It’s a very common argument justifying unlimited personal and corporate contributions to political campaign, usually by people who are trying to wrap themselves in the First Amendment.
That’s comedy gold right there.
It isn’t so!
Congress screwed up when they passed a poorly written law.
Congress can always write more campaign fianance laws.
Which court are you suggesting will overturn CU? The SCOTUS?
I was asking the people who get all bent out of shape by the amount of money spent yfor example, our esteemed OP) . You are responding to a different point entirely.
No, seriously, this is really really basic stuff. Not just basic school learning, but it’s been in the news quite a bit.
Can Montana brief end Citizens United?
Also consider Justice Stevens: Citizens United Ruling Will Fall Apart.
None of this is dispositive that they will overturn CU, or what its likelihood is. It’s to refute the fetish that only congress can make laws! and to point out the glaringly obvious: yes, I–and anyone who passed civics–am saying that the SCOTUS can overturn CU. (Again, this doesn’t hit on what you didn’t bring up (whether they will), it’s just addressing your unfamiliarity with how the system works).
I can just hear Scalia saying “Hey, guys, I really screwed the pooch on that one. My reasoning was lame, my precedents weak. Money has civil rights, what the fuck was I thinking? So, can we have a do-over on that one. Man, I am just so embarrassed…”
Cue Buddy Holly That’ll Be The Day…
No, the way it works is that another case will come before the court. Scalia (or one of the other judges) will use twisted logic for why Citizen United doesn’t apply, allowing a 5-4 majority, but the other judges will stick to their previous reasoning and thus that will be in the majority brief or whatever it’s called.
Or, better yet, one of the judges will retire and be replaced by another judge who will disagree with the previous one on this issue, and thus the case will work out that way.
I know you’re being funny, but, right now, your attempt at humor is disguising the truth.
The only truth I am even applying to is that I would find it enormously entertaining to see Scalia scarf down a serving of humble pie and a side of crow. And that’ll be the day. I am offering no pretensions to serious thought. On this occasion.
Why would he? I vehemently disagree, but there are people on the board who don’t think there’s anything wrong with unlimited private and corporate flows of money into political campaigns. There are people who not only don’t see anything inherently wrong with it, but honestly believe it enhances democracy.
There are fundamental differences in our conceptions of democracy. I assume both sides feel that the other is dishearteningly wrong.
Jeez, you guys do to jokes what Dexter does to people!
Maybe you do to jokes what Ghalleger does to watermelons 
You hear what happened to that guy? He does a routine that is strictly Freeper, birther, and whack a doodle! Like a viciously retarded Dennis Miller! I shit you not!
To whoosh or not to whoosh … or to WTF? He was awesome to my 10-year-old self, and probably had a good impact on my outlook (new eyes). He went the Victoria Jackson route? 
Or really, was this a whoosh?
On the other hand, they’re spending a whole heap of money. Just think of it as an economic stimulus!
I appreciate your efforts on my behalf.
The SCOTUS isn’t last because they are right. The SCOTUS is right because they are last.
The SCOTUS has been asked to address specific issues pertaining to campaign fianance. They’ve addressed those issues. You don’t agree with their ruling. EX-Justice Stevens doesn’t agree with the ruling. Neither you or Stevens are currently on the Supreme Court.
The SCOTUS can not simply decide that they made a mistake and announce a new decision without their being presented with another court case to base that change on.
Congress wrote and rewrote campaign fianance laws. The SCOTUS has ruled that some sections of those laws are unconstitutional. Congress can write more laws.
Sadly, no.
Yeah, that. These guys are “voting” against their own interests by funding the Republicans. Unless they figure that propping up a hierarchy is necessary to stop the country from descending into Socialism and that they’re just paying their dues.
Not allow freedom of speech? Sorry, no.
Spending money on a right is part of that right.
Could the government, say, ban spending money on bibles but say it’s not a restriction on religious freedom?
There is nothing in the Constitution that says you get to have as much speech as anyone else.
Perhaps. But it’s still not constitutional for the government to limit spending on speech.
Bans on spending on speech by certain sources certainly reinforce that view too.