In the 5-4 ruling overturning the Arizona law meant to institute free and fair elections in a state that had been victimized by graft and corruption, the Supreme Court majority has ruled in a way that seeks to maintain the advantage of rich candidates and corporate-pawndidates, at the expense of the people. The court majority showed disdain for the will of the people of Arizona and acted in a way that does not appear to have any basis in constitutional law or precedents (other than their own).
Every time this court's majority has ruled on cases that change the political landscape, progressives have cried that they are "ignoring the constitution", and the other side has answered, "you always say that when they rule goes against your political ideology". And in some cases this may be true. But not always. I imagine that non-racists were told that in 1896 when the Supreme Court ruled on Plessy v Ferguson and decided that segregation of schools is ok - "separate but equal" and all that. The non-racists cried "How can this possibly be constitutional???" And the racists replied "You always say that when the ruling goes against you..."
Can you find anyone that admits to supporting that ruling today?
But it took 58 years to overturn it.
The current situation is as crucial historically in a very different sort of way as PvF - the general direction of today's court and SCOTUSes for the last 30 years is to move the U.S. from a Republican to a Corpocratic form of government as they have ruled that money=speech and corporations = people, and any effort to limit corporations and wealthy individuals ability to buy politicians = suppression of free speech.
What I fear is that this radically activists court's actions could reach a tipping point, past which a return to a more constitutional/democratic from of government will be difficult...and very well could take 58 years, if ever. I mean, once you've given absolute citizenship to corporations (and by proxy their puppeteers) and you've made their money=free-speech and removed all restrictions on their ability to "$peak freely" with the other branches of govt - that paradigm implies a certain self-sustaining dynamic - the rulings give financial support to candidates that are likely to appoint court justices that will further support Corporatism. And rulings can't just be legislated away.
The tortured interpretations (and just plain makin' $hit up) required for the Arizona decision demonstrated with crystal clarity the court majority's disdain for real democracy (i.e., the referendum-based attempt to end corruption and level the playing field in Arizona) while advancing the position of Citizen Corpocratus (who is said to be born of a virgin, walked on water, and turned $hit into gold).
Justice Elena Kagan said it succinctly in her dissent, "All the law does is promote MORE free speech...."
Any reasonably objective person would agree with Kagan as did the large majority of the Arizona voters (not exactly a hotbed of liberalism).
The Arizona Law would have increased the ability of everyone to participate in fair elections and thus to "speak freely" (in allusion to the money=freedom psuedo-law currently governing the land). The law would have subsidized candidates so that they could be on equal footing with Daddy Sawbucks candidates. But the court's majority said that this leveling of the playing field impinged on the free speech of Daddy Sawbucks.
Yes, I know it sounds moronic, but that is what they said.
So the ruling made it clear that the courts will not tolerate any state laws that do not adequately protect the free speech of corporations and rich people, even if that means suppression of the free speech of everyone else. This new ruling goes beyond their earlier "Corporations=People rulings -- in effect, it says the rights of Corporations and Rich People take precedence over those of ordinary citizens.
Not since Bush v Gore has this all-star team of SCOTUS ideologues made a ruling so clearly motivated by adherence to ideology and party-line strategy and so absolutely contrary to the constitution. Not only does this ruling not uphold the 1st amendment it blatantly violates the 1st amendment and the equal protection clause of the 14th amendment...you know, come to think of it, this majority violates the equal protection clause just about every time any member opens their mouth in court.
But all is not lost. Maybe, just as in Plessy v Ferguson, in 58 years or so these democracy choking rulings will be overturned...if there's any democracy left by then. I'm looking forward to that day -- I'll just be 116.
| 
