Ruth Bader Ginsburg reveals the 'most disappointing' Supreme Court decision of her career

[n2doc]

Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg still is not happy about the 2010 Citizens United ruling that is responsible for opening the door for a whole new era in campaign funding and financing, she said Wednesday.

Speaking at an event at the Duke University School of Law on Wednesday, Ginsburg said the decision was the "most disappointing" ruling of her time on the bench, according to The New York Times, "because of what has happened to elections in the United States and the huge amount of money it takes to run for office."

Ginsburg's disapproval of the ruling is well documented — last year, she said that if she could overturn one decision of the past several years, Citizens United would be it.

The controversial 2010 decision, a 5-4 split roundly criticized on the left, expanded the idea of "corporate personhood," lifting restrictions on political spending by corporations and unions. It has dramatically changed the landscape for campaigns, allowing the creation of so-called super PACs that can accept unlimited contributions from donors. Those entities have allowed candidates to stay in races longer while flooding the airwaves with political advertisements.



Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ruth-bader-ginsburg-citizens-united-decision-2015-7

[RKP5637]

1. It was a ridiculous ruling. How, can this be any hint of a democracy! n/t

[DFW]

2. Of course, if Bush v. Gore hadn't happened.....

There never would have been a Citizens United, either, since Roberts' and Alito's seats on the Court would have been appointments by President Gore instead.

[Hydra]

3. A lot of things could of been different had 2000 happened differently

But this is the logical end of what our system does. It happened in the 20s-30s, and FDR put it off for anther 70 years. The question is, what do we do now?

[7962]

12. Also wouldnt have gone into Iraq!! nt

[DFW]

14. The world will be suffering from the consequences of that fiasco for decades

Maybe even centuries. That was probably the worst foreign policy blunder since Hitler thought he could get away with breaking the non-aggression pact with Stalin in 1941.

[7962]

20. I have said many times it was definitely the US's worst foreign policy decision EVER.

Many will ask about Vietnam. Certainly more were killed there. To which I respond, at least there could be SOME argument for going to Vietnam. And now they dont look at us as enemies either & want us around because of China.
As you say, Iraq will be screwed up for many many years to come. As well as the rest of the ME

[spooky3]

38. Agree--this was the worst decision both regarding consequences

And re: the flawed "reasoning" used.

[onecaliberal]

4. I think it's Bush v Gore... IMO

[unblock]

6. tough call, but justices tend to take the long view

for the most part, bush v. gore was a one-off. the supreme court rarely gets the opportunity to decide the outcome of a presidential election. they absolutely blew it spectacularly, and the result was a horrific eight years. but from a legalistic standpoint, the damage is done and that situation won't likely repeat itself, at least not anytime soon. obama has done a lot to reverse the effects. we're not there yet, but there is the reasonable possibility of more or less complete recovery, especially if we win in 2016, and then with the favorable demographic changes on the horizon.

whereas, in the case of citizens united, this is damage that is pervasive, ongoing and enduring. it affects many elections, not only all presidential elections but all elections in congress and elsewhere. worse, it means those winning those elections are the ones who benefit from the new system, and therefore it is unlikely to be reversed anytime soon.

it's not very likely that the very people who excel at raising vast sums of money are likely to curtail its influence, nor are they likely to appoint and approve justices who will reverse this decision.

[thesquanderer]

11. Here's what makes Bush v Gore the worse decision...

If you could "undo" one decision, which would you pick?

Citizens United, which was a horrible decision which should have gone the other way

or

Bush v Gore, which, if reversed, would still have prevented the damage of the Citizens United decision, but also every other recent 5-4 decision, and would have spared the country the Iraq war and numerous other lesser catastrophes.

Legally, you might be able to say CU was somehow more "disappointing" by itself, but the damage of that decision and a whole lot more, practically speaking, all traces back to Bush v Gore.

[unblock]

17. i see your point, though i'm no longer much into those time travel games.

both of shrub's (dis)appointments to the supreme court were in his second term. it's entirely possible that gore might have been a one-term president. we haven't had back-to-back two-termers since jefferson/madison/monroe. so some different republican might have won in 2004 with the same result.

besides, there are endless variations of, well, if this had happened, that wouldn't have. it's interesting for a while, but once i realized that my parents never would have met and i'd never have been born if it weren't for the holocaust, it stopped being much fun....

[stevenleser]

22. Bush v Gore decided the other way would not have resulted in Gore taking his rightful office.

The Florida state legislature voted earlier on the same day the Bush v Gore decision was made and had voted to give all of Florida's electors to Bush regardless of anything else that happened. And according to the Constitution, the state legislatures have the power to decide how a states electors are chosen.

