s greater authority, however irrational it might be.

One of those dissenters, Justice James C. Nelson, used the opportunity to express his clear and eloquent disgust with the decision of his federal counterparts. I cannot recommend it more highly.

Here’s part of what he had to say:

“For starters, the notion that corporations are disadvantaged in the political realm is unbelievable. Indeed, it has astounded most Americans. The truth is that corporations wield inordinate power in Congress and in state legislatures. It is hard to tell where government ends and corporate America begins; the transition is seamless and overlapping.

In my view, Citizens United has turned the First Amendment’s “open marketplace” of ideas into an auction house for Friedmanian corporatists. Freedom of speech is now synonymous with freedom to spend. Speech equals money; money equals democracy. This decidedly was not the view of the constitutional founders, who favored the preeminence of individual interests over those of big business.

Furthermore, it defies reality to suggest that millions of dollars in slick television and Internet ads — put out by entities whose purpose and expertise, in the first place, is to persuade people to buy what’s being sold—carry the same weight as the fliers of citizen candidates and the letters to the editor of John and Mary Public. It is utter nonsense to think that ordinary citizens or candidates can spend enough to place their experience, wisdom, and views before the voters and keep pace with the virtually unlimited spending capability of corporations to place corporate views before the electorate….

I absolutely do not agree that corporate money in the form of “independent expenditures” expressly advocating the election or defeat of candidates cannot give rise to corruption or the appearance of corruption. Of course it can. Even the most cursory review of decades of partisan campaigns and elections, whether state or federal, demonstrates this. Citizens United held that the only sufficiently important governmental interest in preventing corruption or the appearance of corruption is one that is limited to quid pro quo corruption. This is simply smoke and mirrors. In the real world of politics, the “quid pro quo” of both direct contributions to candidates and independent expenditures on their behalf is loyalty. And, in practical effect, experience teaches that money corrupts, and enough of it corrupts absolutely.

I cannot agree with the holding that the prevention of corruption in the form of independent expenditures is not a compelling state interest. There is no plausible reason why a state would not want to protect the integrity of its election process against corruption and undue influence; to do otherwise would render the fundamental right to vote a meaningless exercise….

Lastly, I am compelled to say something about corporate “personhood.” While I recognize that this doctrine is firmly entrenched in the law, I find the entire concept offensive. Corporations are artificial creatures of law. As such, they should enjoy only those powers — not constitutional rights, but legislatively conferred powers — that are concomitant with their legitimate function, that being limited-liability investment vehicles for business.

Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government. Worse still, while corporations and human beings share many of the same rights under the law, they clearly are not bound equally to the same codes of good conduct, decency, and morality, and they are not held equally accountable for their sins. Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”

President Obama, name that man to the U.S. Supreme Court.

– Jay Bookman

1,368 comments Add your comment

PJ

June 26th, 2012
10:44 am

My 1st time first!

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 26th, 2012
10:45 am

A peek under the robes of an increasingly partisan court….Oh No!!?? The Cars undies…with skid marks! ;)

Brosephus™

June 26th, 2012
10:52 am

Wow… I’ll have to go and read those opinions when I have the time. Those are some powerful words there. I’m guessing that Justice Nelson won’t be receiving any invites to CPAC anytime in the near future.

Recon 0311 2533

June 26th, 2012
10:52 am

Jay, must be prepping for an Obama loss on health care this Thursday.

Steve - USA ("None of the Above")

June 26th, 2012
10:53 am

To think the Liberal Judges are any less political than the Conservative judges is a fairy tale you tell your children at bedtime.

After reading Justice James C. Nelson, I hope I never have to hear people call corporations “evil” since it should be impossible for a legal entity to be evil.

Steve

June 26th, 2012
10:54 am

We live in sad times where the power of those with the most money is wreaking havoc on the rest of us. It will take Americans awhile to figure this out, and hopefully we’ll reverse the course and damage, but it will take time. Americans, in general, are pretty clueless.

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
10:55 am

God all this complaining about the judge’s decisions this week…can’t wait to hear Jay’s response on Thursday on the Obamacare decision, whichever way it goes.

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

June 26th, 2012
10:56 am

I don’t think I want to look up any of those robes!

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
10:56 am

Is it only the “conservative” judges that are political, partisan, and activist?

