80% of Americans disagree with the SCOTUS over this...
 

Much has been made of late about the hyper-partisan political environment in America. On Tuesday, Sen. Evan Bayh explained his surprising recent decision to leave the senate by lamenting a "dysfunctional" political system riddled with "brain-dead partisanship." It seems you'd be hard-pressed to get Republicans and Democrats inside and outside of Washington to agree on anything these days, that if one party publicly stated its intention to add a "puppies are adorable" declaration to its platform, that the other party would immediately launch a series of anti-puppy advertisements.
But it appears that one issue does unite Americans across the political spectrum.
A new Washington Post-ABC News poll finds that the vast majority of Americans are vehemently opposed to a recent Supreme Court ruling that opens the door for foreign and domestic corporations, labor unions, and other organizations to spend money directly from their general funds to influence campaigns.

As noted by the Post's Dan Eggen, the poll's findings show "remarkably strong agreement" across the board, with roughly 80% of Americans saying that they're against the Court's 5-4 decision. Even more remarkable may be that opposition by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents were all near the same 80% opposition range. Specifically, 85% of Democrats, 81% of Independents, and 76% of Republicans opposed it. In short, "everyone hates" the ruling.

The poll's findings could enhance the possibility of getting a broad range of support behind a movement in Congress to pass legislation that would offset the Court's decision. Of those polled, 72% said they supported congressional action to reverse its effects. Sen. Charles Schumer, who's leading the reform effort in the Senate, told the Post that he hoped to get "strong and quick bi-partisan support" behind a bill that "passes constitutional muster but will still effectively limit the influence of special interests."

link

I'm pretty sure 0% of the SCOTUS cares.

Haha.

As the article says, the legislature can now respond to the Court's ruling if they so choose.

i dunno, maybe 44.4%

LOL

I'm quite sure that 80% of Americans have no idea WTF the SCOTUS ruling was or means.

Actually that's the part that would surprise me the most. Usually the public doesn't pay attention to SCOTUS rulings that don't involve abortions or guns.

This.

So what does it mean? I think I know what it means and I think I agree with it actually.

I disagree with it.

Do 80% of Americans even know what "SCOTUS" means? I didn't, I had to scan the post for context.

Why did you beat me here to post this (well I know what the acronym means, and I can name them, as well as which law school they attended, and my girl Ruth is my NPC sister through AEPhi!).

Show off! :p

Someone in my past had to memorize facts about the Supremes for their ConLaw exam and I am good at silly facts.

http://www.foxnews.com/ucat/images/5...t_justices.jpg

NOT

http://www.catwalkqueen.tv/supremes%...t%20museum.jpg

Do you know the Greek connections of all of them?

It means that corporations/labor unions/special interests can buy an unlimited amount of airtime and media to support political candidates that they favor during elections, as long as they don't directly coordinate it with the campaign. If Exxon likes candidate A because he supports drilling in Alaska, they can spend 10 million dollars in ads to support candidate A or alternatively buy 10 million dollars in ads to destroy candidate B. To a company like Exxon 10 million is nothing but for candidate B to raise that kind of additional money from individual donations would be incredibly difficult. It essentially forces candidates to suck up to corporations and special interests even more than they already do. If they don't they'll be completely outmanned on election day.

The thing that makes the decision so bad is that it is extremely hard to reverse via legislation because the Court essentially expanded free speech to encompass companies. Anything the legistature passes to try to limit the effect of the decision will most likely be struck down as unconstitutional. The part I find particularly funny is that the conservative justices, who are always going on about deferring to the legislature, don't see this as judicial activism, even though they are overturning a 20 year old precedent and the popular will.

The thing is, the popular will is totally irrelevant if the majority is correct and the First Amendment protects the speech that was issue in Citizens United. If it's protected, it's protected, regardless of whether the majority of people are happy about it. That's the very essence of First Amendment Free Speech.

Don't get me wrong -- I'm not looking forward to what could be coming in the next election cycle, much less in 2012. But the only question to ask here with regard to the opinion is whether the Court got it right or wrong as a matter of constitutional interpretation and application.

Plus the fact that you can use the term "judicial activism" to apply to any ruling where the Court expands on or reinterprets precedent.

If this really is a free speech issue as well, it gets around the whole deference to the legislature. No matter how one may argue for deference to the legislature, no deference is due where the legislative action infringes on free speech.

Plus, the ramifications of the ruling (both in general, and certainly in this case in specific) really can't override what is Constitutionally correct, nor can "20 years of precedent," so really, most of the arguments fall flat completely.

Then again, I'm sure this massive, informed population will certainly be all for amending the f-ing First Amendment, right?

Exactly.

That doesn't necessarily mean, though, that no legislative action can be taken to ameliorate at least to some degree the effects of the decision. Legislation cannot overturn or negate the holding in the decision, but it may be possible for legislation to impose some limits within the parameters of the decision and general law (to pass strict scrutiny, etc.).

I can honestly say that I have seen what could be termed "judicial activism" from liberal judges and from consevrative judges. I can also say that, in my experience, a charge of "judicial activism" often means "the judge doesn't agree with me." If he rules with me, he's a great judge. If he doesn't, he's an activist. I see that a lot.

I think I've said it on here before, but I'm very interested in appellate advocacy. My professional "dreams" so to speak would be to brief/argue a case before the US Supreme Court and eventually become a state appellate court judge. As such, I've gone to a lot of local events to see appellate lawyers speak and hold workshops.

There were two such workshops where the same advocate was giving a presentation. At the first, she talked about how more judges were becoming "legislators from the bench," and how it was sad that the judiciary was going in such an "activist" direction. At the next session, she praised the majority in a case for being "brave" enough to overrule precedent and move the law in a new direction.

Of course, the "new direction" was one she'd argued for when she briefed and argued the case before the court in question. To me it was a perfect display of what you're describing.