The paragraph below is a summary from scotusblog of web reactions to the SC overturning the Montana Citizens United law. A few interesting reactions here, especially from Dahlia Lithwick, whose comment that the SC wasn't influenced at all by "lingering public outrage over Citizens United, suggests that the same will be true of the ACA ruling, and John Samples of Cato, who reminds us how these 5 men on the SC are more than willing to make radical decisions that affect us all in profound ways with no regard for the fact that there are many people who disagree with them, and with no regard for stare decisis. I guess the professionals would call them "principled." So principled that they had to lie about the latter fact during their confirmation hearings. Just one more sacrifice for the common good, lol.
And finally, the Court issued a summary reversal in American Tradition Partnership, Inc. v. Bullock, holding that “there can be no serious doubt” that Citizens United v. FEC renders the Montana campaign finance law at issue – which prohibited corporations from spending money on elections in the state – unconstitutional. Jess Bravin covered the decision for the Wall Street Journal. Dahlia Lithwick, writing for Slate, observes that “one of the most interesting lessons here is that the sense of lingering public outrage over Citizens United—deserved or not—influenced the court not one little bit on this issue.” Rick Hasen of Election Law Blog argues that “taking the case would have been an opportunity for the majority of Supreme Court justices to make things worse,” while at Balkinization, Marvin Ammori analyzes the reasoning behind the Court’s decision. And at Cato@Liberty, John Samples highlights the decision as a reminder that “if one justice in the Citizens United majority leaves the Court, and President Obama selects his replacement, Citizens United will almost immediately be overturned.” |