Doggone/GA

June 26th, 2012
10:57 am

“corporations are people and speech is money ”

Jay – if I remember correctly, the Citizens United decision said “money is free speech”

ragnar danneskjold

June 26th, 2012
10:57 am

State laws must yield to the Constitution. If you wished to argue that the Supreme Court has erred in much of its jurisprudence on the First Amendment – that the Amendment does not affirm any right protected by the 14th Amendment, that it is merely a restriction on Congress – you would have my full support. So long as we persist in the view that the First Amendment is a “right” extended by the 14th Amendment, the Montana ruling is correct.

Thomas Heyward Jr.

June 26th, 2012
10:58 am

Get mo D’s in there, and you’ll like what you see as you peek under your ruler’s robes.
.
Ain’t that the statism logic/religion?

RCB

June 26th, 2012
10:58 am

Oh, boo-hoo, Jay. You are right about one thing though. The next President will have an extraordinary opportunity to appoint possibly 2 Justices. Stop calling everything “partisan” when you don’t like it.

Lord Help Us

June 26th, 2012
10:59 am

‘Is it only the “conservative” judges that are political, partisan, and activist?’

Probably not, but listening to Scalia parrot the right wing POLITICAL talking points during the ACA hearings was the best evidence of HIS activism…

carlosgvv

June 26th, 2012
10:59 am

Rigid ideology is a hallmark of far-right Christians. These people have been increasing in the Republican electorate to now be a majority. Republican politicians, knowing their electorate, have, among other things, created a majority Court that mirrors their electorate. These ideological far right sheep(electorate) are utterly oblivious to the fact their politicans and Court could not possibly care less about them and owe allegiance only to Big Corporations from whence they get their funding, both legal and illegal.

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
11:00 am

“Stop calling everything “partisan” when you don’t like it.”

Can I get an amen to that!!! You forgot “activist” also.

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
11:01 am

“Probably not, but listening to Scalia parrot the right wing POLITICAL talking points during the ACA hearings was the best evidence of HIS activism…”

Just b/c the other judges keep their comments to themselves doesn’t make them anymore partisan. Scalia just has the balls to say what he thinks.

David Shivers

June 26th, 2012
11:01 am

President Obama could certainly nominate Justice Nelson to the Supreme Court but, shamefully, our donor-money-corrupted Congress would never confirm him and would give him hell in the process.

TaxPayer

June 26th, 2012
11:03 am

The only way to offset the impact of citizen’s united is a tax upon all corporate contributions to help level that playing field between the corporate person and the real McCoy. Ninety percent should do.

Lord Help Us

June 26th, 2012
11:03 am

‘‘Is it only the “conservative” judges that are political, partisan, and activist?’’

And, a quick look at Clarence Thomas’ wife’s occupation is crazy. If the spouse of one of the more liberal supremes was engaged in overturning a law in front of the court, the right would be apocalyptic.

Lord Help Us

June 26th, 2012
11:04 am

‘Scalia just has the balls to say what he thinks.’

And it confirms his activism…

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

June 26th, 2012
11:04 am

Jay:

To blame a divided court on Republicans is pretty sad on your part. Many, many decisions in the court’s history have been 5 to 4. So what? Our country is divided, our Congress is divided and our presidential candidates are divided. That’s the way it is. Too bad Obama got in or we could have had a couple more justices who may have made the ruling 7 to 2. Then I suppose you would have been happy?

I didn’t like all of the court’s rulings or reasoning yesterday on the Arizona law but we are a nation of law and we must accept that or it all breaks down. We have a mechanism ……………. Constitutional Amendments if necessary.

larry

June 26th, 2012
11:05 am

I, for one, would love to see a corporation vote. Let’s move the whole building into the voting booth and vote. Since corporations are people and people vote, let’s let corporations vote.

ragnar danneskjold

June 26th, 2012
11:05 am

Justice Nelson sounds like a loopy leftist – pole dancing and a crucifix in urine and flag burning are all “protected free speech,” but we cannot have political arguments published for public consumption? Talk about looking through the wrong end of the telescope. I don’t understand why leftists object to having differing views published.

FrankLeeDarling

June 26th, 2012
11:05 am

We are going to suffer for this

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
11:05 am

“We live in sad times where the power of those with the most money is wreaking havoc on the rest of us. ”

twas ever thus …

before, they could simply bribe – now, they can launder their money in PACs and Super PACs

USinUK - pro-gay-marriage thug and former Girl Scout

June 26th, 2012
11:06 am

“We are going to suffer for this”

going to???

honey, you’re soaking in it.

RCB

June 26th, 2012
11:06 am

Thursday’s gonna be fun, Jay!

godless heathen

June 26th, 2012
11:07 am

Nelson was appointed by a Republican governor and he doesn’t represent any minority, so not much chance that President Obama would appoint him to the SCOTUS.

