General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsFormer justice Stevens predicts cracks in Citizens United decision
Last edited Thu May 31, 2012, 06:17 AM - Edit history (2)
Former Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens took a poke at the controversial Citizens United decision Wednesday night and said his former colleagues have probably already had second thoughts about it.
(snip)
In remarks prepared for delivery at the University of Arkansas, Stevens predicted that the court will soon be forced to issue rulings that will undermine a key part of the Citizens United ruling -- that the First Amendment "prohibits the suppression of political speech based on the speaker's identity," including the fact that the speaker is a corporation.
The court's decision left undecided whether the same free speech right applies to foreign corporations. In due course, Stevens said, the court will be called upon to decide that question, forcing it to craft an exception "that will create a crack in the foundation of the Citizens United majority opinion."
"The court must then explain its abandonment of, or at least qualify its reliance upon, the proposition that the identity of the speaker is an impermissible basis for regulating campaign speech. It will be necessary to explain why the First Amendment provides greater protection of some non-voters than to that of other non-voters," he said.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2012/05/30/11969505-former-justice-predicts-cracks-in-citizens-united-decision?lite
Citizens United Attacks From Justice Stevens Continue
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/30/citizens-united-justice-stevens_n_1557721.html
A day after receiving the Presidential Medal of Freedom, retired Justice John Paul Stevens on Wednesday night backed President Barack Obama's suggestion during his 2010 State of the Union address that the Citizens United decision could lead to "foreign entities" bankrolling American elections.
He urged the U.S. Supreme Court to explicitly explain why the president's words were "not true," as Justice Samuel Alito famously mouthed on camera, breaking the justices' usual stoic appearance during the president's annual speech.
(snip)
"I think it is likely that when the court begins to spell out which categories of non-voters should receive the same protections as the not-for-profit Citizens United advocacy group, it will not only exclude terrorist organizations and foreign agents, but also all corporations owned or controlled by non-citizens, and possibly even those in which non-citizens have a substantial interest," Stevens said, referencing a case in which he joined the Citizens United majority to hold that speech made or funded by terrorist groups have no First Amendment protection. "Where that line will actually be drawn will depend on an exercise of judgment by the majority of members of the court, rather than on any proposition of law identified in the Citizens United majority opinion."
diane in sf
(3,919 posts)pscot
(21,024 posts)Canuckistanian
(42,290 posts)... when Texas executes one of them.
nanabugg
(2,198 posts)count on it!
uponit7771
(90,370 posts)rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)The balance of power is totally out of whack. The POTUS can override Congress with the veto or just not "enthusiastically" enforcing laws (GW Bush), Congress can override the President's veto. These are not hard to do. But once the SCOTUS makes a decision, it is very hard to over turn.
TheKentuckian
(25,034 posts)and dog those all the way trying to shake them loose just like they do. You think without some kind of deep cover operation or a random turnabout that we could even nominate someone as left wing as even Kennedy is right, much less a Scalia or an Alito? No fucking way, the wailing and gnashing of teeth would be heard through the vacuum of space.
We have ceded the courts to the extremists who do not share our values and worship Mammon. These men are pretty much open global corporate fascists. Of course they swore oaths and told lies but let's get real, nobody is blown off the plate that we have a crew of Arch Conservatives, at the bare minimum.
The lower levels are probably worse on average and the situation is like this not from a structural defect but from operator error on the part of Democrats. It is not permissible to allow the opposition to stack extremist while we go with very moderate.
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I begged my Sen Murray and Cantwell to vote no. Cantwell ignored me (not surprising) and Murray said she thought the President should have his pick.
Extremist should be countered with extreme objections.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Marshall said it is the Court's job to "say what the law is." That has been the law of the land for two centuries.
If the Court were something other than a bunch of partisan hacks (Roberts, Alito, Thomas, et al.) they would do their damn job.
This is why elections matter. This is why it is paramount that we re-elect President Obama.
NOW GET BUSY!
Bake
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)on himself to make that decision.
Bake
(21,977 posts)Imagine what happens with three perfectly co-equal branches. Congress and the Prez decide to pass a law that is patently unconstitutional. Should they be able to do it?
Somebody has to be the final arbiter, whether the Founders envisioned it or not. And like it or not, that somebody is SCOTUS.
Bake
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)They can remove Congress members and the President fairly easily if the citizens think they are passing unconstitutional laws. And the laws can be changed. But if the SCOTUS establishes a law (interprets) then the citizens are pretty much helpless. Constitutional amendments are very difficult to get passes. And the hands of the President and Congress are tied.
As far as "patently unconstitutional", there really isnt such a thing. Constitutionality (since Marshall) is determined by the SCOTUS and can change as Citizens United proved. They reversed precedent.
John Marshall (and his court) took it upon himself, without Congress and without the President and without the citizens, to assign the SCOTUS as the final arbiter. It isnt in the Constitution. So in my opinion, the decision to make the SCOTUS as final arbiter is unconstitutional.
And dont think the Founders hadnt thought of this. They purposely restricted the SCOTUS very severly.
Bake
(21,977 posts)The Civil Rights Act would have been unconstitutional according to the majority, just for example.
Bake
rhett o rick
(55,981 posts)I do not advocate for a direct democracy but a constitutionally controlled democratic republic like the Constitution sets up. The Civil Rights Act is a great example how the system should work as set up by our Founders. The law was written and passed by representatives acting on behalf of citizens. The law was signed by the President acting on behalf of the citizens. Had the citizens objected they could have at least tried to persuade Congress and the President not to pass the law. And if unsuccessful they could have elected representatives that would change the law. This law got passed without any help of the SCOTUS. However, a conservative activist court could have or actually still can deem this law unconstitutional as they recently did with the McCain-Feingold Bill.
The Constitution does not allow the SCOTUS the judicial review authority and the decision to give them that authority was not given by either Congress, the President or the citizens. They gave themselves that authority. I think Citizen's United is the tip of the conservative, activist SCOTUS iceberg.