re: #275 lawhawk

Okay, I got that case confused with a different one.

But see Ace’s 247.

Yeah, I saw his 247. And it’s a fine point. But he completely misses the issue that I am trying to raise, and the issue raised in the dissent. Roberts very well could have decided the merits of Citizens United vs. FEC properly. But he did so in a way that completely flies in the face of years of Supreme Court precedent.

The plaintiff in the case did not wish to present a facial challenge to the law in question. Roberts then takes it upon himself to create a facial challenge. Which, flies in the face of how the Supreme Court has conducted business for years.

Furthermore, Roberts decides this facial challenge without allowing ANY consideration of the massive change to the political landscape of this country his decision creates. As quoted in the dissent:

Congress crafted BCRA in response to a virtual mountain of research on the corruption that previous legislation had failed to avert. The Court now negates Congress’ efforts without a shred of evidence on how §203 or its state-law counterparts have been affecting any entity other than Citizens United.

It’s not that Roberts decided the way he did. It’s that he went about coming to that decision in a way that micturates upon countless established court precedents. Whether it be the scope of the case at hand, case law, established Supreme Court protocol, you name it. He went about handling this ruling in a completely unorthodox manner. Which is fine, he’s the Chief Justice. But don’t try and call yourself a fucking “umpire” then.