Chief Justice Roberts Accidentally Reveals Everything That’s Wrong With Citizens United...

[babylonsister]

http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2015/04/30/3653023/supreme-court-reveals-everything-thats-wrong-citizens-united-four-ridiculous-sentences/

Chief Justice Roberts Accidentally Reveals Everything That’s Wrong With Citizens United In Four Sentences

by Ian Millhiser Posted on April 30, 2015 at 10:08 am


On Wednesday, a 5-4 Supreme Court held in Williams-Yulee v. Florida Bar that states may “prohibit judges and judicial candidates from personally soliciting funds for their campaigns.” It was a small but symbolically important victory for supporters of campaign finance laws, as it showed that there was actually some limit on the Roberts Court’s willingness to strike down laws limiting the influence of money in politics.

Chief Justice John Roberts’s opinion for the Court in Williams-Yulee is certainly better for campaign finance regulation than a decision striking down this limit on judicial candidates — had the case gone the other way, judges could have been given the right to solicit money from the very lawyers who practice before them. Yet Roberts also describes judges as if they are special snowflakes who must behave in a neutral and unbiased way that would simply be inappropriate for legislators, governors and presidents:

States may regulate judicial elections differently than they regulate political elections, because the role of judges differs from the role of politicians. Politicians are expected to be appropriately responsive to the preferences of their supporters. Indeed, such “responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.” The same is not true of judges. In deciding cases, a judge is not to follow the preferences of his supporters, or provide any special consideration to his campaign donors. A judge instead must “observe the utmost fairness,” striving to be “perfectly and completely independent, with nothing to influence or controul {sic} him but God and his conscience.” As in White, therefore, our precedents applying the First Amendment to political elections have little bearing on the issues here.

Most Americans would undoubtedly agree that judges should not “follow the preferences” of their political supporters, as they would agree that judges should not “provide any special consideration to his campaign donors.” But the implication of the passage quoted above is that members of Congress, state lawmakers, governors and presidents should provide such consideration to their supporters and to their donors. The President of the United States is the president of the entire United States. A member of Congress represents their entire constituency. Yet Roberts appears to believe that they should “follow the preferences” of their supporters and give “special consideration” to the disproportionately wealthy individuals who fund their election.

This view of lawmakers obedient to a narrow segment of the nation is not new. To the contrary, it drove much of the Court’s widely maligned campaign finance decision in Citizens United v. FEC. Justice Anthony Kennedy’s majority opinion in Citizens United does not simply argue that “[f]avoritism and influence” are unavoidable in a representative democracy, it appears to suggest that they are a positive good. “It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors,” Kennedy wrote in Citizens United. “Democracy,” he added “is premised on responsiveness.”

[elleng]

1. EXACTLY!

[enough]

2. Staggeringly cynical and simultaneously naive to the point of stupidity. (nt)

[marym625]

3. Who would have thunk it!

Roberts!

His questions a couple days ago on the marriage equality arguments seem to lean toward constitutional right for it.

The lethal injection drug, however, eh. Not so good

[wilt the stilt]

28. well that's because he is gay

any question?


|

[KT2000]

4. So quid pro quo

is the law of the land according the Roberts.

[Enthusiast]

15. Pretty much. If your goal is to ruin the nation.

[dhol82]

5. Wow

I thought Kennedy was better than that.

I know he is the swing vote but I thought he actually had some consideration for what he said.

Silly me.

[appalachiablue]

6. K & R. Revealing Roberts..!

[global1]

7. Based On This Language That Applies To Judges Can The Citizens United Decision Be Reopened And....

challenged? Why - because it insinuates that politicians should and could provide such consideration to their supporters and their donors. That is flawed. It makes the politicians look like they are on the take (which they are) but I'm sure that that is not the message SCOTUS wants to put out for them.

Citizens United should be reopened and challenged.

[rurallib]

8. heard Nina Totenberg read that on NPR and fell down laughing.

way to go John. Hope it comes back to bite you big time.

[GeorgeGist]

9. Roberts is still a corporate hack.

[calimary]

16. And he's a fucking IDIOT. Of the first order. Any Chief Justice of the SCOTUS should know the

Presidential Oath of Office backwards and forwards - drunk, stoned, and half asleep. THAT is one of the special jobs of the Chief Justice. Swearing in the new President, or the newly-reelected President. The Chief Justice does that. Furthermore, as such, the Chief Justice has at least a couple of months - from Election Night on the First Tuesday in November til Inauguration Day on January 20th - early November through mid/semi-late January - to practice, to rehearse, to prepare. It's 35 words. A single long run-on sentence. ONE SENTENCE. And Chief Justice john IDIOT botched the oath. The first Presidential swearing-in - for the first-in-American-history African American President of the United States. HISTORIC. JUST MONDO MEGA HISTORIC.

As a retired news person I just about had a seizure. "YOU FUCKED UP THE SOUND BITE, YOU IDIOT!!!!!!!!!" I just screamed when I witnessed that. Notice, mind you, that whenever you see that video clip from THAT DAY, THAT HOUR, THAT INAUGURAL CEREMONY, THAT TAKING-of-the-OATH, there will be NOT ONE soundbite or video clip that will show or play the entire oath. That landmark never-to-be-had-again moment in this nation's history can never be fully savored again. That fucker ruined the damn soundbite.