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
11:07 am

Sounds like Jay is getting his panties in a wad b/c the SCOTUS didn’t make a decision he agrees with. So he calls them partisan, activists, etc. etc.

Will you call the “left-leaning” judges activists and partisan if Obamacare is upheld on Thursday? I just can imagine your response if it’s overturned.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

June 26th, 2012
11:08 am

P.S.

“Corporations are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that courts have created a legal fiction which forces people — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with soulless creations of government.”

Or he could have said:

Fetuses are not persons. Human beings are persons, and it is an affront to the inviolable dignity of our species that lower courts have created a legal fiction which forces women — human beings — to share fundamental, natural rights with unborn soulless fetuses.

SOMETIMES IT CUTS BOTH WAYS.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

June 26th, 2012
11:08 am

Peadawg:

Liberals run on emotion ………… not logic.

larry

June 26th, 2012
11:08 am

And, a quick look at Clarence Thomas’ wife’s occupation is crazy.

So, he shouldn’t recuse himself because of conflict of interest ?

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

June 26th, 2012
11:09 am

larry:

“I, for one, would love to see a corporation vote. Let’s move the whole building into the voting booth and vote. Since corporations are people and people vote, let’s let corporations vote.”

Why not? A lot of libs. want illegals to vote !

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
11:10 am

Jay does make a rather hacktastic point.

Lord Help Us

June 26th, 2012
11:10 am

numbers, your twin 11:08’s are hysterically contradictory…thanks for the belly laugh.

Brosephus™

June 26th, 2012
11:10 am

Since corporations are people and people vote, let’s let corporations vote.

I’ll agree that corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Lord Help Us

June 26th, 2012
11:11 am

‘So, he shouldn’t recuse himself because of conflict of interest ?’

I think so. But I am quite certain that if a similar conflict existed on the other side, the right-wing would be apocalyptic…

josef

June 26th, 2012
11:12 am

“Indeed, it is truly ironic that the death penalty and hell are reserved only to natural persons.”

THAT’s a keeper…

*********
If the “sovereign state” of Montana doesn’t like it, well, we know what they can do,,,

********

IMPEACH EARL WARREN!

larry

June 26th, 2012
11:13 am

Let’s just let illegal corporations vote then. I mean they contribute money to their PACS and Super PACS . There is no telling who has contributed what to who .

They BOTH suck

June 26th, 2012
11:13 am

“A lot of libs. want illegals to vote ”

Not meant to be a factual statement nor can the poster prove it with any non biased info to back up the claim

But do carry on with the fantasy island diatribes

They can be pretty funny

Mary Elizabeth

June 26th, 2012
11:14 am

Paul Krugman, New York Times, March 25, 2012: (Connect the dots.)

“Now, ALEC isn’t single-handedly responsible for the corporatization of our political life; its influence is as much a symptom as a cause. But shining a light on ALEC and its supporters — a roster that includes many companies, from AT&T and Coca-Cola to UPS, that have so far managed to avoid being publicly associated with the hard-right agenda — is one good way to highlight what’s going on. And that kind of knowledge is what we need to start taking our country back.”

NOTE: Coca-Cola has now withdrawn from ALEC.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/26/opinion/krugman-lobbyists-guns-and-money.html?_r=3&ref=opinion

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

June 26th, 2012
11:14 am

money does not equal free speech.

somebody put that on a bumper sticker already.

I’ll post it right next to:
“Jesus is coming. Look busy.”
and
“Keep honkin’, I’m re-loadin’”

Jefferson

June 26th, 2012
11:14 am

Speech is just that, anything other than what comes from the mouth is BS. BS is the law, accepted.

larry

June 26th, 2012
11:15 am

I’ll agree that corporations are people when Texas executes one.

Can you imagine the size of the straps ? And the needle? goodness.

It would take years to build the table.

FrankLeeDarling

June 26th, 2012
11:16 am

Indeed USinUK,pass the bath salts.

Brosephus™

June 26th, 2012
11:16 am

Not meant to be a factual statement nor can the poster prove it with any non biased info to back up the claim

Combine that statement with the fact that the same poster claims liberals run on emotion, and you begin to get the appearance that the poster is a SNL writer trying out material before taping. :)

They BOTH suck

June 26th, 2012
11:16 am

Scout

Hope you enjoyed the fay at six flags with the kids. based on some of your posts, it appears you may have gotten to much sun…… It was hot yesterday

Finn McCool (The System Isn't Broken; It's Fixed ~ from an Occupy sign)

June 26th, 2012
11:17 am

When are Republicans going to sign a pledge to the USA?

