Reflection Week 4

I devoted my time on reading, analyzing, and looking deeper into one of the most important articles/resources regarding Citizens United v. FEC. In May of 2012 (almost three years after the Court’s decision) Jeffrey Toobin of the New Yorker released “Money Unlimited” which would later be known as almost a tell-all. The main argument within the article, supported by vast amounts of evidence, is that Chief Justice John Roberts was not impartial in the case and legislated on the bench, or judicial activism. A judge is to remain without bias and to interpret law, not to act in his or her own court. Going all the way back to 2003, Toobin brings up how CJ Roberts told conservatives that the Supreme Court was ready and looking for a case to declare the McCain-Feingold Act unconstitutional. Then Toobin brought up that citizens cannot escape advertisements (regarding the 30 and 60-day restrictions before elections), but they can voluntarily avoid reading a book about a candidate, by simply not reading it. During oral argument, the more conservative Supreme Court Justices, like Justice Samuel Alito, trapped Malcolm Stewart (arguing for the respondent) in saying that Congress could prohibit both advertisements and books within the periods. CJ Roberts is also accused for judicial activism again because of his decision for reargument. There were two oral arguments for this case, spanning two of the Court’s terms. One reason  for reargument was to expand the majority opinion’s interpretation and secondly to stop Justice David Souter’s dissent from being published in the Court’s official opinion. Justice Souter was retiring at the end of the 2008-2009 term and therefore held no constraint in his dissent and accused Roberts of acting for his own personal gain. In response, Roberts let the case go for reargument in the next term, following the retirement of Souter, and the dissent was written by Justice John Paul Stevens.