Get News & Views Updates
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Campaign Case May Have Set Course for Supreme Court
WASHINGTON - As the Supreme Court nears the midpoint of its annual term and prepares to hear several momentous cases, one question looms: Will the justices' split decision reversing past rulings and allowing new corporate spending in political races set the tone for the term, or will Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission be an exception?
Nearly 70 cases await resolution this term. Front row, from left: Justice Anthony Kennedy, Justice John Paul Stevens, Chief Justice John Roberts, Justice Antonin Scalia and Justice Clarence Thomas. Back row: Justices Samuel Alito, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor. "Is this a turning point?" asks Pamela Harris,
director of Georgetown Law's Supreme Court Institute. Harris notes that
Chief Justice John Roberts'
concurring opinion in the campaign-finance case defended reversing past
rulings that have been, as Roberts wrote, "so hotly contested that
(they) cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future
cases."
"That is an incredibly muscular vision of when you would overrule precedent," which usually guides justices in new cases, Harris says. "That makes it look like this is a court that's ready to go."
Several pending cases - some that already have been argued, some that will be argued in upcoming weeks - are likely to show the reach of the Roberts Court and its boldness.
Temple University law professor David Kairys expects the Citizens United to distinguish the Roberts Court for years. "I think it will actually define more than this particular term," he says. "It might define the Roberts Court."
CAMPAIGN SPENDING: New eraAmong the most closely watched disputes: whether the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms covers regulation by states and cities; whether people who signed petitions for a ballot referendum against gay marriage have a First Amendment right to keep their names private; and whether a board set up to regulate public accounting firms after the Enron and Worldcom scandals violates the separation of powers and infringes on the executive branch.
That last case, Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Company Accounting Oversight Board, could challenge the legal consensus that Congress has the power to establish and set rules for certain independent agencies and their members within the executive branch. Some conservatives, including Justice Antonin Scalia, have argued in some situations that only the president can remove executive officials.
Big cases ahead
Citizens United reinforced the court's caustic ideological divide and may have signaled what's to come in the nearly 70 cases that await resolution through July.
The same acrimonious split was seen earlier in January when the five-justice conservative majority - Roberts, Scalia and Justices Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito- blocked broadcast of a federal trial in San Francisco on the constitutionality of California's ban on same-sex marriage.
Dissenting were the same four who protested in Citizens United: Justices John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor.
ON THE DOCKET: Major cases facing the Supreme Court
The majority in the dispute over Proposition 8 - the 2008 voter initiative that banned gay marriage - said lower-court judges failed to follow procedures for notifying the public about the potential broadcasts, and it accepted arguments that the broadcasts could lead to the harassment of witnesses who had supported the same-sex marriage ban.
Dissenters countered that "the public interest weighs in favor of providing access to the courts" and accused the majority of "extraordinary intervention" in local affairs.
Kairys sees the current majority as the most conservative in decades. "It really is their time. They seem to have this undercurrent of, 'Let's do the things we want to do while we're in control.' "
President Obama appointed Sotomayor last year and may get another appointment or two. But the Democratic president's nominees would likely succeed liberals, who are among the older members of this bench. Stevens will turn 90 in April, Ginsburg 77 in March. Roberts, who is 55, and his fellow conservatives are generally the younger justices.
Accusations of activism
Of the 11 signed opinions the court has issued for the term, Citizens United was the most consequential.
Kairys argues that because of how money shapes politics, Citizens United marks "a change in the whole system of democracy."
Notre Dame law professor Richard Garnett is among analysts who see it as having less of an impact.
"Citizens United did not really dramatically change the presence of 'corporate' money in politics," he says. "It was there before, and always will be, for better or worse."
Yet Garnett is watching pending constitutional cases.
In Stevens' dissent in Citizens United, he referred to the "majority's agenda" and strongly suggested the majority was not "serious about judicial restraint."
Roberts, who said during his confirmation hearings in 2005 that his job would be "to call balls and strikes and not to pitch or bat," defended himself against criticism of conservative activism.
The chief justice cited what he saw as flaws in past campaign-finance cases that needed to be addressed and wrote, "There is a difference between judicial restraint and judicial abdication."
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

48 Comments so far
Show AllYes, and Roberts will always find that "difference" when it suits him ideologically.
There is probably 200 people in the USA who really care about this.
