"After the Citizens United decision on free speech and political spending, he found a way 'to save the court's credibility.'"
Here's a question: Why was the court's credibility in any danger? Citizen's United, at the most basic level, says people are free to associate together and spend their personal money as a collective enterprise to engage in Free Speech. Why, exactly, is that bad thing? I'm big on free speech, and if we restrict people's ability to work as a group to attain political speech, then we don't have free speech.
That is the fundamental misunderstanding: That we can restrict political speech because more than one person contributed to it. Private citizens should have the ability to coordinate together and put out political messages. The answer to bad speech is more speech. If you don't like the political movie, don't pay to see it, or kickstart a counter-documentary. In today's connected world, there is no excuse for quashing unpopular political speech just because it is unpopular.
Right, back to not blogging as I head home for Thanksgiving.