Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals the 'most disappointing' Supreme Court decision of her career

[unblock]

6. tough call, but justices tend to take the long view

for the most part, bush v. gore was a one-off. the supreme court rarely gets the opportunity to decide the outcome of a presidential election. they absolutely blew it spectacularly, and the result was a horrific eight years. but from a legalistic standpoint, the damage is done and that situation won't likely repeat itself, at least not anytime soon. obama has done a lot to reverse the effects. we're not there yet, but there is the reasonable possibility of more or less complete recovery, especially if we win in 2016, and then with the favorable demographic changes on the horizon.

whereas, in the case of citizens united, this is damage that is pervasive, ongoing and enduring. it affects many elections, not only all presidential elections but all elections in congress and elsewhere. worse, it means those winning those elections are the ones who benefit from the new system, and therefore it is unlikely to be reversed anytime soon.

it's not very likely that the very people who excel at raising vast sums of money are likely to curtail its influence, nor are they likely to appoint and approve justices who will reverse this decision.