.
I think this is a terrible decision. I think it openly broadcasts that Congress is for sale to an unlimited bidder. However, liberals can't with a straight face, claim this as some sort of Judicial Activism or arrogance.
.
Don't get me wrong, - I think this is a horrible decision ; but it isn't rampant Judicial Activism. I mean, pretty much all Judicial decisions are Judicial Activism - and it is bad when it goes against you.
.
This is the same type of headline, only then from the Right, when Justice Roberts upheld ObamaCare or when Justice Kennedy sided with Windsor on gay marriage.
.
Justice Roberts' decision wasn't arrogant nor did it display a contempt for democracy. He weighed 2 competing "goods" - Constitutional Right of Free Speech (as the court has been defining it) vs. Legislature's ability to pass laws. In this case, 5 of the Justices found for Free Speech - defining "Speech" as a vector of political donations.
.
Again, I think the consequences are horrible. And I don't agree with unlimited campaign donations as Free Speech. We have limits to Free Speech all the time - so I think we can have reasonable limits to political donations. I think the actual threat to public welfare is inherent in unlimited political donations (and provable by legal precedent in Montana and California)- but I didn't go to Law School.
.
Just because someone reasons differently than you, doesn't mean they hold contempt for what you both might hold dear.
.
I actually worry a little less about the "actual" consequences than I do the "perceived" consequences. For a perception point of view, it removes our government from the common man. I think it will effect our belief in a fair system of laws and justice - which I think is much more insidious than any donationas can be.