You watch. WHENEVER there's a retrospective on the Presidency, or on Barack Obama's presidency, his eventual obit, ANYTHING on that order, you watch. They will have to bail out on that HISTORIC "I, Barack Hussein Obama, do solemnly swear..." BOOM. OUT. That's all they've got. For all time. That's all they can use - now and forever more, amen. That fucking idiot roberts ruined the historical record in a single instant. And it's not as though he was caught off-guard or had to rush over at the last minute or didn't understand his damn job or didn't have a chance to prepare or that it had some been kept secret from him until just moments before he had to administer the oath. He had almost THREE MONTHS to prepare, to rehearse, to memorize that very brief Presidential Oath, or at least write it down on a damn cue-card. He knew about THIS HISTORIC Inaugural - and about HIS own role in that historic moment, from the moment Barack Obama was pronounced the winner of the election on Election Night.

It pisses me off so much that I will be relentlessly reminding people of his idiocy as long as I draw breath. I will NEVER let this one go. OR let it be forgotten. john roberts is a FUCKING IDIOT. If he can't get 35 words right, with almost three months to prepare, I don't care what else he may do for the rest of his life. He's a FUCKING IDIOT. Then again, he was nominated by an idiot, so what else could we expect?

The oath of office of the President of the United States is an oath or affirmation required by the United States Constitution before the President begins the execution of the office. The wording is specified in Article Two, Section One, Clause Eight:

Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, he shall take the following Oath or Affirmation:— “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” (I counted 35 words - not including the "or affirm" part.)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oath_of_office_of_the_President_of_the_United_States

[Scootaloo]

21. Ah... here's the entire oath

Unless there's something i'm missing?

[mountain grammy]

25. He got it wrong, they had to redo it.

http://www.cnn.com/2009/POLITICS/01/21/obama.oath/index.html?eref

[Gothmog]

10. Roberts is trying to have it both ways

[calimary]

17. He's an idiot. See above.

[Orrex]

11. Scalia was pretty pissed off in his dissent.

Love it!

[calimary]

18. And HE'S a JERK!

[valerief]

12. That's his blessing on Pay to Play government. nt

[dreamnightwind]

13. Banana republicans

“It is well understood that a substantial and legitimate reason, if not the only reason, to cast a vote for, or to make a contribution to, one candidate over another is that the candidate will respond by producing those political outcomes the supporter favors,” Kennedy wrote in Citizens United. “Democracy,” he added “is premised on responsiveness.”

Wow. How can he overlook the obvious flaw with that logic? One person, one vote. One person, unlimited dollars, influence is decided by wealth not by how many constituents support a position. He probbably sees that as the people who are the biggest fish in society should have the most influence. Still, it takes some mental gymnastics to see such a position as appropriate to a democratic republic. Banana republic, sure.

[calimary]

23. Which means their expanding clown car is turning into a banana boat!

[RiverNoord]

14. Do politicans take oaths to advance the causes of their financial backers?

Well, some probably do, but the official oath of a US legislator is:

"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter: So help me God."

I see nothing in there about advancing your financial backers' agendas, but I do see where that could very easily compromise their commitment to bear 'true faith and allegiance' to the Constitution of the United States. Since the Constitution describes Bribery as an impeachable High Crime, Roberts' logic is hopelessly flawed. Advancing the causes of parties that give you money while in office is the literal definition of bribery. How is advancing causes of those who gave you money so that you could get into office any different, really?

Republican democracy is premised on responsiveness to constituents balanced with the exercise of independent good judgment, not just some vague concept of 'responsiveness.'

[raven mad]

19. VOTE!

Dammit, it counts!

[Scootaloo]

20. It's the infection of MBA's in our politics

Our politicians are seen as CEO's whose job is solely to provide a good return for their investors.

[hughee99]

22. He's completely wrong. Politicians shouldn't

Be responsive to their supporters, constituents or donors. When someone calls their rep or senator about an issue, the politician's people should tell them to fuck off.

[McCamy Taylor]

24. He's just afraid the SCOTUS will be flooded by stupid rulings from judges who were "bought"

and the court will spend all its time trying to cover for these bought and paid for judges and their very wealthy clients. Obviously, it would better for him if only legislators are bought, then the laws they pass will only end up in the SCOTUS if they violate the Constitution.

For example, imagine that one of the Koch Brothers roasts and BBQs a baby on his front lawn--then pays off the judge in the civil case (the local prosecutor refuses to press charges on the grounds that the Koch Brothers own him) so that the family of the baby ends up having to pay the Kochs because their baby gave the Koch Brother indigestion thanks to the zany rulings of the judge over the civil case who is also owned by the Kochs. Since this is a civil case, there would be appeals and more appeals until finally the SCOTUS would be forced to choose between upholding the initial judgment which they will really want to do because the Kochs own them, too. But, on the other hand, who wants to be on record as saying that you can counter sue the parents of the baby you killed and ate because they did not raise a tasty baby?

Roberts is 100% about self interest. That is the only thing that separates him from Scalia and the others.

[mountain grammy]

27. Now, that little tale is about the best explanation of the influence of money

I've ever read. With some cute illustrations, it would make good reading for teabaggers.

I think I'll email it to my new teabagger senator, a friend of the Kochs. His main concern is the fetus, not so much babies, so I'm sure he'll not be at all upset over the baby BBQ part.

[kentuck]

26. Twisted logic.

As if it is OK to buy your own politicians but not your own judges?

[blackspade]

29. Citizens United essentially legalized bribery

[midnight]

30. Everything that is wrong with Citizen's united=Pay to play is wrong.