Mar
5
Corporations United Blog Post #5
March 5, 2015 | Leave a Comment
These readings were a lot more technical than others we have read. I like how detailed they were and, especially in the New Yorker, there was so much detail from all different sides of the spectrum. I have felt for a while that the USSC has been extremely too political and partisan for the purpose it is supposed to practice. Even the fact that was brought up that President taft served as a S.G, president, and Chief Justice seems to be worthy of concern. A person that resides over the presidency and had the taste of executive power should not then be able to follow as a “lifer” on the most powerful judicial position in America.
The case of Citizens United is an interesting one that further demonstrates the personas on the bench to be more for personal agendas than the legitimacy of laws and its constitutionality. The fact that Justice Roberts, Kennedy, and Alvito Jr. pounced on the S.G. in order to trap him and then take it a step further by going into an argument that wasn’t even apart of the case is simply unjust. The belief I always held, coming from a lawyer’s son, was that the USSC was incorruptible. In a country of loopholes, bipartisanship, and big business mayhem, the Court was the irrevocable “check” on the processes. People on the bench were lifers, far above the political spectrum, without the concern of re-election or favoritism. However, the handling of the case, the pre-set 5 to 4 ruling of the retrial, and the aim of furthering a personal belief in opening campaigning up to more money showed how flawed my belief is. Olson was even given the S.G. appointment after ruling in favor of Bush!
It is amazing to think that the slip up by a forthcoming Solicitor General, could be taken advantage of by certain Justices in this way. To think, had the Republican knuckleheads been left to argue their own case, their shortsightedness would have stopped Citizens United from becoming what it is today. Instead, the undoubtable intelligence of the clear Republican Justices helped them and further disinterested the public from attempting to be politically active, now fighting a battle against monopolist corporations with endless funds and lobbyists.
The ACLU brought up an important point in the article discussing their view of Citizens United. It has now become an extremely slippery slope to deal with, and in trying to reverse or change this ruling we must be careful not to further disrupt the right of Freedom of Speech. I do think the idea of corporations being given the second vote as a “citizen” on top of their board of people also having the power to vote gives a clear advantage, an unjust one, over the freedom of speech of average citizens. Other ideas the ACLU brought up are the limiting of funds, regardless of who they are from, and crafting tighter disclosure rules, but as it qualifies, these corporations are always looking and finding loopholes to manipulate all legislation in their favor.
There seems to be enough out there to show the unconstitutionality of this ruling, but in itself has created too much power for their to be a chance of overturning/thwarting this initiative. To clarify, by decision has opened the flood gates to bribery and unlimited funding to candidates of all offices, who are essentially on the corporations “pocket” and therefore gives an even smaller chance of getting backing to appose this decision, now that those in power have the incentive to uphold it. My question is bigger than this issue. In the present day, seeing the bias of certain judges seep through their ability to look for true constitutionality for the betterment of the country, is it still practical to allow the USSC Justices lifetime terms? Should a more direct accountability be put onto them, and should the process of electing Justices to the bench be changed in order to keep out the bias of the elective and legislative branches?