They signed a pledge to Grover Norquist but not to the USA? Who the heck is Grover Norquist? Is he the last person any parents ever gave that name to?

Shawny

June 26th, 2012
11:17 am

“States’ rights, it seems, must bow to corporate power in the Roberts court.”

States rights are good in this posting, but others…..

RCB

June 26th, 2012
11:17 am

Florida was trying to remove non-US citizens from its voter rolls, but Holder put a stop to that as “discriminatory” just a week or so ago. Guess the dems get to keep those votes. What does it take to remove would-be voters who are not entitled to vote!!!!

Moon Mullins

June 26th, 2012
11:18 am

The March of the Plutocrats continues. And, the Drum Majors are the non-Activist conservative Justices of the Supreme Court.

They enjoy the hunting trips and junkets sponsored by the Plutocrats as much as the blood-sucking politicians. At least the Judicial and Legislative Branches have that much in common.

td

June 26th, 2012
11:18 am

“he increasingly partisan nature of the court is not an accident. It did not occur by magic, but by concerted effort. For at least a quarter of a century, the Republican Party has made the creation of such a court one of its primary goals.”

That is pretty lame Jay. The Dems have been doing the same exact thing since FDR and you know it and will not admit it. Can you name the last strict constructionist Clinton, Obama or Carter named to the court? Was it not the Dems that changed the rules a few years ago and made political philosophy a criteria as important as a ABA score?

hewhoasks

June 26th, 2012
11:18 am

At one time there was a concept of something called “embracery.”

I think Wikipedia understates the full scope of it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embracery

Basically, as I understand it, embracery is the rendering of a verdict or decision on the basis of other than the evidence presented, with that being done to satisfy some external agenda. It can be committed by a jury/juror or by a judge/panel of judges.

Steve - USA ("None of the Above")

June 26th, 2012
11:18 am

“Since corporations are people and people vote, let’s let corporations vote”

Why not? Corporations pay taxes and ‘No taxation without representation’…..right?

Jefferson

June 26th, 2012
11:18 am

In 2000 the GOP controlled all bodies of gov’t, court,exec,and legislative, see what that led to….

They BOTH suck

June 26th, 2012
11:19 am

Bro

Not sure if it is sad, funny or both what some people post on here and actually believe. That goes for those of all political stripes

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
11:19 am

Jay, shouldn’t you be at Hartsfield welcoming the president to the ATL?

They BOTH suck

June 26th, 2012
11:19 am

Scout

“the day………..”

excuse me

Shawny

June 26th, 2012
11:19 am

“For at least a quarter of a century, the Republican Party has made the creation of such a court one of its primary goals.”

Really? Reagan appointed a centrist. Bush I appointed a LIBERAL.

larry

June 26th, 2012
11:19 am

Who the heck is Grover Norquist?

Maybe he was named after Grover from Sesame Street.

They BOTH suck

June 26th, 2012
11:20 am

ty

He is already there………

:-)

Tundra Dude

June 26th, 2012
11:21 am

Corporate Personhood, an example of American Exceptionalism….?

Is The USA The Only Nation in the World With Corporate Personhood?

It’s not surprising to learn that no nation on earth enshrines in its constitution the right of corporate personhood.

Mila Versteeg, associate law professor at the University of Virginia, is probably the only person in the world to have read every constitution that has been written since 1946– constitutions from 186 nations. She’s not only read them, she’s quantified them, in terms of the rights that they define. That was part of a project she did while at Oxford.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rob-kall/is-the-usa-the-only-natio_b_1262525.html

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

June 26th, 2012
11:22 am

They BOTH suck:

Yes it “was” hot but had lots of fun !

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
11:22 am

“Who the heck is Grover Norquist?”

popular “boogeyman” for the left…see also “Fox News”, “Koch bros”, “Big Oil”, and the oldie but goodie, “Haliburton”.

ty webb

June 26th, 2012
11:23 am

“He is already there……… ”

stalker alert!

Mike

June 26th, 2012
11:24 am

And the democrats will be the first in line to take these allowable contributions. They just have to feign outrage over a decision like this. Kinda like President Obama and the super PACs, right?

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

June 26th, 2012
11:24 am

UH OH ! Did someone not tell President Carter that this is a campaign year ???

