59 Comments - lake county democrat - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 11:32 am: Also note: the Court’s Arizona immigration decision (striking most of the most recent anti-illegal immigrant law there) has something important in common with the Citizens United/Washington decisions: they adopt the position of the US Chamber of Commerce. That’s the only coherent “ideology” guiding the court today. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 11:41 am: 5 unelected justices can make laws granting constitutional rights to corporations, overturning the peoples’ elected legislatures, both Congress and a state house (and a state Supreme Court), and somehow this is “conservative?” This is judicial activism at its worst. And it’s the opposite of “conservative.” - PublicServant - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 12:17 pm: Hrrrmmm…follow the money. I wonder if any of the conservative justices (or friends and family) have benefitted from any corporate largesse in the last couple of years… - The Doc - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 12:29 pm: Most interesting perhaps is what the five person majority didn’t say. The decision was a one-page affirmation, with nary an explanation for the ruling. The notion that unlimited corporate spending doesn’t, at a minimum, give the appearance of corruption was laughable even before Citizens United and the rise of super PACs. - NIref - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 12:37 pm: In this post-Citizen’s America, I am so glad I do not own a TV. - titan - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 12:43 pm: @47th Ward - determining that a law violates the Consititution is not “activist”, it has been the Court’s role (since Marbury, if not before). Making up rights that aren’t there in the Constitution is what is “activist”. Some look at the ‘corporate personhood’ as an example, others look at abotion ‘rights’ as an example (some view both that way). Given that partnerships, LLCs, LLPs and corporations are ultimately just associations of actual human people, and those humans indisputably have First Amendment rights, the corporate personhood decisions aren’t as big a stretch as the “emanations and penumbras” foundation for abortion ‘rights’. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 12:48 pm: ===the corporate personhood decisions aren’t as big a stretch as the “emanations and penumbras” foundation for abortion ‘rights’.=== First, Titan, the precedent in Roe v. Wade found a constitutional right to privacy, it didn’t explicitly grant a right to abortions. Second, if rights come from our creator, and man creates corporations, it doesn’t follow that corporations are people. Extending first amendment rights to man-made corporations is one of the biggest acts of judicial activism in the history of this country. - benevolent hegemon - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 12:49 pm: The notion that unlimited union spending doesn’t give the appearance of corruption is laughable, also.Especially since unions give almost exclusively to Democrats. Unions aren’t “people” anymore than corporations are, yet unions spent $400 MILLION electing Democrats in ‘08 while corporations tend to spread money around. Obama got a record number of $$$$ from Goldman Sach in ‘08, yet I doubt many here were denouncing corporate money in politics back then, pre-United. Which brings me to my main point—do you really want politicians and the courts deciding who can and cannot donate to campaigns? My view is that everyone should be able to back the cause and candidate of their choice; my only requirement is for immediate reporting and full disclosure. - ZC - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 12:53 pm: I don’t think corporate personhood is the most interesting debate here. I think the Supreme Court’s claim that “independent expenditures” do not have any corrupting effect on politicians is the weird part of the argument. It is doubly odd because the Supremes have recently ruled that judges who benefit from independent expenditures -should- recuse themselves. But if that spending were truly independent, how could it corrupt the judge’s verdict? - ZC - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 12:56 pm: Hegemon, I am afraid the modern GOP is passing you by. Now that they’ve secured unlimited spending, they are now making a hard push to gut meaningful disclosure laws as well. Now they claim it has a chilling effect on corporations and billionaires, if it were known they were spending millions on a politician’s behalf. - The Doc - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 1:00 pm: ==Unions aren’t “people” anymore than corporations are, yet unions spent $400 MILLION electing Democrats in ‘08 while corporations tend to spread money around== I agree that unions should be subject to the same rules, despite your retread GOP rhetoric. But if you want to compare union vs. corporate spending, I’m happy to have that discussion. - George - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 1:01 pm: According to some, American citizens lose their right to free speech simply by choosing to associate with one another in a few legally recognized forms (corporations and unions, in this case). Why should Americans be penalized for choosing one association structure over others (partnerships)? - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 1:26 pm: Citizens United does make things a lot easier, though. When Tony Accardo, Allen Dorfman and Frank Fitzsimmons engineered Hoffa’s pardon by Nixon, the Teamsters had to make messy illegal contributions to CREEP, what with paper bags and such packed with filthy hondos. Under