The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- 'Supreme Court Ruining Democracy?'

Source:The Young Turks- The five Republican nominated Supreme Court Justices.

"MSNBC host Cenk Uygur on the Supreme Court voting 5-4 to strike down an Arizona law that gave public financing to political candidates to match what rival candidates were raising over the spending limit." 

From The Young Turks

How Chief Justice John Roberts makes the argument that a state matching campaign contributions of political candidates as unconstitutional, because it limits what third-party Groups can do, is beyond me. And sounds like more of an ideological argument to me than anything else. 

What Chief Justice Roberts is essentially saying here: "Look, we really don't have a credible justification for our case and this is the best we can come up with. We are really making this argument because this is how we want things to be but we don't want to say that at least in public." It's sort of a because I said so argument (no offense mom and dad) that you make when you can't think of anything else to say. 

I'm really sick in tired of hearing the states rights argument, especially from so-called Conservatives who don't believe a damn thing that they are saying. And only make the argument to prevent the Federal Government from making them do something that they don't want them to do. Whether it's constitutional or not and they use it purely as a convenience and nothing else. 

When states pass a law that right-wingers don't like, like with the Arizona campaign law, they throw the states rights argument in the trash and come up with whatever argument they need that they feel will suit their needs and interests at the time. Especially as a Liberal myself who believes in states rights (as a Federalist) but actually understands what states rights is. (Which is federalism) That the States essentially have the authority to pass any law that they want as long as it complies with the U.S. Constitution. 

As a Liberal I'm not a big fan of centralization and the establishment and prefer to see more diversity with power and lean towards more personal liberty. Every time a court strikes down a campaign reform law it's just more evidence to me that the only campaign reform that could ever be passed and stand up to constitutional scrutiny. 

Full-disclosure, meaning that political candidates and incumbents as well as third-party groups, would have to disclose where they are getting the financing for their activities. Because every other reform that restricts campaign financing, generally gets struck down by some court. Whether the argument is credible or bogus.