...[according to Lithwick] Bush v. Gore in 2000 was a black eye for the court, apparently unmatched until Citizens United in 2010. Where was Ms. Lithwick in 2005, we must ask? Because that is the year of Kelo v. City of New London. Surely, her head is not stuck so far in sand as to make her ignorant of the backlash from the Kelo decision. After Kelo, States began drafting laws to prevent the usurpation allowed by the Court, people engaged in various protests against the Justices who had voted for the decision, and an entire body of writings appeared discussing the issues of the case. And for the most part, the public disagreed with the decision. 80% of the public, in fact. Yet somehow, Ms. Lithwick fails to mention Kelo, skipping from 2000 to 2010, in looking at poorly received cases.Now we have Shrum, wringing his hands in angst over the prospect of a "Tea Party Court" sending the Affrodable Care Act back down to the Eighth Circle of Hell, where it belongs. And his evidence for this fear? Why Citizens United and Bush v. Gore, of course:
An over-reaching court could shatter the vestigial credibility of an institution defaced by Bush v. Gore and by Citizens United — which incredibly held that there is insufficient evidence that money corrupts politics and thereby loosed a tide of special interest cash that is engulfing the politics of 2012.Once again, Kelo goes unmentioned, a ruling that determined private property could be arbitrarily confiscated by the government, then transferred to a private concern--not used by the government--for the purposes of generating more tax revenues. Instead, a proper ruling (Citizens United) and a ruling necessitated by a State Supreme Court's willful disdain for state law (Florida in Bush v. Gore) are cited as evidence of a dangerous Court.