Bush v. Gore & Citizens United

These two cases by the supreme court have striking similarities. First they are both targeted at elections. Bush v. Gore essentially secured George W. Bush's first term presidency. Citizens United is also made during a critical election time that will heavily favor Republican congressmen by lining their pockets with more corporate funding. Most importantly, both cases are a 5-4 split between the conservative and liberal members of the court. In both cases the justices in the minority do not simply write a decent but write a scathing decent accusing the majority for making illogical arguments and ignoring decades of court precedents while focusing on novel niches in others.

It is also curious that both of these cases completely contradict the conservative's court stance on federal and states rights. Bush v. Gore stepped into a debate with the Florida state government asserting that the state law was unconstitutional in allowing Gore to recount votes in the 2000 election. The decision is so novel that it is unlikely to be used as precedent for any type of law and it is largely seen as a political play by the court to declare a conservative as president to replace the conservative justices about to retire. Citizens United uses the bill of rights to declare corporate personhood allowing corporations to spend much more on political campaigns. It largely ignores the actual content of the case to make a (some say insane) stretch declaring corporations equal to real people. They make this argument using a tactic using a precedent that they have been largely using to over rule other cases. The same goes for Bush v. Gore. It largely relied on precedents made by the liberal Warren court to justify their ruling. The minority view in both cases took an opposing stance on bases they would normally support. This obviously smells like a partisan fight and not a fight for justice.

Citizens United will no doubt have an immediate positive effect on the Republican party who have in the past decades been in favor of deregulating big business. The Supreme Court have shown their political bias clearly in Bush v. Gore. Yet the politicking done by the court is not in the interest of the American people. It is done to promote a conservative agenda and to fortify the conservative majority within the court.

The Citizens United case has polled disfavorably with most Americans, yet the actions of the court are largely invisible. People chide the Democrats for not being effective. They sight their slight majority in congress and a Democratic president without noting the third branch of the federal government. Currently it is staffed with ideological remnants of the Reagan and Bushes. In congress we have political gridlock over healthcare, but in the Supreme Court, longstanding civil rights cases are being tossed in the dumpster with out much attention.

The Court has always been making political decisions. Whether it be seen in hindsight as favorably (plessy v. ferguson) or inhumanely cruel (dred scott v. sanford). Yet this court is purposely nosing deeper and deeper into elections of the two other federal branches which is unique in history. This undermines separation of powers and creates an atmosphere where each branch is nestling inside each other rather than being critical. It might even get sloppy if Republicans take the majority of congress. Two branches will then be right leaning while only the executive branch will have a liberal majority and probably the most limited in influencing legislation or interpreting it. America is still under the shadow of Reagan era ideologies that have recently proven suicidal. The purging of these toxic politics will take a lot longer than I think most people hope for.

And yes, I know: tl;dr.

It is also curious that both of these cases completely contradict the conservative's court stance on federal and states rights.

Correct me if I am wrong but the primary difference in the conservative view of the constitution regarding states rights is in a minimal or less maximal interpretation of the commerce clause, Bush v. Gore relied on the equal protection clause and Citizens United on the 1st amendment.

These two cases by the supreme court have striking similarities. First they are both targeted at elections.

Their focus is on elections, they aren't really "targeting" anything by ruling on disputes brought before them.

ignoring decades of court precedents

McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002.

Citizens United uses the bill of rights to declare corporate personhood allowing corporations to spend much more on political campaigns. It largely ignores the actual content of the case to make a (some say insane) stretch declaring corporations equal to real people.

The legal concept of corporate personhood has been around for centuries, and affords such a person limited rights unlike a living breathing person.

America is still under the shadow of Reagan era ideologies that have recently proven suicidal.

lol

Quote from: grogberries on March 20, 2010, 02:28:11 AM

It is also curious that both of these cases completely contradict the conservative's court stance on federal and states rights.

Correct me if I am wrong but the primary difference in the conservative view of the constitution regarding states rights is in a minimal or less maximal interpretation of the commerce clause, Bush v. Gore relied on the equal protection clause and Citizens United on the 1st amendment.

Quote from: grogberries on March 20, 2010, 02:28:11 AM

These two cases by the supreme court have striking similarities. First they are both targeted at elections.

Their focus is on elections, they aren't really "targeting" anything by ruling on disputes brought before them.

Quote from: grogberries on March 20, 2010, 02:28:11 AM

ignoring decades of court precedents

McCain-Feingold was passed in 2002.

Quote from: grogberries on March 20, 2010, 02:28:11 AM

Citizens United uses the bill of rights to declare corporate personhood allowing corporations to spend much more on political campaigns. It largely ignores the actual content of the case to make a (some say insane) stretch declaring corporations equal to real people.

The legal concept of corporate personhood has been around for centuries, and affords such a person limited rights unlike a living breathing person.

Quote from: grogberries on March 20, 2010, 02:28:11 AM

America is still under the shadow of Reagan era ideologies that have recently proven suicidal.

lol

No. Generally a conservative judge favors state's rights over federal rights. Unless, that is, they can use federal rights to aid the Republican party even choose who gets to be president and thus who will replace retiring justices. Bush v. Gore relied heavily on the equal protection laws for votes. The Florida Courts ruled that counting hanging chads was consistent with the equal protection law but the Supreme Court said they were wrong. The Supreme Court had also delayed the recount so that it ran into the dead line after the ruling. Under normal circumstances a conservative judge would have let the state rule for itself. In this case federal/states rights meant the difference between Bush and Gore. The ruling is so inconsistent with the courts ideology that it hasn't been used as precedent for any other case. The ruling basically only applies to this specific case, which put Bush into office.