MSNBC's "instant poll" on the day of the Citizens United decision showed 92% opposition to it. I couldn't find an equivalent poll on Fox for contrast. 92% is far more than 200 people. I think the people are way ahead of the "elite" on this issue, but don't know what to do about it. It's up to us to assemble constructive ways for the public to express that dissent ...
I think people sense, subconsciously, what needs to be done...I just don't think they're ready, consciously, to do it...yet...
economics now provide what nature used to provide: life's necessities...we are prisoners of our economy, due to the privatization of property...
changing the world will require the sacrificing of the economy, and one's property, as the underlying structure of our existence, and the resurgence of the natural world in that role...
not many want to sacrifice property, or lose homes without some means of survival intact...that is why we must begin preparing now, for September 22, 2012...
let's get those gardens growing...
And there are 200 million who really should.
Bill from Saginaw
It bothers me that there has been so little publicity of the fact that the 5 'activist' judges were all appointed by Republican Presidents. While I am continually disappointed by democrats, republicans seem far worse. In the case of Supreme Court Justices, a Presidential legacy often lives a long time. The Dubya legacy of Alito and Roberts may alter US history for several decades. Personally, I am astounded that people have trashed the future of our nation with votes for Nader and Greens.
I'm astounded people have trashed the future of our nation with votes for Democrats an Republicans.
Referring to DCH's comment of 200 people in this nation who care about the recent court ruling giving even more power to the corporate world, there is a political reality in America that does not give a shit about the tiny minority who inhabit this Common Dream world. We have the freedom to vote for independents and thereby allow more Republicans to steal our future for further decades with their activist judges. The American political system is so constraining that our attempts to swim free of it, inevitably merely sinks the hook deeper into our flesh.
The Democrats have done exactly what with the filibuster proof majority and mandate the voters handed them? Other than squander it away of course through their continuous support of corporate greed. A vote for Democrats OR Republicans is nothing more than as vote for the end of our civilisation. Gripe about it all you like. I voted for the Democratic candidates and they screwed us. Not one more dollar, not one more vote.
You'd have us continue to elect the same republican and democratic criminals again and again? You prefer evil I guess, as the lesser of two evils is still evil.
Perhaps the most poisonous legacy bequeathed to the American public by the combined Bush errors (Daddy & Ne'er do well son) has been Thomas, Roberts, & Alito.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
Dimocrats slid right-wing crackpots Roberts and Alito into the court without even token resistance during their confirmation hearings--praising them for their fine credentials and level-headedness all the way. If they'd EVER act like a goddamned opposition Party that did its homework on nominees they might occasionally fluster and embarrass the GOP into behaving in the flustered and embarrassed way the Dimocrats ROUTINELY behave whenever one of their nominees is up before confirmation hearings.
You paint with too broad a brush. As I recall most Democrats DID vote against Roberts and Alito. And you can bet that Al Gore would not have nominated those 2 "crackpots", as you accuratley describe them. So we can, once again, thank Nader for 'Citizens United' for helping to put into office the crackpot-in-chief who did. I don't understand why some progressives are always out to sabbotage the Democratic party with the attitude that having a piece of the pie rather than all of it is worse than none. For whatever nutty ideas they may have, the wingers on the Right at least had the wisdom to take take over the Republican Party from within. And it worked. If progressives would stick together long enough they could do the same with the Democratic Party. With a marriage of reason and shrewdness they could be unstoppable.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
The final Senate vote to confirm John Roberts as a Justice of the Supreme Court was Republicans 55 pro, 0 con; Dimocrats 22 pro, 22 con, and Independents 1 pro. Dims helped confirm Antonin Scalia (98 pro to 0 against) back in the glory daze of Clinton/Gore.
[Source: http://www.c-span.org/congress/roberts_senate.asp]
"For whatever nutty ideas they may have, the wingers on the Right at least had the wisdom to take take over the Republican Party from within. And it worked. If progressives would stick together long enough they could do the same with the Democratic Party. With a marriage of reason and shrewdness they could be unstoppable."
The wingers on the Right, including the predominantly white Christian fundamentalist mega-churches, the Christian Coalition and Moral Majority were made up of affluent, predominantly upper-middle-class members with torrents of upper-class corporate and plutocratic money piled on them and every think tank, candidate, media outlet, astro-turf "movement," and university "student movement" they could easily buy. The American "Left" has nothing to compare in terms of funding.
