Court's campaign finance decision a case of shoddy scholarship (Marcus | WaPo)

[struggle4progress]

By Ruth Marcus
Saturday, January 23, 2010

In opening the floodgates for corporate money in election campaigns, the Supreme Court did not simply engage in a brazen power grab. It did so in an opinion stunning in its intellectual dishonesty ...

"If it is not necessary to decide more, it is necessary not to decide more," a wise judge once wrote. That was Chief Justice John G. Roberts -- back when -- and dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens rightly turned that line against him ...

First, the majority flung about dark warnings of "censorship" and "banned" speech as if upholding the existing rules would leave corporations and labor unions with no voice in the political process. Untrue. Under federal election law before the Supreme Court demolished it, corporations and labor unions were free to say whatever they wanted about political candidates whenever they wanted to say it. They simply were not permitted to use unlimited general treasury funds to do so. Instead, they were required to use money raised by their political action committees from employees and members. This is hardly banning speech.

Second, in the face of logic and history, the majority acted as if there could be no constitutional distinction between a corporation and a human being. Untrue. The Supreme Court has long held that corporations are considered "persons" under the Constitution and are therefore entitled to its protections. For more than a century, Congress has barred corporations from making direct contributions to political candidates, with no suggestion that it must treat corporate persons the same as real ones; that prohibition stands, at least for now. The "conceit" of corporate personhood, as Stevens called it, does not mandate absolute equivalence. That corporations enjoy free-speech protections does not mean they enjoy every protection afforded an actual person. Is a corporation entitled to vote? To run for office? ...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/22/AR2010012203897.html

[wellst0nev0ter]

1. This

Is a corporation entitled to vote? To run for office?

Don't give the ratfuckers in the Supreme Court any ideas

[struggle4progress]

2. I actually posted it for the Roberts quote, so at odds with this ruling

[dmr]

3. Kennedy ought to be embarrassed and ashamed for the 'Mr. Smith' argument

The first time I heard this, I thought the TV person was making a bad joke. Found out it was worse than bad, and sadly, no joke.

Fourth, the majority bizarrely invoked the "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington" defense. Under the Austin ruling, Justice Anthony M. Kennedy argued, lawmakers unhappy with being lampooned in the movie "could have done more than discourage its distribution -- they could have banned the film." Beyond untrue. There is no scenario under which works of art about fictional lawmakers could be limited by campaign finance laws.

That the majority would stoop to this claim underscores the weakness of its case -- and the audacity of the result it has inflicted on the political process.

Someone posted the Powell Memo yesterday. The SCOTUS decision seems to fit as big business rounds the bases for their final triumphant run.
http://reclaimdemocracy.org/corporate_accountability/powell_memo_lewis.html
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7531890

[aquart]

4. Kennedy is one of the original Filthy Five.

But he always skates as if he weren't REALLY evil, just fell among evil companions. Meadow muffins. This man is EVIL.

[struggle4progress]

5. The rightwingers have practiced such mind-rotting dishonesty so regularly for so long

that it has become a knee-jerk reflex for them

One can hardly react to such brazen bullshit, except by staring slack-jawed at the speaker's utter lack of any intellectual integrity -- which, I suppose, the liars count as a victory

[no_hypocrisy]

6. Part of the blame to Kennedy, part of it to his clerks.

The clerks read and analyze the briefs submitted by the parties. The clerks are allegedly some of the finest legal scholars, top of law review, from the best law schools. They are supposed to weed out shoddy scholarship and writing. They of all people know the limits of judicial review versus judicial activism. And failing that, the presiding justice is the final arbiter.

But then again, there's the possibility of hypocrisy wherein you claim you are against judicial activism (unsaid: as long as it concerns values you don't respect or you despise). And when you want to promote your philosophy, it's claimed you exercised judicial restraint, relying on established precedent.

Well, it doesn't work like that when your writing is held up to Court predecessors like Benjamin Cardozo, Oliver Wendell Holmes, etc. and scholars like Learned Hand. You will be held to a higher standard and risk being labelled more than disingenuous, but a shill. That's right, a shill. We've never impeached successfully a justice on the Supreme Court . . . yet.