Citizens United, they could have just directed the Teamsters to write a check for as much as they wanted to some Super-Pac. I’m sure Justice Kennedy would have been relieved by the lack of perception of corruption. That’s one justice who truly is blind to American history. - Just Observing - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 1:31 pm: === 5 unelected justices can make laws granting constitutional rights to corporations, overturning the peoples’ elected legislatures, both Congress and a state house (and a state Supreme Court), and somehow this is “conservative?” This is judicial activism at its worst. And it’s the opposite of “conservative.” === It sounds like you are against the role of Judiciary all together. Is it not the role of the Judiciary to weigh-in on laws, even if adopted by a democratically elected legislature? By your reasoning, you must be opposed to Brown v. Board of Education? It’s fine to disagree with the decision, but you are essentially advocating the abolition of the judiciary. - titan - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 1:38 pm: @47th Ward - I understand that the “emanations and penumbras” were first tossed out there in the earlier contraceptive/sexual freedom cases. But the point remains that there is arguably less stretch for the corporate rights than the abortive rights. I view both as something of a stretch. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 1:46 pm: ===It sounds like you are against the role of Judiciary all together.=== Not at all. I am simply opposed to the idea that corporations are people my friend. I, as a person, have rights, including the right to free speech. As an investor in a corporation, I am not entitled to additional rights. Governments can limit the rights of corporations, which governements create. Corporations, because they are created not by God, but by mere men, do not enjoy the same rights as people. They have only as many rights as we (via our lawmakers) give them. Congress set a limit on those rights, as did the Montana state legislature, and the Court in Citizens United and again today, invalidated the act of the legislature, granting rights where none existed. @George, You don’t lose your right to free speech by joining a corporation (or association), but you don’t get extra rights by doing so either. - Just Observing - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 1:51 pm: @47th Ward: Then, from that logic, would you be ok with the government seizing corporations and/or their assets at-will on the basis that government created the corporation? After all, G-d did not create the corporation, and if government decided that they now want to own 75 percent of all corporations the constitutional protections of unwarranted seizure should be tossed out the window, right? - George - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:09 pm: ==You don’t lose your right to free speech by joining a corporation (or association), but you don’t get extra rights by doing so either.== What “extra” rights? Citizens United simply says corporations and unions are no longer prohibited from doing what individuals (and other forms of associations) have always been free to do. No more, no less. - Small Town Liberal - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:11 pm: Just Observing - Nice big red straw man. Also, since when do we need to put a hyphen in god? - Team Sleep - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:14 pm: I have studied the Citizens ruling and its aftermath as well as other similar case studies and to be honest, I firmly believe this is more insider baseball than anything. How much influence - direct or undue - do these massive, third party Super PACs have over voters? I would guess not much, although a race such as Dold vs. Schneider or Plummer vs. Enyart could see a slight impact. Don’t get me wrong - I am more so in favor of campaign contribution limits and the limitations of outside spending than I am in favor of both. However, as time goes by, this quarrel strikes me as just another issue on which neither side can agree. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:16 pm: JO, nice try but I didn’t say anything about tossing due process rights. I referred specifically to the right to free speech, which is the basis for most court decisions on campaign contributions, which is what we’re talking about here. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:19 pm: ===Citizens United simply says corporations and unions are no longer prohibited from doing what individuals (and other forms of associations) have always been free to do.=== Maybe we should let corporations and unions vote too, is that what you’re saying? - Chicago Cynic - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:29 pm: “How much influence - direct or undue - do these massive, third party Super PACs have over voters?” Team Sleep - you’ve got this exactly backwards. The premise of campaign finance laws isn’t that large contributions will have influence over voters - it’s that they’ll have influence over ELECTED OFFICIALS. And if you don’t think Sheldon Adelson’s (or other mega-contributors) $100 million he intends to give to help Mitt Romney will have undue influence on the Romney Administration, I’ve got a bridge to sell you over the Chicago River. - Chicago Cynic - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:31 pm: Oh, and 47 is exactly right. This is the most activist court in my lifetime. What they may do on Thursday in overturning Obamacare is the most radical decision by a Supreme Court on a major piece of legislation since the 1930s. It overturns everything I learned in law school about the Commerce Clause, the