In short he shows that the court heard one case but decided a different one, which not only based its decision on 5 judicial mistakes it over reached beyond all established precendents and rules.
exerpt
Today's decision is backwards in many senses. It elevates the majority's agenda over the litigants' submissions, facial attacks over as-applied claims, broad constitutional theories over narrow statutory grounds, individualdissenting opinions over precedential holdings, assertionover tradition, absolutism over empiricism, rhetoric over reality. Our colleagues have arrived at the conclusion that Austin must be overruled and that ยง203 is facially unconstitutional only after mischaracterizing both the reach and 90 rationale of those authorities, and after bypassing or ignoring rules of judicial restraint used to cabin theCourt's lawmaking power. Their conclusion that the societal interest in avoiding corruption and the appearance of corruption does not provide an adequate justification for regulating corporate expenditures on candidate elections relies on an incorrect description of that interest,along with a failure to acknowledge the relevance of established facts and the considered judgments of state and federal legislatures over many decades. In a democratic society, the longstanding consensus on the need to limit corporate campaign spending shouldoutweigh the wooden application of judge-made rules. The majority's rejection of this principle "elevate[s] corporations to a level of deference which has not been seen at least since the days when substantive due process was regularly used to invalidate regulatory legislation thought to unfairly impinge upon established economic interests." Bellotti, 435 U. S., at 817, n. 13 (White, J., dissenting). At bottom, the Court's opinion is thus a rejection of the common sense of the American people, who have recognized a need to prevent corporations from undermining selfgovernment since the founding, and who have foughtagainst the distinctive corrupting potential of corporate electioneering since the days of Theodore Roosevelt. It is a strange time to repudiate that common sense. While American democracy is imperfect, few outside the majorityof this Court would have thought its flaws included a dearth of corporate money in politics.