And Stevens who was nominated by Gerald Ford(republican) chaired the opposition. Not exactly party lines like you suggest.
No, was not suggesting division along party lines. In matters of law, particularly where the supreme court is concerned, its judicial philosophy that is usually the dividing factor. Judges are identified and appointed according to their legal philosophies- Conservative or Liberal.
While the appointment of conservative vs. Liberal supreme court justices usually follows party lines, this is not always the case.
So what I was referring to was
Judicial philosophy, not party lines. Party lines are more applicable to congress.
Why dont you actually blame the Justices who voted instead of the former president who nominated them? Im sure they are all intelligent enough to make their own decisions.
Because the Judicial philosophy of a nominee is usually well known prior to nomination. In fact, it is the singular identifying factor upon which appointments are made. The only exception would be Sotomayor, whose philosophy is not yet well established, although there are speculations of liberal leanings.
What this really boils down to is how you see the constitution. B/c from a purely constitutional stand point I can understand the decision.
1. If it were a clear cut case of applying the constitution, there should have been resounding, unanimous consent.
2. The underlying argument (and the reason for the "liberal" dissention) is that the status and appropriations pertaining to personhood cannot apply to corporations. Free speech, then, being one of the protections of the constitution granted to
individuals, should not apply to corporations.
3. If the constitution/the law in general were so blindly applicable, there would be no need for judges/justices.
For instance (and an overly simplistic example I know), murder is criminal, however in the case of self-defense particularly in the protection of the powerless/helpless (children) the full measure of the law may not be applicable.
In the same vein, a common sense approach to the law, on a case-by-case basis, instead of a thoughtless principle-based one is necessary.
Justices are appointed to protect our freedoms, not to hand them over to corporations.
