One more time with Althouse

In remarking about Alioto mouthing words, she says:

"Uh, yeah, which is why Obama's words were such an affront. Obama called the Citizens United case a "wrong," that is, a legal outrage of some sort, but, obviously, Alito's position is that the Court decided the case according to the law, that it said what the First Amendment means, and that its legal expertise is entitled to respect."

Except it was a 5-4 decision, very tenuous and subject to revision. Is this good law? Well, every time a justice goes before the nominating committee in Congress, there will be a litmus test, will that justice overturn the rule. In giving the Corporate Charter inherent rights, the inch will become a mile via an unending string of litigation.

I have shot down every argument for this nonsense, as did the 4 dissenters. The implication of the ruling go so far that Congress has no choice but to seek its overturn at the soonest possible moment. In the meantime, as I have pointed out many times, the effect of this ruling was to kill the corporate charter at its very foundation. Until it is overturned, we will be stuck in limbo, waiting for legislatures across the country or Congress, to define the corporate charter around its new found rights, or simply do away with it.

I suggest to Althouse that she focus on the efforts of Congress to repair the corporate charter, and understand the economic cost this whole episode will cost us.