3 ms·
With the Citizens United decision, that's no longer possible without either a Constitutional Amendment or the Supreme Court overturning their own decision - nei
by bdavisx 11y ago
With the Citizens United decision, that's no longer possible without either a Constitutional Amendment or the Supreme Court overturning their own decision - neither one is very likely.
- agrover 11y agoWith Scalia gone you still think it's unlikely?
- BookmarkSaver 11y agoRegardless of the ideology of the court majority, they very rarely directly overturn previous decisions. It's not impossible (Brown vs. Board of Education) but it isn't just a matter of getting a challenge before a liberal court. The previous decision is binding, they would have to justify why they would be going against authority equal to their own.
- venomsnake 11y agoI don't claim to understand SCOTUS - but they are extremely conservative institution. I mean dictionary definition of conservative - upholding the status quo. And they prefer to not get involved in the day to day affairs of the country. So even a bad SCOTUS decision could stay on the books for a long time - just to save face and uphold the credibility of the institution. They look to rock the boat the least. Even in their current hyperpartisan state.
- pc86 11y agoSaying that the Court upholds precedent to "save face" shows an complete and total lack of understanding of the body.
- guelo 11y agoWith the Senate refusing to do its constitutional duty and confirm Obama's (very conservative) pick, it'll depend on who wins the presidential election. If it's Trump it'll probably be someone from left field completely unpredictable. With Hillary it'll probably be a middle of the road jurist not really willing to overturn things too much.
- r00fus 11y agoOr if Bernie wins, it might be someone left of Ginsberg...
- chimeracoder 11y ago> With the Citizens United decision, that's no longer possible without either a Constitutional Amendment or the Supreme Court overturning their own decision - neither one is very likely. Citizens United has implications for campaign finance, but the demise of publicly financed campaigns that GP is referring to began before that. In fact, it began with Obama's first election (2008), in which McCain agreed to take public financing. Obama, on the other hand, broke his earlier promise to take public funds, becoming the first candidate in history to do so[0][1]. Because accepting public financing means limiting total spending, Obama vastly outspent McCain by November. Obama won the popular vote, spending $10.94/vote, whereas McCain spent only half as much total money (amounting to $5.97/vote in the end.)[2] [0] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.html?_r=0 http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obamacnd.htm... [1] http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obama.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/20/us/politics/20obama.html [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_United_States_presidential_election https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundraising_for_the_2008_Unite...
- tim333 11y agoThough with Trump the favourite to be the Republican candidate we could see a Dem landslide which might allow something to be done.
- pc86 11y agoThe partisan composition of Congress will not have any immediate (or even short-term) effects on SCOTUS rulings.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]