The Supreme Court is getting a lot of attention for its Citizens United decision. The decision allows groups such as unions and corporations to spend freely on campaign ads and other independent but blatantly political acts. Here is a sensible defense of it. As is this. The New York Times believes it is an attack on democracy. And an LA Times columnist calls it conservative judicial activism, a claim that shows less whether the decision is good and more that he doesn’t understand the judicial philosophy he attacks. The decision itself is very long, so I haven’t tackled it yet, though you can find it here. It is a potential game changer, especially in the on-going debate about the nature of protected speech in the 1st Amendment, such as who is protected to speak and what kind of speech is intended to be protected.
From the Supreme Court
– January 24, 2010
The Supreme Court is getting a lot of attention for its Citizens United decision. The decision allows groups such as unions and corporations to spend freely on campaign ads and other independent but blatantly political acts. Here is a sensible defense of it. As is this. The...
About the Author
Adam Carrington After a year at Westminster Theological Seminary, Adam began a PhD program in Political Science at Baylor University in Waco, TX in the Fall of 2009. He received his BA from Ashland University in Ashland, OH, where he studied Political Science, Religion, and English Literature. During his undergrad, he worked on several political campaigns as well as interning with The Claremont Review of Books. He continues to be fascinated by politics, literature, and media’s interaction with theology and the Church. In the spare time he does scratch out, he likes to play guitar, read, and spend late nights debating any and every topic at all-night diners. Adam is married to Emily Carrington. 
