The Framers wanted the Judicial Branch not to be swayed by politics of the day

Hence, the lifetime appointment. They envisioned men of ethical character considered for the high position of Supreme Court Justice. The import of the lifetime appointment allowed for a broader view and a narrower approach to the deliberative process. Supposedly, the Justices would be free from the day's political hot potato and be able to look at the law without the pressures of any political party or even a mob mentality trying to push the agenda one way or the other.

As we have found out in the Supreme Court's recent history, this doesn't always happen. Citizen's United is what the conservatives have warned against when decrying the "liberal" nominees for the court. Legislating from the bench. That is what this Supreme Court did, plain and simple. There were no major decisions the Supreme Court could hang its collective hat on allowing them to decide Citizens United the way it did. In fact, there were multiple decisions supporting the total opposite, limiting corporations and limiting "Soft Money" spending in elections.

Granted, this is not the first time the Supreme Court decided on the wrong side of history... Plessy vs. Ferguson 1896 "Separate but Equal" not the Supreme Court's finest hour. Yes, it took 59 years before Brown vs Board of Education 1955, but eventually it did change.

Fortunately, with the Montana Supreme Court defying the Federal Court in a 5-2 decision upholding its state law limiting corporate election spending, this issue will probably be re-visited. One of the dissenting Montana Justice wrote: