was reading this earlier. He is a facisnating person to keep an eye on because he is practically a unicorn in that he listens to arguements. Scalia and roberts on the other hand are anti original constitution-literalists, who impose their own ideas on what their america would have been if they created it on top of what the founding fathers actually laid out.
Strictly speaking, they are believers in direct democracy, and they pretend like it's republican government.
Well it is kind of their job to interpret the constitution. Contrary to popular belief you can't actually spin everything in the consitution to your liking and still have it matter at all.
well, your missing the point. Scalia and Roberts constantly claim to be literalist/originalist, saying the constitution is not a living document, and cannot change... and no set of justices have fought to change it more than they have. Given that it was never a conservative document to begin with, it should be no surprise that the most conservative justices in american history would claim to be originalist as a smokescreen.
citizens united is one recent change. It was the first time that we saw a non-person be granted personhood. a coorporation is not a human being, and yet, it has now been delcared to have all the rights of one, and can now, basically without limits that real human beings have, can spend unlimited money in our election process, meaning the voice and power of the real-citizen is severely limited because they cannot compete. Where as before, limits were put on donations, so that the playing feild was generally even, a person can now register themselves as a S corporation, and spend unlimited money generally without reprecussion. we have never defined speech and money to be the same thing, and roberts and scalia (thomas too) led the charge in making such a extremist, radical change.
I agree that the citizens united ruling was for the worse, but I am sure they had good reasons for ruling as they did, just as the opposition did. If the citizens of the US feel that the constitution allows too much latitude for money and corporations in politics they should amend the constitution to say otherwise. An idealistic point of view for sure, but I kind of wish more people had this view of the constitution. Same with things like the line item veto (which both parties support). But w/e politicians are too cowardly because the population is too ignorant (or apathetic, Americans do have it pretty good comparatively) at the moment.
