Professor Geoffrey Stone, University of Chicago Law School
As University of Chicago Law School Professor Geoffrey Stone sees it, the Supreme Court issued its most aggressively activist decision in decades with the Citizens United case, which held unconstitutional the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act. What does this tell us about the judicial philosophy of the current conservative majority on the Court and the future of American democracy?
Professor Stone explores these questions in “Citizens United” and the Role of the Supreme Court in a Self-Governing Society, the 2011 DeWitt Higgs Memorial Lecture presented by Earl Warren College and the Law and Society Program at UC San Diego and the California Western School of Law.
©2010 Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved.
2 Responses to ““Citizens United” and the Supreme Court”
, the next step should be a lobinbyg effort of the state legislation to fix this broken law. I hate to come down on the side of the ACLU(I disagree with their position, I think the fact that it was a parent violating their child’s privacy is central to the case and they should never have taken this case) but the law doesn’t have anything about it in there, so what are you gonna do? Better to not have judges legislating from the bench, even if that would make the decision more just in our minds. That’s only my opinion, and I still agree that a mother has broad rights over her child’s privacy, and whatever she finds out ought to be court admissible. Just imagine if she’d overheard her daughter talking about shooting up the school? Or more specific to this case, what if her boyfriend had been talking about it? This law needs to be changed, big time. Thanks for leaving the comments open so I could ramble
Cheers,M@
a provincial Supreme Court judge to me, my ceinlt, back in the early 80s, something like:- Of course the law is fair and equitable. Of course the division of assets is based on 50/50. But it depends on the meaning of 50/50. -Like “it depends on the meaning of ‘is’”, if you can catch the meaning of that meaning as your jaw drops. Not in expectation.We’re in an age where not only our words are being redefined. Our phrases, our idioms, our sentences, our stories, our traditions are under attack.Not Me9tis enough, not multicultural enough. We’re never “enough”. Because judges, and the rest, are not man enough.No balls left means the game is over…