So if you half-assed, half-lie-ful Dimocratic apologists would quit wallowing in 30 years of dismal policy betrayals & failures based on the kind of spineless appeasement you preach you might also realize not all of us exist inside the TARP-bubble market you suck on as part of the affluent investor classes. We don't buy your loser bullshit and your selective ignorance of the falsified felon voter list in Florida (re: NAACP vs. Florida Secretary of State Katherine Harris) anymore. Piss off.
And of the 22 who voted con do they not get some credit? Can't we work together to have more like them? But I guess all Democrats are the same in your mind. And yeah, Harris and the falsified felon list aside, we lost way more votes to Nader (97,488 to be exact or 1.6% of the vote). Now with the Roberts court, Florida was the gift to Republicans that keeps on giving. FYI Scalia was a Reagan appointee, not Clinton.
And yeah, Harris and the falsified felon list aside, we lost way more votes to Nader (97,488 to be exact or 1.6% of the vote).
-----------------------------------------
Aren't you embarrassed to say something like that? You're essentially saying "if we ignore the data that shows Nader wasn't the problem, then Nader was the problem.". Or, said another way, "if we ignore the data that proves me wrong, I'm right". Do you truly not see the silliness in that?
What data? So I guess you are trying to convince me that Harris' falsified list had more than 97,488 names on it. I don't think so. There were alot of problems with Florida. But, unless you are totally blind, you have to acknowledge that Nader was a BIG part of it. The point is that a faction of progressives flew of the handle and we lost. One year passed the Bush Administration we now have the "Citizens' United" decision, and there will be still MORE corporate money available to corrupt our elections. I would hope that even Nader could see through his ego long enough to consider how GROSSLY counter productive his effort in 2000 has turned out to be. Amazingly that lesson somehow seems to continue to be lost on some of us.
Gore failed to carry Arkansas (Clinton's home state!) and even Tennessee (his *own* home state!). The Dems *failed* to contest Harris's illegal purge list, *failed* to contest the GOP-designed "butterfly" ballot, *failed* to contest the "Brooks Bros riot", *failed* to contest the judicial coup, and *failed* to mount a challenge in Congress to the blatant theft of the election.
But feel free to claim whatever you like, however illogical and unsupported by fact.
Cicero: "Freedom is participation in power."
My mistake, Scalia was appointed under Ronald Raygun in 1986, but he still received a 98-0 unanimous confirmation vote in the Senate for which there is no Democratic Party excuse. My how time flies as the Dims sell the country down the river. The failures of the Democratic Party and Gore campaign cited by Mairead above plus the vote of the Scalia Five in Bush vs. Gore had far more to do with Bush seizing the throne in 2000 than ~ 90,000 Nader votes scattered across several States. The falsified felon voter list in Florida was estimated to have somewhere between 75,000 and as many as 90,000 names of eligible voters on it and Florida was the State that the election came down to in 2000. Where were all you gung-ho DLC types back then? Why weren't you political geniuses prepared for the onslaught of GOP dirty tricks you should have seen coming based on Karl Rove's past campaign scams? YOU are the ones who blew it.
As long as the rich and famous are exclusively voted into office, the poor and anonymous will never have a voice. This country would dramatically change direction if there were a part of the legislative branch, say the House, where the maximum annual income of it's members would top out at
$75,000, and each law sent to the President had to be reconciled between Senate and House members. Then the lower financial classes could be better represented by the government.
Or, pay the lower of the median or modal scheduled (non-exec) civil-service wage, provide housing and transportation (a Metro pass) as perqs, and continue the wage as unemployment comp for 2-3 years after leaving office.
How about we let the people make the laws? We no longer need 'representation.'
This is about, if not the worst, US Supreme Court in history. We should impeach the five who backed this nutty decision on the rights of the moneyed elite. The Warren Court was better by a country mile, but the far right was always calling for Earl Warren's impeachment. We need to push just as strong for an impeachment of these goons and their destruction of our rights.
AD
You can be assured that this is about covering Barack Obama's @$$ for the past campaign trangressions, and installing him in the White House again in the future, as a well-disguised Republican Trojan horse. And whomever they want in after that. Because, for the most part, true Dems aren't treacherous and immoral enough to make the kind of do-ray-mee that Pugs make lying, cheating, and stealing. Dems can't compete in the dirty money arena.
And Obama just sits by and does nothing, aside from putting on the show at the beginning of the SOTU.
Thanks to everyone who voted for him without researching his background first. YOU got what THEY paid for, and now we're ALL PAYING!!
