Stare decisis et non quieta movere, "Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established" but what if the Supreme Court got it wrong? Are we STUCK with bad law? Well, usually, yes; at least for a while, sometimes a painfully long while. Just ask the original residents of this nation we call the United States.
Yes, the Supreme Court of the US gets it WRONG and surprisingly often. There’s a long history and some political shenanigans that underlie why they get it wrong at times but, every once in a while, we get a court and a case where they decide to fix prior mistakes. I believe Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission is one of these cases and I truly dislike the way the media so often tosses around the words “liberal” and “republican”; trying to make everything a war between the too. Have we really become so dumbed down that we must cubbyhole into just 2 or 3 cubbies?
Justice Roberts is absolutely correct that stare decisis is NOT an “inexorable command”; "If it were, segregation would be legal, minimum wage laws would be unconstitutional and the government could wiretap ordinary criminal suspects without first obtaining warrants," he said, referring to previous court decisions.
Stare decisis et non quieta movere, "Maintain what has been decided and do not alter that which has been established". In recent years, there is a term for cases that are nearly exempt from any possibility of being overturned. These cases are called Super Stare Decisis cases. In my opinion the Uber Stare Decisis is the Constitution of the United States. It was decided and it was declared the Supreme Law of the Land within its own four corners (Art. VI, Clause 2). Therefore, if the Supremes find that their previous decisions violate or alter the Uber Stare Decisis, that they or their predecessors have already violated Stare Decisis; they have an obligation to correct that error and to restore the US Constitution to its proper dignity.
“Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech…” The First Amendment clause on free speech is plain, simple, and clear. Our founders knew what a corporation was. It’s merely a group of people, joined together in common efforts. Benjamin Franklin and Dr. Bond founded Pennsylvania Hospital in 1751 and it has been in continuous operation since then. In law, it is called a legal fiction to consider a corporation a “person”. To me, the fiction is to consider a corporation anything other than a collective of people. (And, if we’d recognize the reality of that, we could also “pierce the corporate veil” to hold the people behind corporations accountable for their frauds – think Wall Street and BANKS.)
“The battle over restricting corporate and union spending in political campaigns does not necessarily break down along ideological lines: The American Civil Liberties Union and the National Rifle Association supported Citizens United.” Washington Post, you are in ERROR. It does break down over ideological lines, just not the overly simplistic Liberal/Conservative and Democrat/Republican ones you recognize.
In many ways, I am a diehard Lockean Liberal. “He wrote ‘no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty, or possessions.’” The US Constitution embodies this sentiment as well. Therefore, I am ultra conservative on the federal government. It should be restricted to the enumerated powers and it should not do what it is prohibited from doing. The rest is reserved to the states and the people. It’s OURS and the feds should get their paws OFF. If I want to give my property away, I know how and don’t need federal help deciding who to give it to.
And now the “problem” with Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission. I do indeed agree with the decision. HOWEVER, corporations have become HUGE and influential. We let them do that by giving them our money without concerning ourselves over what they do with their profits. We’ve let them consolidate to the point where there is often only a single supplier of what we need or want. We have to STOP that. We have to vote with our dollars AND with our stock holdings.
DO NOT buy from corporations who support things you detest. DO NOT keep your investments and retirement funds in companies that support things you detest. In fact, it’s long past time for investors and fund managers to simply tell companies whether or not they want their retirement money being spent on politics at all. Is that where some of your investments disappeared to in recent years? I’ll bet it is! You can’t simply turn your money over to other people and expect they’ll do what you want with it. You must make sure your money goes to what you want or put your money ELSEWHERE.
If we don't do these things and boycott those who would spend our money supporting politicians who would take our property on a whim (whether through seizure of animals, condemnation of land, increasing taxes, etc., etc.), corporations will indeed have the influence so many fear will come from this particular Supreme Court decision and perhaps we deserve to lose our property for simply giving them our money to screw us with.
PS: I want a new political cubbyhole! I want a party that represents US instead of the 2 self-perpetuating monsters we currently have.