Quote:
Originally Posted by Taltarzac725
Louis Brandeis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
That decision kind of brings the power of international corporations into the US political process through the right of free speech. Quite a puzzle when you see that the champion of free speech--Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis-- also fought against big business' corruption of political affairs. These ads are mass consumerism at its worst-- just applied to campaigns. Mass consumerism was another target of Associate Justice Louis Brandeis.
Cannot see how President Obama or Mitt Romney could win without the use of the huge war chests that allow these kind of ads' continual bombardment of our air waves. So, I cannot really blame the Republican and Democrat candidates.
|
Great historical "catch".
Personally, I've often thought that the Supreme Court should largely rule on the Consitutionality of the cases they choose to hear. That is, they shoudn't be in the business of "making law from he bench". But when there are cases like Citizens United, when it's crystal clear that the framers of the Constitution could not possibly have anticipated the inadequacies of the Constitution in the context of the present day, then I think it's time for the Court to make law that is not pure constructionist.
Said another way, when the Court can clearly see that a constructionist interpretation of the law effecting a ruling would not be in the best interests of the people, then they should rule accordingly...just like the lower appeals out had ruled which they overturned with the Citizens United decision. That is, the Court should be constructionist except in cases when common sense says the result will be destructive.
I think Citizens United was one of those cases when the Court should have varied from their ideology and used some common sense.