Jon Stewart skewers the Supreme Court for another Citizne's United type ruling in the case of McCutcheon v. FEC, which opens the flood gates of money into politics that gives wealthy donors much more power in selecting who they want in government. Please read David Brooks ridiculous opinion piece on the brilliance of the court's new decision to laugh out loud.

Stewart: What rationale did the court use to justify this 5-4 split decision

Scalia; Just to put that in perspective. How much money was spent by political parties and PAC's in all elections throughout the country? When you add all that up I don't think 3.5 million dollars is a heck of a lot of money.

Stewart: Antonin Scalia, the strict constructionist justice argument seems to be sure 3.5 million dollars sounds like a donor is making it rain until you compare that to the monsoon season of money that we unleashed in our previous Citizen's United ruling, allowing corporations and unions to donate to super PACs. I believe the limit was whatever the f&*k they want. You may even think that sure there are billions of dollars in politics, surely millions can still have some corrupting effect, no? And aren't we by attempting to try and limit contributions, just trying to limit the corrupting influence of money?