Headline: “Jimmy Carter Accuses U.S. of ‘Widespread Abuse of Human Rights’ ”

“A former U.S. president is accusing the current president of sanctioning the “widespread abuse of human rights” by authorizing drone strikes to kill suspected terrorists.”

http://news.yahoo.com/jimmy-carter-accuses-u-widespread-abuse-human-rights-154057442–abc-news-politics.html

Brosephus™

June 26th, 2012
11:25 am

They BOTH

I’m with you. I don’t know how to classify it. I just usually say, “Bless his/her heart”, and keep right on going….

Ol' Timer

June 26th, 2012
11:25 am

RCB — You fit right into the category of those who KNOW, but so much of what you know JUST AIN’T SO!

MiltonMan

June 26th, 2012
11:26 am

Good God Jay you all of sudden think the SC is partisan??? Ever heard of Dred Scott (7-2 decision nonetheless) or how about Roe vs. Wade?

All branches & all levels of government are partisan now. Get over it.

Lord Help Us

June 26th, 2012
11:26 am

‘UH OH ! Did someone not tell President Carter that this is a campaign year ???’

numbers, what an emotional way to begin a post…

yuzeyurbrane

June 26th, 2012
11:26 am

It is probably too late. Argentina here we come. A monied oligarchy in which the wealthy live behind gated communities with armed private police. And who venture out only with armed bodyguards because crime is so rampant. This will be hell on Earth for most people and even the older haves may wistfully recall the good old times of liberal democracy.

larry

June 26th, 2012
11:26 am

Why not? Corporations pay taxes and ‘No taxation without representation’…..right?

Okay , who is going to vote on behalf of the corporation then ?

What if I , said employee of the corporation, do not agree with whom the corporation votes for?
Do they have the right to represent me? If they use the money i make them to give to a candidate i dont agree with , is that right ?

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 26th, 2012
11:27 am

Bottom line, the Supreme Court has always been the Body that could protect and defend or end our Democratic Republic way of life. The American citizen has been rendered moot.

The history books will mark this decision as the end of the “American Way’ and the beginning of the “corporate way”.

Next we will see the stars in our flag replaced with corporate logos…sold to the highest bidders, of course.

TGT

June 26th, 2012
11:29 am

Definition of a “partisan court” (as Wingfield alluded to yesterday): Anytime a court rules in a way that doesn’t fit with liberal ideology.

Just wait. This is nothing compared to the wailing we will hear on Thursday after Obamacare is overturned.

“Corporations aren’t people!”–Until it’s tax time.

RCB

June 26th, 2012
11:30 am

@old timer–Such as?

East Cobb RINO

June 26th, 2012
11:32 am

So if corporations are people and these “people” spend their money slandering and libeling another person, it stands to reason they should be held accountable for their false statements just as a real person would be held liable.

TDone

June 26th, 2012
11:32 am

So if Labor Unions give to political campaiigns, that’s cool.

RCB

June 26th, 2012
11:32 am

Ol’ timer, no disrespect on misspelling!

Normal Free...Pro Human Rights Thug...And liking it!

June 26th, 2012
11:32 am

“Why not? Corporations pay taxes and ‘No taxation without representation’…..right?”

Corporations have always had representation…they’re called Lobbyists…

Brosephus™

June 26th, 2012
11:33 am

Definition of a “partisan court” (as Wingfield alluded to yesterday): Anytime a court rules in a way that doesn’t fit with liberal ideology.

Is that any different than conservatives yammering about activist judges when they rule in any way that doesn’t fit with conservative ideology?

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
11:33 am

The increasingly partisan nature of the court is not an accident. It did not occur by magic, but by concerted effort. For at least a quarter of a century, the Republican Party has made the creation of such a court one of its primary goals.

Let’s say it formally started in 1982, when the Federalist Society was established.

Jay

June 26th, 2012
11:33 am

Sorry Milton, Roe v. Wade was decided 7-2, along nonpartisan lines. One of the two dissents was from Byron White, a Kennedy appointee. Conservatives such as Lewis Powell and Potter Stewart voted with the majority.

The fiction that Roe v. Wade must have been partisan is itself evidence of how partisan the court has become.

weetamoe

June 26th, 2012
11:34 am

Tell Jeffrey Skilling that corporations are not persons. The question of campaign donations/financing was decided by Obama in 2008. The preview of this event was Gore’s *no controlling authority* excuse in the 90’s. Except for those who apparently understand Obama when he according to Jay Carney *speaks shorthand* the majority of voters are or should be too smart to be swayed by the usually entertaining campaign ads. If the problem is as serious as the wringing of hands in some quarters suggests, the best solution is a literacy test as a voting requirement. The more speech the better, the more literate the voters the better. Okay?

willydoit?