New Deal legislation and the role of the Federal Government. Just because conservatives like these rulings doesn’t make them small “c” conservative. - Grandson of Man - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:32 pm: Part of the conservative agenda these days is to stop unions from collecting union dues. It didn’t work in Wisconsin (for the time being), because a court struck down that prohibition. Since unions are the big spenders on political campaigns for the Democrats, if they are weakened, who will help support Democratic candidates in the age of Citizens United? There is definitely a political element to union stripping, in my opinion (not just budgetary). Weakening unions doesn’t just hurt the economy, it shifts political power. How will some of us be able to compete with the very rich who want to reduce taxes, regulations and workers’ compensation? A report just came out showing corporations are making record profits, and wages are very low. How can we compete with this? - Team Sleep - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:35 pm: Cynic - these Super PAC players and contributors already know and lobby our elected officials, and most of them are already political benefactors. - Chicago Cynic - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:36 pm: Grandson, That is the very idea of the union stripping efforts and has been stated as such. And just to give you a glimpse into the future, consider this. No incumbent president has ever been outspent by a challenger. Watch this election how the most prolific Democratic fundraiser in history is going to be outspent and you can imagine what the world will look like with incumbent R’s and challenging D’s. It’s a trainwreck of historic proportions. - Chicago Cynic - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:39 pm: Yes Team you’re correct. But there’s an enormous difference when the moneyed interests give $25,000 vs. $25,000,000 or more. We’re living in a new and very scary era. Teddy Roosevelt (Republican) is rolling over in his grave watching how the moneyed interests and robber barrons are stealing this country from its citizens. It’s the greatest wealth transfer from middle class to super rich in the history of the planet. - TwoFeetThick - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:55 pm: My recollection is that when Citizens United was first decided, something like 84% of the country - Republicans and Democrats alike - were opposed. I find it interesting that Republicans now tend to be supportive, while Democrats remain opposed. I wonder if freebasing Fox News had anything to do with that? I find it laughable whenever I hear conservatives deride activist - TwoFeetThick - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 2:59 pm: *activist judges.* - Cincinnatus - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 3:10 pm: Eliminate all campaign contribution caps from organizations and individuals and replace them with full and instantaneous disclosure. Let the voters decide of politicians are unduly influenced by contributions. - George - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 3:14 pm: ==Maybe we should let corporations and unions vote too, is that what you’re saying?== Are other forms of associations permitted to vote? Is voting a First Amendment right? Do you want to try addressing what I’m saying without straw men? Do you want to actually answer what “extra” rights you’re alleging were created? - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 3:15 pm: Cinci, what about foreign money? Should that be allowed to influence US campaigns? In this age of global finance, what do we do when the Saudi Sovereign Fund owns a 12% stake in a US company that is spending millions on campaign contributions? Is that kosher, even if it’s disclosed? - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 3:30 pm: George, my point is that the first amendment rights should not extend to corporations without limit. If I have free speech rights, and my association of investors has free speech rights also, my collective voice (as individual and corporate member) outweighs the voice of someone who is not a corporate member. Thus, via corporate membership, my campaign donation could be multiplied far beyond what I might donate as an individual. Does that make sense as an extra right? We also have the constitutional right to freely assemble. That free assembly could be in the form of a corporation, a union, a Rotary club, etc. It doesn’t follow that an individual right is bestowed on top of, and in addition to, the rights of an organization. Corporations afterall were designed to limit the liability of investors, not to ensure equal treatment under the law. By granting them free speech rights, we are limiting their liability to be sued as individual investors while unleashing unlimited collective speech rights. Corporations are NOT people, nor are they entitled to the same rights. The same is true of unions, the Rotary Club, your neighborhood association, etc. People have rights. Associations, corporations and unions have the rights we decide to give them and nothing more. - benevolent hegemon - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 3:40 pm: Doc, if you check out the FEC you’ll be shocked to discover that in ‘10 (post Citizens), unions outspent corporations by nearly 3 to 1, even individuals outspent corporation by nearly double. I thought everyone knew this—maybe it’s time to expand your news sources beyond msnbc and The Nation. - Responsa - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 3:56 pm: The disrespect being shown here to the institution of the Supreme Court and its justices is disturbing. For over two