not but these are just opinions. they are opinions, therefore that have no weight. they are not the law. that really runs straight up against what the previously historically conservative view of the court was was that stare decisis and press department was the law. rate. and when you had settles law for 50 years, in a 7-2 decision and 50 years of women have built their lives, families lives, reproductive lives around settled law, it had force of its own. that effectively was the law going forward. if you just start treating opinions as if they are willie gossmer, right, it is a thing that contributes to the politicization of the court because we could turn over every precedent at any given moment if the court s composition changes. she is now standing next to roberts, she go saying it out
of them previously, candidates played within the system that s open to them. we do not expect candidates any more than we expect mitt romney to pay more in taxes than legally required, we do not expect candidates to react in a hyper-ethical way. these are the reforms we think they should have. we expect them to use the laws that exist to raise their candidacy. what i will say relative to citizens reminded, we are undoubtedly voting for the next combination of what the next supreme court will look like. one of the things we have to keep remembering as we move forward not just a court. court s composition changes over time. the sorts of choices that are made let me lay out my first of all, in terms of barack obama killing off a campaign finance, obviously i think the decision first time in the general to not take matching funds was a big mistake. it marked a break. more than anything press imitated by particular there