Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Justice Stevens thinks the Supremes will revisit Citizens United:
Hey, who cares, right? I mean, they will have accomplished the goal of getting that black guy out of that white house, right? Anything beyond that was always just gravy.
Or not. I'm not sure at all that as long as the four-and-a-half activist right-wingers are on the bench they'll be interested in revisiting anything they've done. What about Wisconsin would they see as unintended or unfortunate?
[Addendum: since the turnout for the Wisconsin recall election was even greater than it was for the original Walker election, I'll concede that it must really represent what the people want, which only goes to reinforce my pessimism. Whether the huge money advantage was dispositive I suppose we'll never know. But the vote would seem to demonstrate the triumph of mythology over reality, as it seems to have been largely about unions, in a time when blaming them for economic calamity is simplistic and false. But it's an effective way to convince people to vote for the failed policies of tax cuts and deregulation. Nor, maybe most importantly, should it escape us that destroying unions eliminates the main counterbalance to the anonymous billionaires spending big for teabaggers.]
[Addendum #2: a friend points out that it's likely many who voted against recall did so because they don't think recall is to be used for policy disagreements -- especially when Walker did exactly what he said he'd do when he was running. It's a good point, an important point. I had misgivings about going that route, as opposed to waiting for the next election; and, to be consistent, it's the same argument I've made to those who are upset, right or left, with Obama: he's done exactly what he said he'd do. Pretty much, anyway. To the extent Rs didn't block it or force him to water it down.]