General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWith the Supreme Court Vacancy, Could Citizens United Be Reversed?
Interesting article in the Atlantic, which recognizes the opportunity to reverse Citizens United, but argues that even with a more liberal judge, the Court would be reluctant to reverse established precedent. However, didn't the Court reverse decades of precedent in the first place when it issued Citizens United in the first place?
http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2016/04/how-to-reverse-citizens-united/471504/
Few supreme court opinions have been as controversial as Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the 2010 decision that struck down limits on corporations campaign expenditures, finding them to be an abridgment of free speech. Like most of the Courts recent campaign-finance rulings, the case was decided 54, with Justice Antonin Scalia in the majority. Even before Scalias death, Citizens United featured significantly in the presidential primaries. Bernie Sanders had made its negation, through a constitutional amendment, a key goal ofand rationale forhis candidacy. Both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton had condemned the existing campaign-finance system, and Clinton had vowed to appoint Supreme Court justices who value the right to vote over the right of billionaires to buy elections.
Now, with a new justice in the offing, the prospect of reversing Citizens United, among other Roberts Court decisions, seems suddenly larger, more plausible: For campaign-finance-reform proponents, the brass ring seems within reach.
* * *
In a powerful dissent in 2014, Justice Stephen Breyer demonstrated how the Courts recent 54 decisions striking down campaign-finance laws are out of step with the Courts own precedents, thus laying out the logic for a reversal. In theory, he just needs one more vote.
And yet, even if Scalias replacement shifts the ideological balance of the Court, the effort to undo Citizens United will still face daunting hurdles. The Court hesitates to overturn any past decision, but it is especially reluctant when a reversal means cutting back on a constitutional right, rather than establishing a new one (as pro-life opponents of Roe v. Wade have learned).
ladjf
(17,320 posts)davidpdx
(22,000 posts)I don't think a challenge to it will come up for a few years. We are going to be stuck with it until after the 2020 presidential race, if not longer. I'm not optimistic given the amount of people who are just apathetic or the ones who are plain stupid and think it isn't an important issue.
TomCADem
(17,382 posts)...who were in the minority in Citizens United.
mythology
(9,527 posts)if the Supreme Court ruling is 4-4 even if it is the resolution of a lower court decision striking down Citizen's United.
TomCADem
(17,382 posts)Citizens United was a 5-4 vote, and Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan and Breyer have consistently criticized that decision. Why would an Democratic appointee suddenly side with the right wing appointees?
Land of Enchantment
(1,217 posts)has stated that but has said he will support this nominee out of respect for the President.
Bernie's test is Citizen's United. He will not appoint anyone who supports it.
I do not see any change coming if Hillary wins it. I am so disappointed in the swing to the moderate (right) Obama had done that it is chilling. I voted for him, campaigned for him and donated to his campaign. I want my time and money and that part of my soul back.
TomCADem
(17,382 posts)Are you seriously suggesting that President Obama's next nominee would side with Roberts, Thomas, Kennedy and Alito as opposed to Sotomayor, Breyer and Ginsburg who dissented in Citizens United, as well as Elena Kagan who has criticized this decision. Also, you do remember that an anti-Hillary Clinton hit piece was the subject of Citizens United? The idea that Hillary was silently cheer leading a corporate funded hit piece against her is just crazy.
Please explain the basis of your theory.