Litigation

On Citizens United, and a ?Constitutional Court?

By Peter Hardin

For months, pundits have analyzed the impact on the elections of the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. Now a different analysis suggests that what Citizens United tells us about the court may be even more important.

A New York Times editorial, under the headline “Our Constitutional Court,” says the court has become increasingly more absorbed with interpreting the Constitution and how it apportions power, and the landmark Citizens United campaign finance ruling is emblematic of that.

In Citizens United, according to the editorial, the majority not only “overturned a century of precedent that it had twice recently reaffirmed,” but “it did so by moving past the limited controversy that was actually in the case and deciding a sweeping issue of constitutional law that no party had raised for the justices to consider.”

Moreover, it issued the ruling in an area where the court itself “has said it should be most restrained” and defer to other branches with greater competence to settle certain pragmatic political questions,  the editorial contends. The editorial’s final note is critical:

“Citizens United shows that the current court is using its power with more latitude than any in memory.

“It is doing so to rewrite the terms it uses to fulfill the constitutional mission of limiting each branch of government. Redefining itself as a constitutional court, this court seems limited only by limits it opts to recognize.”

Meanwhile Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio, laments anonymous political spending in the wake of Citizens United in a commentary available from Cleveland.com, the web site for The Plain Dealer and Sun News.

Brown notes Ohio’s ranking of second in the nation for political spending on state Supreme Court elections, according to a recent report by Justice at Stake and partner groups. Brown goes on to urge passage of federal legislation for heightened disclosure of political spending.

To learn more about Citizens United, check out Gavel Grab or Justice at Stake’s amicus brief in the case.

Full post as published by The Gavel on November 23, 2010 (boomark / email).