Ginsburg says she would overturn campaign spending case

Associated Press ^ | Feb 4, 2015 5:23 PM EST

[Olog-hai]

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says if there is one decision she could overturn from the past 10 years, it would be the 2010 Citizens United case that allowed virtually unlimited corporate spending on political campaigns.

Speaking to students at Georgetown University Law Center, Ginsburg said Wednesday that the nation’s political system “is being polluted by money.” …

[VanDeKoik]

Just hold on two more years until President Cruz, then you can croak.

[Fungi]

Your brain is polluted with a disease—liberalism.

[Dilbert San Diego]

Aren’t judges supposed to NOT comment on cases which could come before them???

Aren’t judges supposed to rule on whether a law is constitutional or unconstitutional??? It sounds like she is saying, from a legislative view, that she would change the law. But judges are not supposed to vote based on policy preferences.

[Repeal The 17th]

Has the supreme court ever overturned itself?

[Jim Robinson]

The political system is polluted by politicians.

[chajin]

Has the supreme court ever overturned itself?

Plessy v. Ferguson being overturned by Brown v. Board of Education comes to mind.

[IncPen]

The political judicial system is polluted by politicians.

Fixed that for ya...

[skeeter]

Nah, the system has been polluted by public (union) money and has been for decades. That is beyond debate, ethically speaking.

Of course thats not the kind of pollution the twisted old bat was referring to.

[drypowder]

I never thought I'd say this but I agree with her. Multi billion dollar corporations aren't voters. Since the people who work there may be voters then it is reasonable for only the voters to donate/support elections and there are limits placed on individual donors. Corporations paying for crooked politician's to take office is why this country is in such a the mess and why those in DC have turned into crony capitalist.

[Dr. Sivana]

Has the supreme court ever overturned itself?

Yup. In fact, Sandra Day O'Connor reversed herself.

Lawrence v. Texas overturned Bowers v. Hardwick, which recognized that anti-sodomy laws are Constitutional. The behavior had to be legitimized before it could be sanctified.

[jimfree]

She doesn’t understand incentives at all. The pollution is in government, not politics.

[Politicalkiddo]

Silence, subject. How dare you question the conduct of your black-robed overlords? /s

[Pollster1]

The Supremes have overturned their own rulings several times. Dred Scot was overturned by a change in the Constitution, but Plessy was overturned by Brown as probably the most significant Supreme reversal of its own decision.

There was also:
Lochner v. New York (1905) and Adkins v. Children's Hospital (1923) overturned by West Coast Hotel v. Parrish (1937);
Bowers v. Hardwick (1986) overturned by Lawrence v. Texas (2003);
Pace v. Alabama (1883) overturned by Loving v. Virginia (1967);
Austin v. Michigan State Chamber of Commerce (1990) was very recently overturned by Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission (2010).

[Olog-hai]

She’s dead silent on the way Obama’s campaigns were funded, though.

[Olog-hai]

Make sure you know what she’s saying before you agree with her.

[Repeal The 17th]

Thank you.
I had to go do some reading on that.
-
Plessy v. Ferguson (1896), is a US Supreme Court decision
that upheld the constitutionality of state laws requiring
racial segregation under the doctrine of "separate but equal".

Brown v. Board of Education (1954), is a US Supreme Court decision
that determined segregation in public education was unconstitutional.
Plessy v. Ferguson was never overturned by the Supreme Court.
But, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibited legal segregation
and the Voting Rights Act of 1965 provided for federal oversight
and enforcement of voter registration voting.
-
(yeah, it is from wikipedia, but that's all I've got.)

[Political Junkie Too]

the nation’s political system “is being polluted by money.

Maybe we should eliminate Senate elections before we take away free speech rights? That will get some pollution out of politics, if that's really her goal.

-PJ

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

Ginsburg said Wednesday that the nation’s political system “is being polluted by money.”

In the immortal words of Ricky Ricardo, Justice Ginsburg, ‘splain me one ‘splain. Is it realistic to think that a newspaper can be operated without money? Where do you think the newspaper would get its paper and ink - not to mention the printing presses it needs. And how to pay the pressmen without money? The very idea is absurd. And if a newspaper does not make a profit but runs at a loss - yet continues to operate - then the slender reed of the excuse that “the readers pay for the ink” goes away. Does every newspaper that runs at a loss immediately lose its First Amendment standing? In point of fact, Justice Ginsburg, newspapers make a lot of their money from printing advertisements in their papers - which relates to the readership only at one remove.

Given all that, you can say what you will about money not being “speech" - but to deny that the freedom to use money, whether by individuals or by corporations, to promote opinion is central to freedom of the press is ridiculous. “Campaign Finance Reform” is utterly incompatible with respect for the First Amendment. It should be abolished, root and branch.

RIP, Congressman Billybob - who returned his license to practice before SCOTUS in protest over the wrongly decided McConnell v. FEC ruling.

[chajin]

That's a fine legal point (is there any other kind of legal point?), but I'll have to give it to you.

P.S. I have always had a soft spot in my heart for Brown, regardless of whether or not the ruling itself was constitutional, simply because it was handed down the day I was born. I used to tell my students that two nation-changing events occurred on May 17, 1954, and they could get extra credit if they could tell me both of them. Only a few guessed the birthday :-)