The 'disputes' are looked upon with confusion to many. Cases are brought to them but they also decide which of those cases to take. Both of these cases show a politicized vote which is exemplified by the arguments the justices use to justify the decisions and the 5-4 split. The Supreme Court caused a lot of eyes to roll taking Bush v. Gore. The context the court needed to do this was only if the Florida Courts were trying to shove Gore into office when Bush had clearly won. This was not the case. The election was close in Florida. Gore had won the popular vote. Gore just wanted to do a recount to see if he had really won in Florida. The Supreme Court said that was over whelming evidence that the judicial system had been hijacked to command an intervention? Most people see that as a lame argument and see it only as a political move.

McCain-Feingold is legislation not a court ruling and does not establish precedent in the courts.

Corporate personhood did not guarantee corporations protection under the bill of rights. It does now.

No. Generally a conservative judge favors state's rights over federal rights. Unless, that is, they can use federal rights to aid the Republican party even choose who gets to be president and thus who will replace retiring justices.

You are over generalizing, differing attitudes towards states rights are based in different interpretations of various clauses. What interpretation went against the conservative norm?

Under normal circumstances a conservative judge would have let the state rule for itself.

You know judicial conservatives better then then themselves?

In this case federal/states rights meant the difference between Bush and Gore. The ruling basically only applies to this specific case, which put Bush into office.

Gore would have still been behind in votes under the county-by-county recount he wanted.

The ruling is so inconsistent with the courts ideology that it hasn't been used as precedent for any other case.

It's nto exactly a common occurance.

The context the court needed to do this was only if the Florida Courts were trying to shove Gore into office when Bush had clearly one. This was not the case. The election was close in Florida.

That's a lot of words saying nothing. The context was that was "needed" by the court was a legal challenge.

Gore had one the popular vote. Gore just wanted to do a recount to see if he had really one.

One two few?

McCain-Feingold is legislation not a court ruling and does not establish precedent in the courts.

There was one previous ruling befoer citizens united so there was not decades of rulings concerning it.

Corporate personhood did not guarantee corporations protection under the bill of rights. It does now.

I'm pretty sure the 4th through 8th always applied

Something tells me you're going to oppose me no matter what I say.

Ah, so you all see the intrinsic flaw of having the supreme court decide anything?
Let's see....each justice is appointed by a president, either it was a liberal one, or a conservative one.
And of course, by conservative, I mean 'statist,' and by liberal, I mean 'socialist.'

Where in the constitution does it say that the supreme court gets to decide what's constitutional, and what's not?  Oh, that's right, it doesn't.  A law is either plainly constitutional, or it isn't.  There is no room for interpreting anything in it.  It was written quite concisely, as all laws are required to be written.

What are you saying?

and by liberal, I mean 'socialist.'

and by socialist you mean?

Quote

and by liberal, I mean 'socialist.'

and by socialist you mean?

He has no real understanding of the term 'socialist' beyond a person disagreeing with his veiwpoint. I've never seen the term socialist so misused by anyone. For the record liberalism is NOT socialism but to an extreme right winger anything to the left of the far right is defined as dangerous leftism. It such a narrow-minded stance. Of course politicians will do anything to maximise their chances of winning or staying in office and interpretations of law are always subjective where there is room to be so.

Something tells me you're going to oppose me no matter what I say.

Well, he is a troll.

Quote from: fbkj on March 29, 2010, 09:15:24 AM

Quote

and by liberal, I mean 'socialist.'

and by socialist you mean?

He has no real understanding of the term 'socialist' beyond a person disagreeing with his veiwpoint. I've never seen the term socialist so misused by anyone. For the record liberalism is NOT socialism but to an extreme right winger anything to the left of the far right is defined as dangerous leftism. It such a narrow-minded stance. Of course politicians will do anything to maximise their chances of winning or staying in office and interpretations of law are always subjective where there is room to be so.

I was making a light joke and making a distinction....  I meant to clarify that classical liberalism is distinct from modern liberalism.  Today, the term you would use would be libertarian.  Modern conservatism could also be considered classical liberalism, but it seems that most 'conservatives' are actually war-mongering statists.
I'm not a right or left winger.  I'm an individualist aka libertarian.  I don't like often calling myself a 'libertarian' because there's also a political party of the same name.  Distinction there is (as we like to say) the capitol 'L.'

As usual, no body bothers to read all of my post.  You got to a point and decided the rest wasn't worth a read.  The first paragraph was a light-hearted observation.  The real substance was the second part.

Quote from: EarthISroundISproven on March 29, 2010, 10:30:50 AM

Quote from: fbkj on March 29, 2010, 09:15:24 AM

Quote

and by liberal, I mean 'socialist.'

and by socialist you mean?

He has no real understanding of the term 'socialist' beyond a person disagreeing with his veiwpoint. I've never seen the term socialist so misused by anyone. For the record liberalism is NOT socialism but to an extreme right winger anything to the left of the far right is defined as dangerous leftism. It such a narrow-minded stance. Of course politicians will do anything to maximise their chances of winning or staying in office and interpretations of law are always subjective where there is room to be so.

I was making a light joke and making a distinction....  I meant to clarify that classical liberalism is distinct from modern liberalism.  Today, the term you would use would be libertarian.  Modern conservatism could also be considered classical liberalism, but it seems that most 'conservatives' are actually war-mongering statists.
I'm not a right or left winger.  I'm an individualist aka libertarian.  I don't like often calling myself a 'libertarian' because there's also a political party of the same name.  Distinction there is (as we like to say) the capitol 'L.'

As usual, no body bothers to read all of my post.  You got to a point and decided the rest wasn't worth a read.  The first paragraph was a light-hearted observation.  The real substance was the second part.

i saw the word socialist and i bit, since im fascinated by how that word is being mishandled in the united states... its fun to watch dont get me wrong...

I'm sorry, I'm not getting what you're trying to say :-/

no worries