How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision.
Last edited Tue Oct 9, 2018, 11:19 PM - Edit history (2)
From https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2012/05/21/money-unlimited
How Chief Justice John Roberts orchestrated the Citizens United decision.
May 21, 2012 Issue
By Jeffrey Toobin
https://media.newyorker.com/photos/590967351c7a8e33fb38d74d/master/w_1454,c_limit/120521_r22203_g2048.jpg
By having the case reargued, Roberts put the liberals in a box and transformed the decisions impact on political campaigns.
Illustration by Barry Blitt
When Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission was first argued before the Supreme Court, on March 24, 2009, it seemed like a case of modest importance. The issue before the Justices was a narrow one. The McCain-Feingold campaign-finance law prohibited corporations from running television commercials for or against Presidential candidates for thirty days before primaries. During that period, Citizens United, a nonprofit corporation, had wanted to run a documentary, as a cable video on demand, called Hillary: The Movie, which was critical of Hillary Clinton. The F.E.C. had prohibited the broadcast under McCain-Feingold, and Citizens United had challenged the decision. There did not seem to be a lot riding on the outcome. After all, how many nonprofits wanted to run documentaries about Presidential candidates, using relatively obscure technologies, just before elections?
Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., summoned Theodore B. Olson, the lawyer for Citizens United, to the podium. Robertss voice bears a flat-vowelled trace of his origins, in Indiana. Unlike his predecessor, William Rehnquist, Roberts rarely shows irritation or frustration on the bench. A well-mannered Midwesterner, he invariably lets one of his colleagues ask the first questions.
That day, it was David Souter, who was just a few weeks away from announcing his departure from the Court. In keeping with his distaste for Washington, Souter seemed almost to cultivate his New Hampshire accent during his two decades on the Court. In response to Souters questions, Olson made a key point about how he thought the case should be resolved. In his view, the prohibitions in McCain-Feingold applied only to television commercials, not to ninety-minute documentaries. This sort of communication was not something that Congress intended to prohibit, Olson said. This view made the case even more straightforward. Olsons argument indicated that there was no need for the Court to declare any part of the law unconstitutional, or even to address the First Amendment implications of the case. Olson simply sought a judgment that McCain-Feingold did not apply to documentaries shown through video on demand.
The Justices settled into their usual positions. The diminutive Ruth Bader Ginsburg was barely visible above the bench. Stephen Breyer was twitchy, his expressions changing based on whether or not he agreed with the lawyers answers. As ever, Clarence Thomas was silent. (He was in year three of his now six-year streak of not asking questions.)
.
...
More at link.
byronius
(7,401 posts)Right up there with Bush v. Gore and Dred Scott.
Purposeful mayhem by the 'Wise Elders'.
saidsimplesimon
(7,888 posts)I disagree but have no legal recourse. How about an emotional response? A POX on your house and my regrets to the horse you rode in on.
Trust Buster
(7,299 posts)Look at the irony the Jeff flake example offers. Lobbyist jobs have always been lucrative. But, after the deluge of money that flooded Washington in the wake of Citizens United, lobbyist jobs pays for name recognition to an obscene degree. Therefore, when a Flake, who is leaving Congress, or a Collins who will soon be leaving, have to vote on a Supreme Court nominee who has sexually assaulted women, committed perjury before the Senate and goes on a Clinton conspiracy rant during his hearing, Flake and Collins must still vote to confirm. They must because millions of future dollars await them if they are good republican team players. Flake is leaving Congress but not Washington because he knows there is gold in them there hills.
Therefore, Roberts and his Citizens United acrobatics created a circular firing squad that history will record as the failed Roberts Court.
Golden Raisin
(4,613 posts)were 2 extremely important and deadly blows to our Democracy.