June 26th, 2012
11:35 am

Were they partisan when:
“Supremes overturn much of Arizona immigration law”?
or when:
“Supreme Court restricts impact of Ga. immigration law”?

larry

June 26th, 2012
11:36 am

Just wait. This is nothing compared to the wailing we will hear on Thursday after Obamacare is overturned.

Alot of people are going to be wailing. 1.1 million young adults that were insured on their parents policies. 5.1 million people who’s saving on prescription drugs under Medicare. 67,000 people who were part of a high risk insurance pool for people with pre-existing conditions. And over 360,000 small businesses who recieved tax credits for their health insurance. I guess they will have to pay those back.

Jay

June 26th, 2012
11:37 am

No, TDone, labor ought to abide by the same rules as corporations.

godless heathen

June 26th, 2012
11:37 am

ajc headline: BBB warns about ‘Obama’ scam.

Talking Head

June 26th, 2012
11:37 am

Before Citizens United, individuals could indeed spend unlimited sums on independent advertising directly supporting or opposing candidates however they would not be able to remain anonymous. Citizens United has led, indirectly but surely, to the emergence of Super PACs. But it is up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to fix the disclosure problems with Super PACs.

Rightwing Troll

June 26th, 2012
11:38 am

What a conundrum for “states rights” wingnuts… on the one hand they must support the idiot Sherrif Joe, on the other they must not support the state of Montana…

What a conundrum…

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
11:38 am

So if Labor Unions give to political campaiigns, that’s cool.

Try to keep up. The SCOTUS limited those corrupting forces last week. No such limits are placed on corporations.

http://www.alternet.org/news/156003/how_the_supreme_court%27s_%27knox_v._seiu%27_decision_could_dismantle_union_security_around_the_country

Lord Help Us

June 26th, 2012
11:39 am

Why is it (IMO) the same people that rail about media bias and judicial activism share two common traits:

1. they watch fox
2. they advocate for supremes like Thomas, Scalia and Alito

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
11:40 am

“Definition of a “partisan court” (as Wingfield alluded to yesterday): Anytime a court rules in a way that doesn’t fit with liberal ideology.”

And if Obamacare is upheld I can guarantee you Kyle, Hannity, et al will be screaming partisan/activist judges.

It works both ways. Those of us in the middle get the laugh at the hypocrisy.

0311/8541/5811/1811/1801

June 26th, 2012
11:40 am

Lord Help Us !

“numbers, what an emotional way to begin a post…”

Now what about Carter’s statement ?

Redneck Convert (R--and proud of it)

June 26th, 2012
11:40 am

For Pete’s sake, don’t go looking under the robes of these SC judges. Hard to tell what you might see. I always suspicioned that if you looked under this Sotomayor’s robe, you’d see a big old Tallywacker. And a couple those men look a little squishy to me—josef’s persuasion, if you know what I mean.

Anyhow, let’s let the SC be. Just tell me when to bend over and drop my pants. That’s all I need to know. I don’t even know why we go to the trouble of electing Congress. It’s these 9 people that decide what the law is. Me, I’m kinda looking forward to meeting one of these Corporations in the voting booth. Who knows, maybe there would be a better job for me. I always wanted to get the chance to hobnob with the Job Creators.

stands for decibels

June 26th, 2012
11:40 am

numbers, what an emotional way to begin a post…

Didn’t he already post this yesterday?

Jay

June 26th, 2012
11:41 am

“But it is up to Congress, not the Supreme Court, to fix the disclosure problems with Super PACs.”

Except that when Congress tried, it was blocked by a Republican filibuster, another case of the GOP ignoring traditional standards on when filibusters should be used and instead using it as part of all-out partisan war.

JamVet

June 26th, 2012
11:42 am

The modern day GOP is the largest collection of cowards in the long history of our nation.

Not just because almost none of them ever served in uniform when their country needed them, but because they love artificial entities more than living, breathing human beings.

The spineless neocons actually WANT to simply give up their god given role – paid for in human blood – as the supreme authority in OUR government over to their artificial heroes on Wall Street!

Who just F’ed them to the tune of $10Trillion!

God help us.

Unless and until these cowards die off, we are hopelessly screwed…

Peadawg

June 26th, 2012
11:43 am

“1. they watch fox
2. they advocate for supremes like Thomas, Scalia and Alito”

3. Their name is Jay Bookman.