Opinion of Plutocrat SCOTUS Chief Roberts

[kairos12]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/01/john-roberts-campaign-finance_n_7191728.html
snip:

In explaining why judges are different from politicians -- and, therefore, why courts should distinguish judicial elections from legislative and executive elections when it comes to campaign finance rules -- Roberts wrote that it is vital that judges not be responsive to those who put them in office, but serve as neutral decision-makers.


On the other hand, he wrote, "Politicians are expected to be appropriately responsive to the preferences of their supporters. Indeed, such 'responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.'”

That quote-inside-a-quote comes from another Roberts-written decision, the 2014 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling that struck down aggregate campaign contribution limits. What is interesting about the whole passage is how Roberts redefined, from last year to this, the people to whom politicians are supposed to respond.

In McCutcheon, he wrote, “Representatives are not to follow constituent orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and responsive to those concerns. Such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.”

From McCutcheon to Williams-Yulee, the chief moved from saying that politicians are naturally responsive to “constituent orders” -- that is, the views of the voters who elected them -- to suggesting they should be responsive to “the preferences of their supporters” -- a broader term that sweeps in the donors who back them.

Constituents can pound sand. Supporters (i.e. checkbooks) are the group pols needs to be responsive to. SCOTUS further endorses our kleptocracy.

[GeorgeGist]

1. Roberts is a corporate hack.

[malthaussen]

2. He's actually trying to formulate a moral position here,

... but boy, is he confused. It's really quite hard to suspend disbelief enough to think he could be other than a corporate tool.

-- Mal