E.J. Dionne: A bipartisan push to clean up the Supreme Court's mess

[usregimechange]

In a city where the phrase "bipartisan initiative" is becoming an oxymoron, the urgency of containing the damage the Supreme Court could do to our electoral system creates an opportunity for a rare convergence of interest and principle.

At issue is the court's astonishingly naive decision in January that allows unlimited corporate spending to influence elections. Its 5 to 4 ruling in the Citizens United case was a shocking instance of judicial overreach and reflected an utter indifference to how politics works.

Liberals and Democrats are already mobilizing to fight against Citizens United because they fear the impact of unconstrained corporate activity on elections and legislation. But conservatives and Republicans should also be alarmed that this decision could encourage politicians to extort campaign spending from businesses. Is it really so hard to imagine a congressional leader quietly approaching a business executive and suggesting that unless her company invested heavily in certain key electoral contests, this regulation or that spending program might be changed at the expense of her enterprise?

That's why both parties should join to pass a bill that Sen. Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) hope to introduce this week placing some rules around the new electoral casino that the Roberts court has opened. The proposal is expected to win Republican co-sponsorship. And it should.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/07/AR2010030702679.html

[indepat]

1. This felonious five apparently intends to raise feloniousness to an

art form. :grr:

[Demeter]

2. Anything BUT Naive!

the Supreme 5 are criminals and traitors. AND they are getting away with it, AGAIN!

[Demoiselle]

3. Yes, not at all naive...but

Imagine how pissed off Mr. Justice Antonin I'm-So-Smart-It Hurts Scalia is gonna be when he reads that E J Dionne thinks he's "naive."
Snerk snerk.

[yurbud]

5. we let people in DC off too easily when we say they were merely ''naive'' or ''incompetent...."

''corrupt'' is the correct term and we shouldn't hesitate to use it.

[necso]

4. Imo, "naive" is an apt descriptor;

because these men, whatever their intentions may be (although their trampling of precedent makes it difficult to see their intentions as being anything other than ideologically-driven judicial-extremism), seem constitutionally-incapable of grasping the full-extent of the harm they cause. (Many other descriptors would also work.)

And when you call someone something, you can only (legitimately) do this based on what is (was) outwardly-expressed by them (although individual judgements in such matters can languish on the shoals of triviality and superficiality (and suchlike), or can reach to greater, more illuminating depths).

Moreover, this isn't merely a matter of a person (group) being this homogeneous, simple-natured thing, "naive". Rather, a person (group) can be naive (express naivete; act like they lack information or experience, etc) because they (do) lack (relevant) information or experience, or they can do so for a variety of other reasons. For example, perhaps they lack understanding and/or judgement in these matters. Or perhaps they cling to inutile (but appealing) holdings (even while having other, more useful holdings) -- or are unable for some (other) reason to take advantage of the useful holdings that they do have (maybe they're in, and kept in, some emotional or otherwise irrational state, like being kept in fear). Or maybe something in their natures keeps them from acting in some other way (in the areas of interest at least), even though they otherwise seem to possess all the right tools generally (information, understanding, judgment, etc).

And making these distinctions is not some intellectual exercise; rather it is a necessary step in dealing with the problem. -- Because those who lack information and/or experience may be able to be given these things (provided that are willing to receive such, which they may not prove to be: willful ignorance, for example, is beyond remedy, as long as the will for it exists); and those who are in some inutile state may be brought to a utile state (or not).

Moreover, we must look beyond this naivete to the drivers, the circumstances, that have brought it about and that keep it in place (like a corporate media keeping people ill-informed -- and fearful), and attempt to change this. Furthermore, if we dismiss the naive (those who act naively; at least those who could act less so) as being the problem themselves, then we are in some part just blaming the victims -- and playing into the hands of the manipulators, who sow such (induced) naivete (such misinformation; such fear... such things) like toxic weeds among (and thereby seek to poison) the staple, sustaining crops (of a democratic society, of civilization) of knowledge, understanding and judgement (etc).