hundred years vacancies on the court have been filled by whomever is president at that time, and the person has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate which is often “held” by the opposing political party. The jurists are usually considered to be among the smartest and most respected lawyers in the land. They are not political hacks. In those cases where the president’s nomination does not hold water (such as Harriet Miers, Zoe Baird,) it is often people in the president’s own party who insist that the plug be pulled on the nomination. Kimba Wood was appointed by Reagan to the U.S. district court but was nominated to the Supreme Court by Clinton. How do you account for the “politics” of that? You know, it’s fine to disagree with a ruling. We’ve all been there. But for many to assume that any ruling they don’t personally like is because of hackery or activism or corruption is ridiculous–and sad. The rulings are about the law. And most of those people sitting on the high court (and who have sat on the court) have taken their responsibilities to the country seriously and assumed their oath solemnly. They are smarter about the law and more well versed on the U.S. Constitution than (m)any of us commenting on this blog. - Just Observing - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 3:58 pm: === JO, nice try but I didn’t say anything about tossing due process rights. I referred specifically to the right to free speech, which is the basis for most court decisions on campaign contributions, which is what we’re talking about here. === === Just Observing - Nice big red straw man. === I was drawing an analogy. On one hand it is asserted that corporations should have less free speech since they are creatures of government. Therefore, I took it to the next logical conclusion, that then should they not have less due process rights? === Also, since when do we need to put a hyphen in god? === It’s Jewish thang: http://judaism.about.com/od/judaismbasics/a/Why-Do-Some-Jews-Spell-God-G-D.htm http://www.wisegeek.com/why-do-jews-write-g-d-instead-of-god.htm - TwoFeetThick - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:01 pm: @benevolent I’ve been poking around the FEC’s website, and I cannot find the information you note. They have a lot of summary data, but not of the type that you describe. Can you provide a link? - Esquire - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:02 pm: Some balance needs to be struck. I am in favor of the actual union member being allowed to withhold money from the union’s political action committee. Once upon a time, my unions constantly contributed to and endorsed politicians that I voted against. Reagan was elected twice with the votes of union members who bucked their local and national officers and split their tickets. How many teachers are thrilled that the IFT and IEA were on board for Blagojevich twice (2002 and 2006)? I would support a union political action committee plan that would permit the dues payer to select the political party that would receive his or her contributions to the fund. - Small Town Liberal - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:08 pm: JO - Thanks, I guess I learned my new thing for the day. - George - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:22 pm: ==Thus, via corporate membership, my campaign donation could be multiplied far beyond what I might donate as an individual.== You should probably read the case before trying to talk about it. Citizens United had nothing to do with campaign contributions. Want to try that, again? Isn’t it strange that you’re saying the Koch brothers or George Soros can spend as much money as they want, but that if people want to pool their resources to combat that speech with counter-speech, they’re out of luck? - Rich Miller - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:28 pm: ===if people want to pool their resources to combat that speech with counter-speech=== That’s a very novel explanation for why people buy corporate stocks. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:31 pm: –But for many to assume that any ruling they don’t personally like is because of hackery or activism or corruption is ridiculous–and sad. The rulings are about the law.– Please. Supreme Court justices didn’t descend from heaven. Since the founding, most have been political animals of some sort. There have been political tensions at play with the court ever since John Marshall stuck it to his hated distant cousin, Thomas Jefferson, first in Marbury vs. Madison, then by acquitting Aaron Burr of treason. Taney might have been influenced by his political background in the Dred Scott decision. Frankfurter thought Justice’s Black and Douglas decided cases on politics. I’m pretty sure some folks thought Warren and Brennan (IKE appointments, both) were a wee bit activist. Fortas (Johnson appointment) continued to serve as a close political advisor to LBJ while on the court, and was only driven to resign after it was discovered that he was collecting a $20,000 a year retainer, for life, from some Wall Street hustler indicted on securities fraud. Justice Stevens (Ford appointment) had a few things to say about the impartiality of the majority in Bush v. Gore. And so on, and so on, and so on….. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:36 pm: ===Isn’t it strange that you’re saying the Koch brothers or George Soros can spend as much money as they want.