Although the Dems have gone along with appointments it may fundamentally really not be a party thing. I think Michael Parenti said it best when someone asked him "is there a difference between the two parties?" He said the real question is not is there a difference BUT does the difference make a difference.
They are all bought and paid for, all of them. How do we get past that? How do we instill the urgency of the situation, Bill, to the 200 million? Why wasn't there an ad during the Super Bowl? How do we keep missing our opportunities? Since we were bamboozled by the charms and rhetoric of Obummer, how do we decide the next one? OMG FORBID, are they all nuts and we have somehow ended up in the alternative universe of hell?
And why is the government so concerned about one dick marrying another dick? WhoTF cares? Do what you want. Besides, we're all getting FITA and there aren't any laws being made about THAT!!
Yep. They're all nuts. You're in hell. Nailed it.
Greg R is astounded. He says so. He goes personal.
'Personally, I am astounded that people have trashed the future of our nation with votes for Nader and Greens.
Let em tell you Greg R., I have no regrets at all about campaigning on Ralph Nader's behalf. He's not perfect and he is now getting on in years with a well honed mind whose wisdom should have been exposed more. He was against the ongoing catastrophe in USA political skulduggery. He war correct and hit things on the button. You want real democracy? Yet you are astounded that people didn't vote for either for the main parties? Were you astounded that some people had sense? The greatest mistake made was encouraging the Democratic support to cast Nadar aside and to disparage him. To blame him for the Democratic Party's hierarchy's love affair with the Republicans in their pursuit of Political Power at the expense of democracy itself. They were and continue to be a disgrace to the USA and its democratic processes. Nader emphasised something of such import that he was blown away by the hubris and the arrogance of a Democratic party that monopolises political debate particularly through it's media and corporate allegiances. Hand in hand with their Republican brothers and sisters. And you are astounded?
How dare anyone vote for such a man! He wanted access to Presidential Television Debates too and to entirely reform the corruption of corporate power in political life. He required access to directly appeal to American citizenry in order to expose and to inform. Though not astounded, the filthy dirty tricks to undermine and to disparage that man especially by The Democratic party brought shame and disgrace to it, for me personally. And the lies and propaganda continues to be trotted out. Nader can stand tall and what's more he was principled and courageous.
Can that be said for Pelosi, Clinton, Emmanuel, Biden and Gates? Change you can believe in? War for Israel and millions more to suffer this warrior of a President. Shame on USA and its Zionist elites. And shame on those who are blind to the unnecessary suffering the evolving Empire's expansionist allies perpetrate in the third world. Greed hubris and destructive wars abroad will bring real terror home to roost one day soon on western posterity. Be happy!
The claim that the supreme court is above politics is nonsensical. The five who prevailed in this decision are faithful to a right wing agenda of increasing corporate power.
In the world that is coming into being, there will be no judges. Period.
And, for that matter, no high-order life. Unless we dedigitate damned *soon*.
We are a little subtler than Nazi Germany, but the same strategy pertains. Our Gestapo (Homeland Security) is not dragging people into the streets and shooting them or sending them to the camps, yet.
Germany had a constitution and an excellent legal system before the Nazis took power. The people, and the judiciary, thought that would hold the Nazis in check. When Hitler became Reich Chancellor, the SS burned the Reichstag (Germany's 9/11) and the Enabling act was put into place (Germany's Patriot Act) removing all the German's civil rights. (for their own protection. of course) Hitler soon moved on the Judiciary, the SA first removing all Jewish Judges, then putting dedicated Nazis in as the equivalent of our Supreme Court. They installed the philosophy that, "The Fuhrer is always right." Soon, anything that that the Nazis did was "legal." Anything that any opposition did, or any opinion not supportive of National Socialism was illegal. Death, torture or the camps was the result of any opposition.
Here, we don't have a Hitler, we just have corporations. They have bought and paid for the Legislative and Executive branches, then used them to get control of the Supreme Court.
Now they own it all, and We the People are pretty well screwed.
- the SS burned the Reichstag (Germany's 9/11) and the Enabling act was put into place (Germany's Patriot Act) -
I disagree. It is not our 'Patriot Act' that is the same catalyst.
After 9/11, Congress passed Public Law 107-40. This is the enabling act for the insanity that we suffer.
What a law! It doesn't have a descriptive name*, declares war against enemies to be named later by the President. The House of Reps voted 420-1 for it, and they didn't bother to write down the names of those who voted for it.
The perfect stealth war law.
* only 'AUMF' - as in, the President can wield US military force...(but there's no enemy, yet).
