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

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by HelloKitty22

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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?

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

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.

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.).

Originally Posted by KSigkid

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

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.

[KSigkid]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

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.