=== George, if it was up to me we’d still have the Watergate era cap on individual donations to federal campaigns (although I’d have indexed it to inflation). The court tossed that limit, saying it violated free speech. Then, inexplicably, the court gave corporations a right they previously did not have. They overturned an Act of Congress and a law signed by the President to do so. Now, Montana, a sovereign state, passed a law to put limits in that state. This “conservative” court ruled today that Montana exceeded its sovereign authority to limit campaign expenditures in Montana. How is this sequence of events not “legislating from the bench?” - George - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:39 pm: ==That’s a very novel explanation for why people buy corporate stocks.== Not all corporations are established for business purposes. See, e.g., Citizens United. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_(organization) - mark walker - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:43 pm: Responsa: I generally agree with you that the Supremes are usually extremely well-prepared, and serious about their resposibilities. My only problem is that at least one, Scalia, has been and continues to be heavily politically involved, and has consistently preached one approach to audiences around the country, about judicial conservatism, and then acted the opposite on cases with immediate political impact. He is domonstrably the most “activist” justice in our lifetime, while preaching the opposite around the country. He reminds one of Abe Fortas, who was removed. I cannot make the same criticisms of any of the other justices, with whom I often disagree. - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:48 pm: –This “conservative” court ruled today that Montana exceeded its sovereign authority to limit campaign expenditures in Montana. – The Montana Supreme Court specifically cited the corrupting influence of mining interests that led to the 1912 voter-approved limits in the first place. Justice Kennedy couldn’t see that corruption, or even appearance of suce, either. It was in all the papers, though. Check out the Montana Copper Kings. Make Illinois politics look like Mayberry. http://www.greatfallstribune.com/multimedia/125newsmakers6/copperkings.html - Responsa - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:50 pm: ==He is domonstrably the most “activist” justice in our lifetime,== Mark Walker– Heh, I guess it all depends on how old one is! - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:50 pm: –He reminds one of Abe Fortas, who was removed.– Fortas resigned, although impeachment charges were in the works. - George - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:51 pm: 47th: The Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the First Amendment against the states. That means if it’s not permissible for the federal government to limit First Amendment rights in a certain way, it’s not permissible for state governments to do so, either. But before we continue, have you actually read the Citizens United case? Because you seem awfully hung up on corporate campaign contributions limits, which were not challenged or ruled unconstitutional. - Responsa - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:54 pm: Mark Walker–my “heh” was not meant to suggest that I don’t think your post was well written and well thought out. I do. I was just being a smart aleck about “assumptions”. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 4:54 pm: I think JP Stevens said it best: “The conceit that corporations must be treated identically to natural persons in the political sphere is not only inaccurate but also inadequate to justify the Court’s disposition of this case. In the context of election to public office, the distinction between corporate and human speakers is significant. Although they make enormous contributions to our society, corporations are not actually members of it. They cannot vote or run for office. Because they may be managed and controlled by nonresidents, their interests may conflict in fundamental respects with the interests of eligible voters. The financial resources, legal structure, and instrumental orientation of corporations raise legitimate concerns about their role in the electoral process. Our lawmakers have a compelling constitutional basis, if not also a democratic duty, to take measures designed to guard against the potentially deleterious effects of corporate spending in local and national races.” Go read the whole thing. http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/08-205.ZS.html - wordslinger - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 5:13 pm: –…if you check out the FEC you’ll be shocked to discover that in ‘10 (post Citizens), unions outspent corporations by nearly 3 to 1, even individuals outspent corporation by nearly double.– That’s an interesting theory there, BH. Your contention is that Democrats are against Citizens United, and Republicans are for it, because it allows traditionally Democratic contributors to beat the pants off traditionally GOP contributors? So, I guess everyone in politics has no idea where money is coming from and where it is going? They don’t know what side their bread is buttered? They’re all very stupid? From OpenSecrets.org –The broadest classification of political donors separates them into business, labor, or ideological interests. Whatever slice you look at, business interests dominate, with an overall advantage over organized labor of about 15-to-1.– –Even among PACs - the favored means of delivering funds by labor unions - business has a more than 3-to-1 fundraising advantage. In soft money, the ratio is nearly 17-to-1.– –An important caveat must be added to these figures: “business” contributions from individuals are based on the donor’s occupation/employer. Since nearly everyone works for someone, and since union affiliation is not listed on FEC reports, totals for business are somewhat overstated, while labor is understated. Still, the base of large individual donors is predominantly made up of business executives and professionals.