3 ms·

Whether you agree with or disagree with the Citizens United outcome, describing the majority opinion as a straightforward "completely wrong" (when, for example,

Whether you agree with or disagree with the Citizens United outcome, describing the majority opinion as a straightforward "completely wrong" (when, for example, the ACLU supported the verdict) indicates that you have not, in fact, read any of the opinions or dissents, or done research about the specific case that was being litigated.

Retric 7y ago
They overturned an at the time recent Supreme Court verdict, which is disruptive and counter to long standing precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_...
- MiroF 7y ago
  > precedent and just because precedent is overturned doesn't mean it is wrong. I don't like Citizens United as much as the next person, but I think this requires a constitution change.
- rayiner 7y ago
  That doesn’t make a decision “wrong.” Lots of Supreme Court opinions are wrong, and often obviously so. There is nothing wrong with overruling them. Citizens United was an instance of the government sliding down a slippery slope of precedent, which forced that precedent to be re-evaluated. The facts (the government attempting to punish someone for distributing a political movie about a political candidate) were so stark, they revealed the defects in the precedent that may have been obscured previously. Moreover, the government made clear at oral argument that there was no limiting principle to its position—it acknowledged that, had the Court ruled the other way, nothing stopped the government from book banning and other core free speech violations.
  - SilasX 7y ago
    Well said (about the dynamics of why a precedent would be reversed) ... and welcome back.
  - Retric 7y ago
    Treating the court as a purely political entity which will flip flopping on issues as the majority changes is counter to it’s design. The the normal way this is maintained is to have narrow opinions on the specific issue at hand. As such I can agree politically and still say the ruling was unequivocally incorrect.
ulkesh 7y ago
I’ve read plenty on the subject. I don’t have to articulate bullet points about it just to suit your needs. It has obviously been to the detriment of honest political discourse and is completely wrong. Thanks, though.

Retric 7y ago

They overturned an at the time recent Supreme Court verdict, which is disruptive and counter to long standing precedent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_Commerce https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_v._Michigan_Chamber_of_...

MiroF 7y ago
> precedent and just because precedent is overturned doesn't mean it is wrong. I don't like Citizens United as much as the next person, but I think this requires a constitution change.
rayiner 7y ago
That doesn’t make a decision “wrong.” Lots of Supreme Court opinions are wrong, and often obviously so. There is nothing wrong with overruling them. Citizens United was an instance of the government sliding down a slippery slope of precedent, which forced that precedent to be re-evaluated. The facts (the government attempting to punish someone for distributing a political movie about a political candidate) were so stark, they revealed the defects in the precedent that may have been obscured previously. Moreover, the government made clear at oral argument that there was no limiting principle to its position—it acknowledged that, had the Court ruled the other way, nothing stopped the government from book banning and other core free speech violations.
- SilasX 7y ago
  Well said (about the dynamics of why a precedent would be reversed) ... and welcome back.
- Retric 7y ago
  Treating the court as a purely political entity which will flip flopping on issues as the majority changes is counter to it’s design. The the normal way this is maintained is to have narrow opinions on the specific issue at hand. As such I can agree politically and still say the ruling was unequivocally incorrect.

ulkesh 7y ago

I’ve read plenty on the subject. I don’t have to articulate bullet points about it just to suit your needs. It has obviously been to the detriment of honest political discourse and is completely wrong. Thanks, though.