Anything after that would have in a best case scenario resulted in Florida's electors being disputed, and if that happened, the election for President would have been thrown into the House of Representatives which the Republicans controlled, i.e., they would have given it to Bush.

Republicans had a multi-pronged effort to ensure Bush was seated regardless if a recount had been able to proceed.

[thesquanderer]

23. Interesting.

It's true that the electors aren't necessarily bound to vote according to their state's election results. But I had not heard that any such decision had been made to take that route if need be (i.e. the state legislature vore you're talking about). Do you have a reference for that? When was it discovered/revealed that that had occurred?

[stevenleser]

25. Take a look at this Google search. I was living in Florida at the time and was volunteering for

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=chrome-psyapi2&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8&q=florida%20state%20legislature%20votes%20to%20give%20electors%20to%20Bush&oq=florida%20state%20legislature%20votes%20to%20give%20electors%20to%20Bush&aqs=chrome..69i57.9062j0j7

the campaign. I was very close with the Gore folks sent to my county and got reports from them on a lot of stuff. I was actually trained to be an observer at the recounts in Pinellas County. I only got to observe one day before the SCOTUS decision.

Initially when the Florida State legislature announced they were going to have a special session to decide whether to intervene, they made a big deal about it. But then that session came and you had to look for what they decided. They decided to meet again on the morning of December 12th to have the actual vote. Because the SCOTUS decision followed literally minutes later, they decided to keep quiet what they had done because they realized how bad it would look, particularly since now it was no longer necessary.


Here are some other links:

https://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2000/12/elec-d07.html

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=122367

http://www.authentichistory.com/1993-2000/3-2000election/3-dispute/

The timeline for this is:

Nov 30 - The Florida legislative committee recommended a special session to name the state's 25 electors.

Dec 7 - A formal proclamation was issued calling the Florida Legislature for a special session commencing December 8 to consider whether to go ahead with naming the states electors.

Dec 8 - The Florida Legislature met in special session, then adjourned with plans to reconvene on December 12.

Dec 12 - The Florida Legislature meets in the morning and votes to give Florida's electors to Bush. Shortly thereafter the SCOTUS released its decision and the Legislature decided to bury what they had done.

[Samantha]

29. The slate of electors chosen as a result of such an act by the Florida legislature

would have been challenged as a violation of the Constitution. In that light, the Electoral College would have been absolutely correct to discard that slate and not count those electoral votes in the final tally.

Absolutely no state can change its election laws within such close proximity to the actual election to overthrow the outcome. The Constitution delegates the right to conduct Presidential elections to the states, but each must have the rules outlined in their respective state constitutions prior to the vote. Any changes voted by the Florida Legislature during this controversy could not legally have any impact until the next election.

Had the recount of the entire state allowed to be resumed and Gore had won the popular vote, a Democratic slate would have had to be been sent to the Elector College. Had the Florida Legislature carried through with its threat to send a Republican slate regardless of the outcome, the votes of that delegation could have been protested if by no one else members of the Congressional Black Caucus.

During Election 2000, there were many, many maneuvers as well as threats the Republicans publicly aired, but their strategists in some cases did not know the law -- in other cases they just figured they could threaten anything and people would not know the threats could not be legally executed.

Chief Justice John Roberts at that time was a Constitutional lawyer from DC who traveled to Florida to give advice to Jeb Bush during the recount. It is very difficult for me to assume he did not know this very maneuver was unconstitutional....

In the matter of had the recount resumed, who would have won, all one has to do is remember the 6,000 votes that went to Pat Buchanan which were intended to be Gore votes. Many of the voters in that community were Jewish, and their horror was publicly palpable when they realized their votes had gone to Buchanan rather than Gore. No question Gore would have recaptured those votes in a statewide recount....

Sam

[stevenleser]

34. Of course it would have been challenged. And the Constitutional remedy for disputed electors where

the total without them doesn't equal 270 electoral votes is to throw the election into the House of Representatives. That is what would have happened. And it would have given us Bush.

[stevenleser]

35. And by the way, the argument against it being improper is pretty strong. Namely Article 2 Section 1

of the Constitution. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articleii

Back in the early history of our country, State Legislatures in fact did choose the electors directly. And, Constitutionally speaking, they could do so again right now. Of course, any state legislature that did that would be voted out on their arses the next election day, but that doesnt mean they couldnt do it. The challenge against what the Florida State Legislature did would be that they chose one manner and after the fact chose to go with another. However, "Each state shall appoint, in such manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a number of electors" makes it pretty explicit that the state legislature can do pretty much what it chooses regarding Presidential electors.

That argument would not be settled by the time it came for the electoral college to vote. Assuming a full statewide recount that showed Gore as the winner, two slates of electors would show up to congress to vote in the electoral college, Florida's votes would be disputed and thrown out, and without them, neither Gore nor Bush would have had 270 electoral votes throwing the Presidential election into the House of Representatives and the Vice Presidential election into the Senate.

