During Tuesday's debate, Al Franken, a Minnesota Democrat and the body's only "Saturday Night Live" alumnus, called the Citizens United decision "a radical exercise of pro-corporate judicial activism".
But the bigger story is a challenge to our national moral imagination, and can be addressed in fora beyond the reach of pro-corporate judicial activists.
The same pattern of pro-corporate judicial activism characterizes a Bork opinion that became a crucial point of discussion in the hearings over his failed 1987 Supreme Court nomination.
And this conviction becomes a moral imperative that drives him to chase down the people who have victimized Salander, and to slash away at the tentacles of governmental, corporate and judicial corruption that he sees strangling the country.
Later he interviews the legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin about the relationship between corporate spending and judicial elections today.
There was some question, he said, as to whether the business judgment rule -- which protects corporate boards from judicial second-guessing -- would apply to shareholder actions as well.
"The best hope for improving the lot of all women," she says, "is to close the leadership gap: to elect a woman president and 50 women senators; to ensure that women are equally represented in the ranks of corporate executives and judicial leaders.
Would I like to see a woman in the White House and fifty senators in congress and gender parity among the "ranks of corporate executives and judicial leaders"?
They could compile a respectable election-year record by reducing the regulatory burden on small businesses, simplifying the vetting of corporate mergers and streamlining judicial procedures.
This latest ruling is yet another signal to corporate executives that the judicial system will look the other way if they decide to exploit ordinary Americans.
