Litigation

O?Connor a ?Crystallizing? Critic of Citizens United?

By Peter Hardin

Every week or so, retired Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor makes news in a university town, a state capital, or a major urban center where she drops in to discuss her outspoken views.

Of late, Justice O’Connor has courteously disagreed with the court’s Citizens United decision opening the doors to unlimited corporate spending on political elections. And according to one activist writing in Huffington Post, that view–coming from a former justice with stellar Republican credentials–is the single most important critique today of Citizens United.

Hans Johnson, president of Progressive Victory, offers a trenchant analysis in the commentary entitled “O’Connor’s Voice of Conscience.” Frequent readers of Gavel Grab are familiar with Justice O’Connor’s championing an end to judicial elections in the states. By voicing concerns about Citizens United, Justice O’Connor delivers a powerful punch, according to Johnson:

“O’Connor has highlighted the decision’s impact on precisely the political arena where its corrupting influence and corrosive effects on public trust could be deepest: the races judges themselves must run to keep their seats on state courts.”

At a time when many other Republicans are downplaying what they call “alarmist” rhetoric about the ruling, Johnson contends Justice O’Connor’s outspoken voice, combined with her political, legislative and judicial credentials make her a forceful, even crystallizing, critic:

“O’Connor…has the potential to crystallize for Americans, across the ideological spectrum, just what troubles us most about unfettered corporate or union spending through so-called independent expenditures and why limiting its impact should be a top priority for lawmakers on both sides of the aisle.”

Meanwhile, Justice O’Connor appeared this week at New York Law School. Regarding the flap over President Obama criticizing the Citizens United ruling in his State of the Union speech, she said it wouldn’t surprise her if fewer justices attend the annual event in the future, according to the Associated Press:

“You might see a diminution in numbers. It’s always been uncomfortable. There were always people who thought, `God, do we have to go? Let’s don’t.’ So it’s been kind of a struggle to get them there anyway.”

To learn more about the Citizens United decision, including an amicus brief filed by Justice at Stake, see this JAS online resource page.

Full post as published by The Gavel on April 07, 2010 (boomark / email).