– Lots of good stuff here. http://www.opensecrets.org/overview/blio.php - George - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 5:13 pm: Here’s what Justice Stevens had to say back in 1977 (by signing onto Justice Powell’s majority opinion in its entirety): “We thus find no support in the First or Fourteenth Amendment, or in the decisions of this Court, for the proposition that speech that otherwise would be within the protection of the First Amendment loses that protection simply because its source is a corporation.” - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 5:24 pm: Here is a better link to the Stevens dissent in Citizen United. http://yubanet.com/usa/Justice-Stevens-Dissenting-Opinion-in-Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission.php What can I say George? You asked if I’d read Citizens United, now you’re making an uncited reference to something else Stevens wrote. It’s hard to argue with you if that’s the way you roll, but that doesn’t mean you’re right. It doesn’t make me right either, but at least I’m trying to stay on topic. - George - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 7:10 pm: I asked if you’d read the case because you were making claims that weren’t supported by the case. The fact that you later linked to a dissent, whose reasoning was rejected by a majority of the court, about something else does not really mean you’ve read the majority opinion, which is the only opinion that is binding. But I humored your citation to Stevens with another majority opinion that Stevens endorsed in its entirety which clearly disagreed with your main point. http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?court=us&vol=435&invol=765 If you want to go discuss the history of the First Amendment, I’d be happy to help. But given that it cuts against your argument, I don’t suspect you want that. - 47th Ward - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 7:34 pm: Thanks George. Unlike you, I’m not an expert. I simply think today’s decision and the original Citizens United decision are examples of judicial activism. Not necessarily related, I think the idea of corporate personhood as defined by you, Mitt Romney and others is wholly unsupported in the law and is fiction. But hang your hat on another sturdy 5-4 decision. Yep, that’s the only opnion that’s binding. Until they offer another one. Maybe next time they’ll get it right. - Chicago Cynic - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 7:40 pm: “The disrespect being shown here to the institution of the Supreme Court and its justices is disturbing. For over two hundred years vacancies on the court have been filled by whomever is president at that time, and the person has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate which is often “held” by the opposing political party. The jurists are usually considered to be among the smartest and most respected lawyers in the land. They are not political hacks…” Responsa, First, your comment contained quite a few historical mistakes such as Kimba Wood and Zoe Baird being nominated to the Supreme Court. They weren’t - they were nominated to be Attorney General. Second, this notion of the court being above reproach or non-political is a fantasy. What you can say is that historically, the court has rarely been as blatantly partisan as it is now. Unfortunately, Scalia and Thomas are walking conflicts of interest and, in Thomas’ case, is a total political hack who hasn’t asked a question of a litigant in oral arguments in more than a decade. His wife is one of the most vocal organizers of the tea party and yet he has never recused himself from any relevant case, nor has Justice Scalia. Bush v. Gore was a blatantly partisan decision that not only threw out 200 years of deferring to states on their own election law (which is why nobody thought they’d take the case let alone decide it as they did) but it may be the only case in the history of the Supreme Court to say explicitly in the opinion that it has no precedential value and only applies to the case at hand. Even they knew it was a partisan decision. I have quite a few friends who were clerks to mostly conservative justices like Rehnquist and they all agree. This is the most blatantly partisan Supreme Court any of us have ever seen or studied. It makes me incredibly sad that the court is increasingly viewed as just another political branch of government by the public and legal scholars alike. I expect more of the same in the Obamacare decision. Interestingly, when polled before oral arguments, only 35% of legal scholars predicted Obamacare would be struck down. They, like me, knew that if the last 75 years of Commerce Clause decisions meant anything, the opponents didn’t have a leg to stand on. But alas, what the justices showed in oral arguments is that precedents don’t mean diddly squat to this group of five conservative judicial activists that rule on the Supreme Court. - mark walker - Monday, Jun 25, 12 @ 8:39 pm: Responsa: You’re right on perspective. Actually I go way back as a SCOTUS fan, and was even including Wm. O. Douglas in my estimation, as less politically active and driven than Scalia. Is this court the worst ever? I doubt it; at least they’re all competent. But Scalia is braggingly partisan, Thomas is sketchy, and Roberts is an activist in a dangerous way, manipulating the system to try to predetermine outcomes before arguments and filings. If they wanted to be politicians they should have run for office. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.