I don't agree with the ruling. But I think Grayson is being just a little dramatic.
I am more worried that all that money will let politicking take over my TV!
I don't need anyone campaigning for office for two dang years!
For all i know, it might actually work in their favour. :unsure:
I mean, a lot of rich people are a little more liberal than the Democratic Party. Also, certain changes benefit different areas of capital - i don't think i could calculate who will gain more financial support, too many factors.
Right, we probably will only be able to guage the real affect, during the elections later in the year. The media must be very happy though, plenty of money coming their way. However, if Obama, who is a marketing whizz should be upset about the ruling, then possibly there has to be something to worry over for the Democrats?
Source
The SC is independent of the parties. It's why they serve life-terms, no pre-election politics.
Thanks :redface: so at least we now know why Obama's feathers got so ruffled by the decision. It had been out of his area of control. :smug:
On the other hand, it's not exactly... democratic... is it?
(presuming you care about that)
It's not supposed to be. The SC enforces the Constitution. It's not a lawmaking body but a law giving 1. As it's not technically gov't, their really isn't any need for it to be.
@Dirk. From your previous discussions I thought that you did not think there was a democracy in the United States? :unsure: Anyway, thanks to David I now have a better understanding of the SC as a non political body. On the other hand, is it really possible to have a SC ruling that is completely free of politics, surely when the judges vote on this there has to be some political bias that can creep in indirectly?
Every time the Supreme Court comes out with a decision that is contrary to public sentiment there is a great outcry about "liberal judges," "conservative judges," "activist judges" - not to mention a general call to "reform" the courts, or do away with them altogether. Such criticisms are hardly justified. Indeed, it would be difficult to find a more staid group than those that make up the federal judiciary. (One does not get ahead by espousing radical ideas, one way or the other, about the law - witness the failed confirmation of the appointment of Judge Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.)
Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty. Under the constitutional provision for separation of powers, federal judges are not supposed to be subject to political influence in fulfilling the court's role. A federal judge, who serves with life tenure on good behavior, can wield great power; which is why it is important to appoint "qualified" persons and not just political ideologues to the federal bench. That is why federal judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and not elected.
Our courts are the great levelers, for all men stand equal before the law. But while we are a nation of laws and not men, it is men who administer the laws and mete out justice. Most state judges are elected officials, and others appointed by executive authority; and there are few whose judgments are not influenced by politics, whether it be associated with getting reelected or avoiding impeachment from office. To make federal judges accountable in this way would turn the judiciary into courts of popular appeal, which is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
Given the role of the Supreme Court (and lower federal courts) in the system of checks and balances provided in the Constitution, an independent judiciary is essential, for it acts as a curb against the encroachment of government on individual rights and liberty. Under the constitutional provision for separation of powers, federal judges are not supposed to be subject to political influence in fulfilling the court's role. A federal judge, who serves with life tenure on good behavior, can wield great power; which is why it is important to appoint "qualified" persons and not just political ideologues to the federal bench. That is why federal judges are appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Senate and not elected.
Our courts are the great levelers, for all men stand equal before the law. But while we are a nation of laws and not men, it is men who administer the laws and mete out justice. Most state judges are elected officials, and others appointed by executive authority; and there are few whose judgments are not influenced by politics, whether it be associated with getting reelected or avoiding impeachment from office. To make federal judges accountable in this way would turn the judiciary into courts of popular appeal, which is not what the framers of the Constitution had in mind.
Well if the President were a Democrat, and the majority Senators Democrats, surely there would be a tiny bit of a possibility of some political bias in the selection of the federal judge? If it had been a Republican President, and the Senators would have been Democrats, his candidate would also have received much more scrutiny, than the candidate of a President who is a democrat?
PS: Thanks for an awesome posting. Learned a lot from it.