Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumOpinion of Plutocrat SCOTUS Chief Roberts
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/05/01/john-roberts-campaign-finance_n_7191728.htmlsnip:
In explaining why judges are different from politicians -- and, therefore, why courts should distinguish judicial elections from legislative and executive elections when it comes to campaign finance rules -- Roberts wrote that it is vital that judges not be responsive to those who put them in office, but serve as neutral decision-makers.
On the other hand, he wrote, "Politicians are expected to be appropriately responsive to the preferences of their supporters. Indeed, such 'responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.'
That quote-inside-a-quote comes from another Roberts-written decision, the 2014 McCutcheon v. Federal Election Commission ruling that struck down aggregate campaign contribution limits. What is interesting about the whole passage is how Roberts redefined, from last year to this, the people to whom politicians are supposed to respond.
In McCutcheon, he wrote, Representatives are not to follow constituent orders, but can be expected to be cognizant of and responsive to those concerns. Such responsiveness is key to the very concept of self-governance through elected officials.
From McCutcheon to Williams-Yulee, the chief moved from saying that politicians are naturally responsive to constituent orders -- that is, the views of the voters who elected them -- to suggesting they should be responsive to the preferences of their supporters -- a broader term that sweeps in the donors who back them.
Constituents can pound sand. Supporters (i.e. checkbooks) are the group pols needs to be responsive to. SCOTUS further endorses our kleptocracy.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
2 replies, 982 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (0)
ReplyReply to this post
2 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Opinion of Plutocrat SCOTUS Chief Roberts (Original Post)
kairos12
May 2015
OP
GeorgeGist
(25,294 posts)1. Roberts is a corporate hack.
malthaussen
(17,065 posts)2. He's actually trying to formulate a moral position here,
... but boy, is he confused. It's really quite hard to suspend disbelief enough to think he could be other than a corporate tool.
-- Mal