The Supreme Court’s Shoddy Scholarship

[marmar]

from Truthdig:



The Supreme Court’s Shoddy Scholarship

Posted on Jan 24, 2010
By Ruth Marcus


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.

Many of those commenting on the decision in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission have focused on the power grab part. I agree. It was unnecessary for the court to go so far when there were several less-radical grounds available. It was audacious to seize the opportunity to overrule precedents when the parties had not pressed this issue and the lower courts not considered it. It was the height of activism to usurp the judgments of Congress and state legislatures about how best to prevent corruption of the political process.

“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 Roberts—back when—and dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens rightly turned that line against him.

As bad as the court’s activism, though, was its shoddy scholarship. ........(more)

The complete piece is at: http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/the_supreme_courts_shoddy_scholarship_20100124/?ln

[Blue Owl]

1. Them and their "justice"

whatever the fuck that means these days...

[bleever]

2. Even Rehnquist got it:

In a 1982 case, the court—in a unanimous opinion by then-Justice William Rehnquist—noted that Congress, in writing campaign finance law, was entitled to “considerable deference” in taking into account “the particular legal and economic attributes of corporations and labor organizations” and had made “a permissible assessment of the dangers posed by those entities to the electoral process.” Four years later, even as it carved out an exception for nonprofit corporations, the court reaffirmed “the need to restrict the influence of political war chests funneled through the corporate form.”