'Citizens United' advisory measure can go on ballot, California high court says

[tecelote]

Source: LA Times



Nearly three years ago, the Legislature placed an advisory measure on the ballot asking voters to weigh in on the Supreme Court’s ruling in the Citizens United case, which struck down certain campaign spending limits.

A conservative group sued and succeeded in getting the measure yanked from the ballot.

On Monday, the same court that took the measure off the ballot decided 6 to 1 that it could go back on.

The decision by the California Supreme Court, handed down in 143 pages with separate opinions from four justices, said the Legislature may place advisory measures on the ballot as long as there is a “nexus” between the proposition and actions the Legislature might take in the future.

Read more: http://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-california-supreme-court-ballot-20160104-story.html

[another_liberal]

1. The Conservative majority on the Supreme Court has erred terribly in this matter . . .

The 99% of Americans who hate what they have done will just have to set them straight through use of the ballot box!

[byronius]

2. Clearly the worst and most criminal court decision in modern American history.

A hundred years from now, those justices who voted for it will enshrined as buffoons or traitors. They've harmed this nation with their utter ignorance.

"Hey, what could go wrong with legalizing bribery? I just don't see it! Oh, and discouraging racism is so sixties..."

[Nye Bevan]

3. Are you aware that the ACLU supported and continues to support the decision?

And actually filed an amicus brief in the case?

Many believe that the defining moment of the arguments in the case was when the Government side claimed that they should be allowed to ban books that mentioned election candidates:

According to Deputy Solicitor General Malcolm Stewart, who argued the case, the government could theoretically regulate other forms of pre-election corporate speech as well, including books and the Internet. "That's pretty incredible," said Justice Samuel Alito. "You think that if a book was published, a campaign biography that was the functional equivalent of express advocacy, that could be banned?" Yes, Mr. Stewart said, if a corporation or union were paying for it. It would be possible to "prohibit the publication of the book using the corporate treasury funds."

http://citizensunited.org/press-releases.aspx?article=430

I'm really not sure that justices who, along with the ACLU, were uncomfortable with allowing the government to ban books, will be "enshrined as buffoons or traitors" over their decision.

[byronius]

4. Very cherry-picky, there.

I hadn't heard that particular angle, but using that argument as a way to permit uncontrolled and unmonitored pumping of corporate cash into American politics is, on its face, specious. Foreign governments now influence American politics through untraceable back-channels, and a posited theoretical situation concerning a corporate-paid smear book is the argument in favor of that? How absurd.

I don't care what the ACLU says about it; the situation is clearly and utterly destructive to the nation, and will continue to be so until its repeal, legal bullshit notwithstanding. 'Buffoons and traitors' is the milder term for the justices that supported this; 'bloody murderers and tyrant-creators' would perhaps be more appropriate.

Aside from your relaying the depths of silliness that legal thought can plunge to (which I am familiar with), are you seriously arguing that this is a good decision that serves the interests of the American public?