6 ms·

>> "...pledging to push for campaign finance reform[3]..." Pardon my cynicism, but I can't even see the mirrors because the smoke is so thick.

by avn2109 12y ago

aaronbrethorst 12y ago
I'm exceedingly skeptical as well, but it's also notable that the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United was 5-4, split down the expected lines, with Kennedy concurring with the conservative bloc. It seems highly likely that somewhere between now and January 2025, the following Justices will be replaced: Conservative: Scalia Swing: Kennedy Liberal: Ginsburg Breyer Had Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer all stepped down and been replaced either in the two months before Citizens United was first argued (or in the following six months before it was re-argued[1]), we would have likely seen a 6-3 decision in favor of the FEC. So even if Clinton doesn't manage to get campaign finance reform legislation moved through Congress[2], a reshaped Supreme Court would be enough to undo Citizens United for at least a couple decades. If Clinton were elected for two terms, you'd see roughly the following makeup of the court in 2025: Thomas 78 years old Alito 75 Roberts 70 Sotomayor 70 Kagan 64 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 In other words: Conservative: 3 Moderate-to-Liberal: 6 So, even if a Republican won the White House in 2024, it would take until sometime in the 2030s or 2040s before an overturned Citizens United could be reinstated. [1] Some interesting speculation on why this happened: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/05/citizens_united_justice_david_souter_s_dissent_in_the_supreme_court_s_momentous_campaign_finance_case_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... [2] Which, given current circumstances, seems unlikely, as it would take another Democratic wave election, even bigger than 2006's to happen (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html)
- byuu 12y ago
  > It seems highly likely that somewhere between now and January 2025, the following Justices will be replaced: > Conservative: Scalia Don't tease me. That would literally make my decade. I wonder what Thomas would do without being able to blindly concur with everything Scalia says? He might actually have to start talking again during trials. > it would take until sometime in the 2030s or 2040s before an overturned Citizens United could be reinstated. One major issue is that the USSC can't just go back and reverse bad decisions (Citizens, Voting Rights Act) on day-one of a new 5-4 liberal majority. They'd have to get a case, stretch standing (again), and then explain why they were reversing course, which they're usually really against doing until a significant amount of time has passed. But this is probably the only realistic option we have. We'll never see another constitutional amendment, let alone for something that would harm conservative election prospects.
  - pliny 12y ago
    > I wonder what Thomas would do without being able to blindly concur with everything Scalia says? Are SCJs allowed to call a friend during deliberations?
    - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
      He could flip a coin: Heads, Alito; Tails, Roberts. Or, he could watch Scalia's future show on Fox to learn what his opinion ought to be.
    - aaronbrethorst 12y ago
      Yeah, but they only get to use that lifeline once per deliberation. But, he'd still have 'ask the audience' and 'remove two' to fall back on.
tedunangst 12y ago
"How dare you make a movie about me!"

>> "...pledging to push for campaign finance reform[3]..." Pardon my cynicism, but I can't even see the mirrors because the smoke is so thick.

by avn2109 12y ago

>> "...pledging to push for campaign finance reform[3]..." Pardon my cynicism, but I can't even see the mirrors because the smoke is so thick.

aaronbrethorst 12y ago

I'm exceedingly skeptical as well, but it's also notable that the SCOTUS decision on Citizens United was 5-4, split down the expected lines, with Kennedy concurring with the conservative bloc. It seems highly likely that somewhere between now and January 2025, the following Justices will be replaced: Conservative: Scalia Swing: Kennedy Liberal: Ginsburg Breyer Had Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, and Breyer all stepped down and been replaced either in the two months before Citizens United was first argued (or in the following six months before it was re-argued[1]), we would have likely seen a 6-3 decision in favor of the FEC. So even if Clinton doesn't manage to get campaign finance reform legislation moved through Congress[2], a reshaped Supreme Court would be enough to undo Citizens United for at least a couple decades. If Clinton were elected for two terms, you'd see roughly the following makeup of the court in 2025: Thomas 78 years old Alito 75 Roberts 70 Sotomayor 70 Kagan 64 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 Clinton Appointee 60-68 In other words: Conservative: 3 Moderate-to-Liberal: 6 So, even if a Republican won the White House in 2024, it would take until sometime in the 2030s or 2040s before an overturned Citizens United could be reinstated. [1] Some interesting speculation on why this happened: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/05/citizens_united_justice_david_souter_s_dissent_in_the_supreme_court_s_momentous_campaign_finance_case_.html http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudenc... [2] Which, given current circumstances, seems unlikely, as it would take another Democratic wave election, even bigger than 2006's to happen (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html http://www.nytimes.com/2006/11/08/us/politics/08house.html)

byuu 12y ago
> It seems highly likely that somewhere between now and January 2025, the following Justices will be replaced: > Conservative: Scalia Don't tease me. That would literally make my decade. I wonder what Thomas would do without being able to blindly concur with everything Scalia says? He might actually have to start talking again during trials. > it would take until sometime in the 2030s or 2040s before an overturned Citizens United could be reinstated. One major issue is that the USSC can't just go back and reverse bad decisions (Citizens, Voting Rights Act) on day-one of a new 5-4 liberal majority. They'd have to get a case, stretch standing (again), and then explain why they were reversing course, which they're usually really against doing until a significant amount of time has passed. But this is probably the only realistic option we have. We'll never see another constitutional amendment, let alone for something that would harm conservative election prospects.
- pliny 12y ago
  > I wonder what Thomas would do without being able to blindly concur with everything Scalia says? Are SCJs allowed to call a friend during deliberations?
  - fnordfnordfnord 12y ago
    He could flip a coin: Heads, Alito; Tails, Roberts. Or, he could watch Scalia's future show on Fox to learn what his opinion ought to be.
  - aaronbrethorst 12y ago
    Yeah, but they only get to use that lifeline once per deliberation. But, he'd still have 'ask the audience' and 'remove two' to fall back on.

tedunangst 12y ago

"How dare you make a movie about me!"