You can Agree or Disagree with Citizens United, but...Representative Democracy

[Procrustes Stretched]

Book Discussion Uncertain Justice Video C-SPAN.org

I love that Tribe mentions representative democracy

questioner: For me the most disturbing decision has been Citizens United ... people voting for it voted for money being basically the same as a soul"

31:45 into video

Well the question is whether the Supreme Court's dismantling of campaign finance reform and it's rejection of ESSENTIALLY EVERY CONGRESSIONAL EFFORT that NOW COMES BEFORE IT TO limit the influence of WEALTH AND of CORPORATE POWER BUT ALSO OF UNIONS ON ELECTIONS

WHETHER THAT SET OF DECISIONS, WHICH DO TEND TO SPLIT IN PARTISAN WAYS, WHETHER THAT SOMEHOW is A REFUTATION OF MY VIEW THAT THESE PEOPLE ARE TRYING THEIR BEST TO GIVE vent to THEIR BELIEFS ABOUT THE CONSTITUTION. I DON'T REALLY THINK SO.

...you can AGREE OR DISAGREE ABOUT CITIZENS UNITED, BUT THE FUNDAMENTAL PHILOSOPHY OF THE MAJORITY in those CASES IS NOT CONTRARY TO WHAT LOTS OF PEOPLE SEEM TO THINK -- THAT CORPORATIONS ARE JUST HUMAN BEINGS IN DRAG, OR NOT MONEY IS SPEECH. THEY ARE NOT SAYING THAT. THEY ARE SAYING THAT -- WE DON'T TRUST THE GOVERNMENT TO DECIDE WHAT SPEAKERS SHOULD BE HEARD AND HOW MUCH MONEY VARIOUS INTEREST SHOULD SPEND ON SPEECH.

AS IT HAPPENED, CITIZENS UNITED WAS AN ANTI-HILLARY CLINTON DOCUMENTARY BUT IF IT HAD BEEN AN ANTI-ROMNEY DOCUMENTARY OR an ANTI-MCCAIN DOCUMENTARY, THAT SUSPICION OF GOVERNMENT PLAYING THE ROLE OF ORCHESTRATING THE PLAYING FIELD FOR SPEECH WOULD HAVE BEEN EXACTLY THE SAME.


ANOTHER WAY TO LOOK AT IT IS THAT HOWEVER MUCH WE MAY WORRY, AND I DO A GREAT DEAL ABOUT THE INJURY TO THE REPRESENTATIVE DEMOCRACY , OF HAVING GREAT WEALTH PLAY so HUGE ROLE -- WE MAY BE LESS THAN CONFIDENT that THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM IS TO TAKE THE VERY PEOPLE...

...too INFLUENCED BY MONEY. BY REVERSING THE SUPREME COURT'S UNDERSTANDING OF THE FIRST AMENDMENT, DOESN'T LOOK LIKE MUCH OF A SOLUTION TO ME. SO THAT'S ONE OF THE MOST SERIOUS PARADOXES THAT CONFRONT US. THE paradox of SPEECH AND MONEY AND POWER.
​

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Tribe:

...NEWS CYCLES BUT THERE'S BEEN A LOT OF DEMAND FROM DECADES AGO TO KNOW EXACTLY WHAT THE COURT DECIDED THE VERY MOMENT THAT IT DECIDED IT WAS

SO the PRINTING OFFICE OF THE COURT AS IT USED TO BE.. I don't know . NOW THEY MAY HAVE SOMETHING a little bit MORE FANCY -- THE PRINTING OFFICE USED TO COME OUT WITH WHAT WERE CALLED SLIP OPINIONS withIN MINUTES OF THE DECISION.

AND BECAUSE THEY WERE PRODUCED SO QUICKLY, THERE OFTEN WAS A SLIP IN THE SLIP OPINION. and it would sometimes reveal something that the Justices thought their latest draft had fixed.

The one thing I noticed when the Supreme Court IN 1992 REAFFIRMED THE CORE OF ROE V. WADE IN a CASE CALLED PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF PENNSYLVANIA, AGAINST CASEY.

IF YOU CAREFULLY READ THE Rehnquist DISSENT YOU CAN TELL FROM THE very FIRST slip OPINION THAT IT WAS A MAJORITY OPINION. IT WAS GOING TO be A MAJORITY OPINION OVERRULING ROE V. WADE.

BUT THAT got PATCHED UP WHEN KENNEDY, SOUTER, AND O'CONNOR AS A GROUP DECIDED THAT IT WAS IMPORTANT FOR THE STABILITY OF THE SOCIETY AND FOR the EQUAL STATUS OF WOMEN that Roe v Wade not be overruled.,, they patched it up. and so lot of students...

. IT TURNS OUT none of my COLLEAGUES TEACHING THE CONSTITUTIONAL LAW IN THE COUNTRY KNOWS THAT. I THOUGHT EVERYONE KNEW IT. BUT PEOPLE STUDY THIS DECISION AS THOUGH IT WERE SORT OF ORDAINED THAT THE COURT WOULDN'T GET RID OF ROE V. WADE. BUT IT CAME WITHIN INCHES OF DOING EXACTLY THAT. ​