Thoughts on the US Supreme Court decision on Citizens United
It is not clear to me that most people understand just what a game-changer the Supreme Court's just-issued opinion in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission really is. It upholds the Constitution and eviscerates the unconstitutional McCain-Feingold law that was proposed and pushed by the most recent Republican Presidential candidate, John McCain, and signed by the most recent Republican President, George W. Bush. The decision was sharply divided, 5-4. The "liberal" wing all voted to continue the restrictions on freedom of speech, while the "conservative" wing of the Court voted to uphold the First Amendment.
It is increasingly clear that to be "liberal" on the Supreme Court means to "liberate" the U.S. government from the inconvenient shackles of the Constitution, while to be "conservative" on the Supreme Court means to "conserve" the U.S. Constitution. For all the damage that George Bush did to America during his 8-year presidency, he seems to have almost accidentally boosted two Constitutional giants onto the Supreme Court (much like his father accidentally boosted Clarence Thomas to the Court), Justices Roberts and Alito. They will serve to advance and protect the Constitution for generations into the future. Here's hoping that the Republican President elected in 2012 will do no less well in appointing other such justices.
Background information on the decision: See Hugh Hewitt's commentary, some observations from Matt Welch of Reason magazine, and some great gnashing-of-teeth from a big corporation that was formerly exempt from the McCain-Feingold restrictions, and not resents the competition. This decision couldn't have come soon enough. As it stands, it's just in time to allow the rest of us to band together to fight the multi-millionaires who have boosted Democrat fortunes in the past several elections.
It is increasingly clear that to be "liberal" on the Supreme Court means to "liberate" the U.S. government from the inconvenient shackles of the Constitution, while to be "conservative" on the Supreme Court means to "conserve" the U.S. Constitution. For all the damage that George Bush did to America during his 8-year presidency, he seems to have almost accidentally boosted two Constitutional giants onto the Supreme Court (much like his father accidentally boosted Clarence Thomas to the Court), Justices Roberts and Alito. They will serve to advance and protect the Constitution for generations into the future. Here's hoping that the Republican President elected in 2012 will do no less well in appointing other such justices.
Background information on the decision: See Hugh Hewitt's commentary, some observations from Matt Welch of Reason magazine, and some great gnashing-of-teeth from a big corporation that was formerly exempt from the McCain-Feingold restrictions, and not resents the competition. This decision couldn't have come soon enough. As it stands, it's just in time to allow the rest of us to band together to fight the multi-millionaires who have boosted Democrat fortunes in the past several elections.