Minitrue is correct when he/she says: "Now they own it all, and We the People are pretty well screwed." The reason for this is that the only way this Court's decision (Citizens United v FEC) can be reversed is through the legislature, either by enacting laws that curtail corporate largesse (e.g. requiring a majority vote of stockholders to approve specific political activity), or by 2/3 of both houses approving the movement of a resolution for a Constitutional amendment to more strictly define "free speech." If anyone believes that this Congress (which is incapable of providing "we the people" with reasonable healthcare reform, or of establishing reasonable regulatory oversight of the finance industry) can give us either of these means of relief, then I want to sell them some swampland in Florida. The Republicans will oppose anything that promises to rein in corporate largesse, and the "usual suspects" in the Democratic Party will ensure that they are successful in scuttling anything meaningful.
The only hope I have is that the excesses that inevitably will flow from CU v FEC will eventually elicit enough outrage among "we the people" that we will do whatever is necessary to take back our government. But there's going to be a lot of pain in the interim, and quite possibly, the death of American democracy.
This is truly a frightening time in our history.
No need to be afraid. It's over, the whole thing called the United States of America.
I agree. We are screwed.
"To desire something strongly enough to fight for it does not guarantee success. But it changes the odds. Our chance of overcoming such powerful opposition might be small, but they will go to zero only when the last of us gives up the struggle."
-- the late, ever-lamented cultural anthro Dr Marvin Harris (paraphrased)
I have never seen a more self-important attempt at an understated fashion statement than this group photo.
Before Reagan, we had a rich, promising future with promises for participation by all. Now it is gone. Greed, assisted by the strong influences of ignorance and racism got it done.
I voted for Nader, and I'd vote for him anytime! Sometimes it's not all about winning, but getting the IDEAS out there. Eugene Debbs had a million votes ( while in prison , no less...thank you Howard Zinn for that information.)
Did Debbs win? No, but those ideas, ah yes, the ideas, they lived on. Teddy Roosevelt and others got the credit, but is credit really that important when action is needed?
The dems and repubs are NOT parties of ideas, and Nader and others are keeping the pot stirring. IDEAS make a nation, and not parties...although, yeah, parties do seem to be able to UNmake things! If there were no Naders, how many of us would be gone due to death by misadventure of car culture?
"Harris notes that Chief Justice John Roberts' concurring opinion in the campaign-finance case defended reversing past rulings that have been, as Roberts wrote, "so hotly contested that (they) cannot reliably function as a basis for decision in future cases.""
Hotly contested? Let's hope they don't revisit the slavery issue. That was so hotly contested we had a war about it.
I understand that John Paul Stevens, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Sonia Sotomayor HOTLY CONTESTED the Citizens United ruling, so It should be reversed.
Or does this brand new legal boondoggle only work when righties hotly contest something?
We should replace all the left leaning jusctices with 20 year old communists while Obama is in power, so that the right never get a chance to hold a majority again.
And as soon as the left gets a supreme court majority to outlaw the GOP and anything to the right of Dennis Kusinich
Sorry 3 post error
Sorry, 3 posts to the wind
I like this quote-
"Michael Parenti said it best when someone asked him "is there a difference between the two parties?" He said the real question is not is there a difference BUT does the difference make a difference."
In Amerika I think the richest people are mostly Republicans, but lots are Democrats to.
Don't know of any Green billionaires: Do you?
The smartest don't use their lives to just make money.
They generally do much more interesting things. The problem is that the money buys their success.
And thereby many great minds are not given a chance.
And yes "A mind is a terrible thing to waste", especially when one of those minds might be the one that made a difference.
Think Albert Einstein and be a leisure teacher when you can. You are so lucky to know, pass it on.
Who knows who might end up replacing those Supreme greedy judges?
I like this quote-
"Michael Parenti said it best when someone asked him "is there a difference between the two parties?" He said the real question is not is there a difference BUT does the difference make a difference."
In Amerika I think the richest people are mostly Republicans, but lots are Democrats to.
Don't know of any Green billionaires: Do you?
The smartest don't use their lives to just make money.
They generally do much more interesting things. The problem is that the money buys their success.
And thereby many great minds are not given a chance.
And yes "A mind is a terrible thing to waste", especially when one of those minds might be the one that made a difference.
Think Albert Einstein and be a leisure teacher when you can. You are so lucky to know, pass it on.
Who knows who might end up replacing those Supreme greedy judges?