Calm down, Omni. You do not know me, my interests or my philosophy. Do not go painting me with that conservative boogie-man brush.
You do not like this court's rulings so you hate the court and any defense of it. I don't know how far back you go. If you were conscious at the time maybe the Warren court was more to your liking. I certainly did, but that's another story.
[aside]
You think this court leans to conservative? In the long history of the court this Roberts Court is a bit left of center. Take a look at the Fuller, White and Taft courts. Not just conservative but practically do-nothing courts as well.
[/aside]
I am a student of the court. I am a fan of the court. Not one of those fair weather fans whose love/hate runs with the tide. I have a great deal of respect for the uniqueness of the SCOTUS no matter which way the political pendulum happens to be swinging. In most of the rest of the world those with independent courts achieve this by act of parliament. SCOTUS is unique in that it is a co-equal branch not dependent on any other organ of government for its independence.
For all of its history, if not in quite all of its decisions, SCOTUS has been the guarantor of the rule of law in this country.
What I watch for in the court is its judicial temperament in that I watch if it holds to the rule of law and not to the emotion of the society at the time.
Many people here detest the
Citizens United opinion, including you, because it did not fit your conception of the way this society should do something. What Justice Kennedy wrote was a clear chain from constitution to opinion without any kinks or detours. Compare to what Justice Stevens wrote which was not a legal chain but an emotional chain addressing the dislike and distrust of corporations, the possible corrupting influence of corporate money and the general public's common sense view that such should not continue.
I agree with his assessment of corporations and their corrupting influence in politics. But he steps well outside the rule of law in appealing to public emotion via common sense while ignoring both the explicit wording of the First Amendment and the intent of the founding principles that political speech not be abridged, period.
I understand it is not very comforting to a lot of people but we are a nation ruled by law not by emotion.
As long as there is a grounding in law and a clear path from there into a majority opinion, whether I personally agree with the opinion or not, the rule of law, which to me is
the most important thing that will keep this society free for the long haul, has been served.
When I see the emotional response of those who hate an opinion and so hate the court without looking to see if the opinion has any grounding in law I react. If the decision shows a clear trail from constitution to opinion, I will defend the court whether I agree or disagree. If it does not then I will pound my feet, stomp my fists and let the bile flow just as you do now.
If Justice Stevens' opinion had prevailed I would howl like a banshee, not because of any love for corporations, but because he based his decision on the emotion of the moment instead of the law of the land.
I know. People will not see the reasoning but just the outcome and so will count me among the heathens and the lepers.
It is so ordered.
™ Version 4.2