[StevieM]

5. For me it is Citizens United, Bush vs. Gore and Adoptive Couple vs. Baby girl, when Veronica Brown

was ripped from the home of her loving and devoted father, and the Indian Child Welfare act was completely gutted.

Of course, I am talking about recent cases, ones that took place this century. (If you count 2000 as this century, which I realize that many people do not, since technically it began in 2001).

[Demeter]

7. I regret she didn't poison the Terrible Threes

Imagine a world without Scalia, Alito, and Thomas....

[7962]

13. So you'd like to see them murdered?

[Demeter]

21. The death penalty, for mass murderers

[7962]

24. And who have the judges killed? Think carefully of course.

[Demeter]

31. Shall we start with Iraq and Afghanistan?

Our soldiers, their soldiers, their civilians....all because of a certain "selection"?

It's not hard to find victims of the US Supreme Court...they litter the globe.

[7962]

33. If you're going to reach that far, you'd have to include Pres obama

His drones have killed scores of civilians all over the world. I dont have a problem with his policy, but if you're going to blame Cheneys Iraq on the court, you're stretching it.
I have pretty sure that a Pres Gore would have also gone into Afghanistan too. I believe he's said as much.
Iraq was the screwup. Of the ages.

[stevenleser]

36. The argument against that is that the UN has voted dozens of times to designate Al Qaeda

and its affiliates as international criminals and has gone as far as to say that anyone aiding and abetting them is committing an international crime as well.

It's a pretty big stretch to call a country and its leader criminal or deserving of murder for going after individuals the UN (who by charter agreed to by all the worlds nations is the arbiter of International law) declares as criminals and terrorists.

[7962]

37. I agree with you. The other guy would like to see 3 SCOTUS members killed! nt

[jalan48]

8. According to the NY Times 400 families provide half the money rasied in the 2016 election campaign.

This is one of things that fuels so much of the outrage from we Sanders supporters. It's hard to pretend this is an election of the 'people' and dutifully jump behind the chosen candidate when it appears the choice has been bought.


http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/02/us/small-pool-of-rich-donors-dominates-election-giving.html?ref=topics&_r=0

[unblock]

18. well, the top 400 families have half the wealth in the u.s., so that seems about right.

i mean, it certainly doesn't seem just, but it seems accurate.

if anything, it seems low, because political contributions are far easier and far more profitable for the remarkably wealthy.

[EEO]

9. Easy guess.

[Herman4747]

10. Bush v. Gore. Without The Stolen Election...

...we may never had Citizens United several years later.
(Also wouldn't have had War-Based-On-Lies, Katrina debacle, Torture violating international laws, etc.).

[RichVRichV]

16. One thing to consider

while Bush v Gore guaranteed Bush the victory, the supreme court going the other way wouldn't have guaranteed Gore the victory.

I'm not saying Gore wouldn't have won legitimately, just that there still would have been a long fight ahead with Republicans doing everything in their power to steal it. So while the supreme court had the power to deny justice (which they wrongly chose), they didn't have the complete power to grant justice there, only guarantee a recount.



With Citizens United, the decision was completely in the supreme courts hands. Nothing short of a constitution amendment could have denied justice had they chosen correctly. Now we need a constitutional amendment (or supreme court reversal) to grant justice.

[unblock]

19. excellent point. people forget that republicans had other ways of stealing the election.

republicans controlled the florida legislature and governorship. they or the supreme court could have invalidated their election entirely, which would have thrown the decision into the u.s. house of representatives, which was also controlled by republicans.

shrub might have won that way anyway.

never mind that had the counting continued, it's still possible that some legal challenge at the county level might have been enough to give shrub the win.

the new york times eventually determined that in the vast majority of cases where all the votes are counted, gore would have won, but legal challenges might have been enough to alter this result.

[RufusTFirefly]

26. Gentle reminder: Who was Gore's vice presidential candidate?

Ah!



Don't make the mistake of confusing the Gore who ran in 2000 with the Gore of "An Inconvenient Truth" who was no longer hamstrung by the PTB.

Is anyone in retrospect going to suggest that choosing Lieberman was a good decision?

[lark]

15. Best current sitting justice on the SCOTUS.

[Uncle Joe]

27. That was a most disastrous decision.

Thanks for the thread, n2doc.

[davidpdx]

28. It doesn't surprise me at all that is the one she is most disappointed with

Aside from the Bush v Gore decision, it was the most atrocious decision in at least a half a century.

[Sam_Fields]

30. We now live in a oligarchy.

Just like we did before Teddy Roosevelt then the Democrats in the 1930's took away all the power from the rich and raised the tax rate up to 90%