Ruth Bader Ginsburg:'I would overturn SCOTUS Citizens United Ruling-Our System Is Polluted by Money'

[kpete]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg: I would overturn supreme court's Citizens United ruling
US supreme court justice speaks to Georgetown Law class and says 2010 decision on campaign finance would be the one case she’d pick to undo




If Ruth Bader Ginsburg could overturn any of the decisions made by America’s highest court in the past 10 years, it would be the sweeping 2010 decision that expanded corporate personhood.

While answering questions at Georgetown University Law Center in Washington, the supreme court justice said that if she had to pick one case to undo, it would be the Citizens United decision. “I think our system is being polluted by money,” Ginsburg said.

Ginsburg said she is optimistic that “sensible restrictions” on campaign financing will one day be in place, quoting her late husband Martin Ginsburg to explain why: “The true symbol of the United States is not the eagle, it’s the pendulum – when it swings too far in one direction, it will swing back.”







MORE HERE:
http://www.theguardian.com/law/2015/feb/04/ruth-bader-ginsburg-supreme-court-citizens-united

[shenmue]

1. I love her

She is awesome!

[napkinz]

2. K&R

nt

[BrotherIvan]

3. What a great human being she is

I admire her so much. Thank God she is still on the bench.

[madokie]

4. without her

we'd be fucked six ways to sunday

[BrotherIvan]

7. Definitely

And as she has so much seniority and might retire, she is also bold in speaking out which is also very needed. She is a national treasure.

[Stellar]

32. "You can't have truth without Ruth"!

[URL=.html][IMG][/IMG][/URL]

[Jefferson23]

5. Of course she would, it is the most destructive leverage the elite have to control Americans.

K&R for a great, great woman...the very good Justice Ginsburg.

[Terra Alta]

6. I adore Ginsburg

She is my favorite Supreme Court justice. Wish they all were like her.

[merrily]

8. Listen up, Ruth. I want you to live forever. Got it?

[LuvNewcastle]

9. We've got to have her for at least 20 more years.

[BootinUp]

10. The Pope should consider making her a saint. nt

[markpkessinger]

27. An unabashedly liberal, feminist, Jewish American woman named a saint . . .

. . . I can see Bill Donahue's head spinning already!

[BootinUp]

37. Is he that right wing bishop or head of some Catholic org that gets on TV?

Yes, seeing his head spin would be enjoyable.

[markpkessinger]

38. Yes . . the Catholic League . . .

. . . which I've become convinced consists solely of Bill Donahue, his PC and an internet connection!

[lobodons]

11. Too bad she couldn't go back 15 years

Just think how much better off this country would be if she could have gone back 15 years to undo a decision.

[lovemydog]

15. Indeed. Sadly, it was a 5-4 decision. Here's part of her dissent:

The Court assumes that time will not permit “orderly judicial review of any disputed matters that might arise.” Ante, at 12. But no one has doubted the good faith and diligence with which Florida election officials, attorneys for all sides of this controversy, and the courts of law have performed their duties. Notably, the Florida Supreme Court has produced two substantial opinions within 29 hours of oral argument. In sum, the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD2.html

[rurallib]

12. Wonder where she would put Bush v. Gore on her list to overturn?

[lovemydog]

14. Here's her dissent in Bush v. Gore:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/00-949.ZD2.html

[lovemydog]

13. When one sees her speak in person or on youtube,

you notice her calm demeanor & weight of her words. She speaks softly and carries a big stick. A brilliant Justice.

[raven mad]

16. K&R

I don't believe in cloning; but I'd take 100 of Justice Ginsburg.

[skepticscott]

17. In the first place, it wasn't that sweeping a decision

and it didn't have any effect on direct campaign contributions at all-those laws were left exactly as they'd had been before. Whatever mess money had made of things, it was pretty much that big a mess before CU. CU addressed one aspect of spending by third parties on political ads, and that's it. Second, it didn't significantly expand corporate personhood, and didn't need to. Free political speech can't be restricted by Congress under the First Amendment, period. Where the speech is coming from is irrelevant. Third, why is she wanting to overturn CU? Because it was clearly and demonstrably wrong from a constitutional standpoint? If that's her claim, neither she nor anyone else has made a convincing argument to that effect. Because it (allegedly) had undesirable consequences? So did Mapp v Ohio. Criminals who were clearly guilty went free because evidence was excluded. Is she agreeing with conservatives who ranted for years that that decision should be overturned? And if it's because it offends her personal political ideology, then that's the worst possible reason for a Supreme Court justice to publicly denounce a decision.

[FiveGoodMen]

18. "CU addressed one aspect of spending by third parties on political ads, and that's it"

That's more than enough.

Ads are what do the trick.

[skepticscott]

19. And what trick do they do?

In a country this large and this populous, how else would you prefer that political messages be disseminated?

[FiveGoodMen]

20. That's the point.

If you let a group with too much money buy all the ads they want, then they will win.

They will win if they're promoting the KKK.

They will win if they tell us Hitler was right all along.

They will win with candidates who literally hate democracy because they can pull enough wool over enough eyes.

That's why you need limits. We can't have any kind of democracy with one-dollar-one-vote.

[skepticscott]

22. Why will they win? Why MUST they win?

Are you saying that if YOU saw enough ads saying that Hitler was right all along that you'd eventually believe it? If not, then why are you assuming that your fellow voters are so vapid and easily swayed that all it takes is enough ads, no matter how poorly argued or unpersuasive, to change their minds about anything? And what if the other side is also putting out ads arguing the opposite point of view? Do those have no effect whatsoever?

[FiveGoodMen]

24. Have been paying attention to the nonsense that people have been voting for?

One congressman doesn't think food handlers should have to wash their hands after going to the bathroom.

One says minimum wage is good enough for teens and minorities but not adult whites.

Tons of them say that keep the poor from starving is taking away their freedom. (Freedom to die, one supposes)

They say these things in public and in front of microphones because they know their base will agree with them.

Why? Because enough propaganda will be shoved down their throats that they believe that shit.

It's why the Dems keep losing the majority.

And the Dems can't (and definitely shouldn't) try the same thing because it's the negative (and dishonest) ads that have the most effect.

[skepticscott]

25. Like it or not, other people have a right to make their voting decisions

based on information and for reasons that you think are foolish. Just as you have the right to make voting decisions for reasons they think are foolish. The Constitution gives neither of you the right to make the decision for the other, or to decide how the other should be allowed to obtain the information that they base their decision on. And it certainly doesn't say that only political ads that make perfect sense and are 100% honest and accurate should be permitted.

[FiveGoodMen]

26. Sidestepping the fact that -- post-CU -- one side gets to do almost all the talking.

Thanks. You've told me all I need to know.

[skepticscott]

33. "Almost all"? Seriously?

Give us a strict numerical criterion for "almost all", and then prove that campaign spending on behalf of Republicans meets that standard. And prove that it was well below that standard before CU.

Btw, the Constitution also doesn't say "Congress shall make no law restricting the freedom of speech, except when one side in an election is having a lot more success getting their message out than the other, in which case Congress shall step in and level the playing field."

Makes me wonder if you would still be so wedded to whatever principle you're touting if the Dems were outspending the Repugs 3-1, and kicking their asses in every election. Would you still be so gung-ho that something must be done to level the playing field, to preserve democracy, or is all that matters is that your side wins?

[V0ltairesGh0st]

21. I love her so much

I wonder if she feels like Orwell did when he said.

“We have now sunk to a depth at which restatement of the obvious is the first duty of intelligent men.”

in this case a very intelligent woman.

[hifiguy]

23. Justice Ginsburg is a national treasure.

Good health and long life to her!

[appalachiablue]

28. Great Lady. What wisdom & good fortune we have from her.

And a Pearl before some Swine she is!

[Enthusiast]

29. K&R! This post deserves hundreds of recommendations!

Thank you, Justice Ginsburg.

[Hekate]

30. She looks like a bundle of twigs, but in reality is the Rock of Gibraltar in strength

Fear the frill! I admire her tremendously.

[1StrongBlackMan]

31. While this is good news ...

and I agree with, and welcome, her position, I wish she had held that to herself.

In order to prevent the appearance of bias/impropriety, the Code of Conduct (governing Federal Judges) frowns upon the issuance of public statement indicating or suggesting that a Judge has an opinion on any matter that might (is likely to) appear before the court.

That said, SCJs, particularly those on the right, have decided that they are not bound by the Code of Conduct ... it interferes in their money making and partisan agenda.

[skepticscott]

34. Agreed in principle

And those who claim to be arguing on principle should not be hailing this. In reality, it might be easier and more honest if both sides just acknowledged that the Supreme Court and the law in general have been pretty much completely subverted by politics and political ideology. Lip service aside, very few people care any more about impartial decision making by judges (To the extent they ever did). It's all about your side winning.

[1StrongBlackMan]

35. I agree that ...

the parties to the suit do not care about impartial decision making (except when they lose and can use that as the reason/excuse) ... the parties never have.

But the only authority that government ever has is granted when Mr. and Ms. We D. People, have confidence in the legitimacy of that government, and that includes the impartiality of the courts.

Public comments from the judiciary that their mind is made up, even before the case in heard ... would shake the confidence of even the most disengaged, among us.

[Octafish]

36. ''Our System Is Polluted by Money''

It's worth a kick, democracy.

[DFW]

39. As long as the motto of the Bush-Reagan Five is "Saved By Money"

The pollution will continue.

[Dont call me Shirley]

40. I love her.

[Agony]

41. Individuals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg can not save us.

only WE can save US.

That doesn't change anything about the fact that she is a very, very good person.