A little etymology for you, as I hail from Brooklyn. ‘Guido’ used to be put-down used to describe Italian-American males prone to perfectly coiffed, helmeted hair, working out and using the f-bomb as a pause in a sentence. Now it’s merely a self-descriptor, as we’ve learned from the gang at the reality TV show ‘Jersey Shore’. Same type of guys, though these days they’ve traded in the blow-dryer for mousse.

Anyhow, there was in fact a harsher term, the word ‘guffoon’, a mixture of guido and buffoon, usually leveled by the counterpart to the guido, the army-jacketed, long-haired teen of the day. But the word was also used as a particularly nasty insult by his fellows to a guido who wasn’t considered true to his crew.

For our purposes, let’s focus on the buffoon aspect shall we? The five conservative justices of the Supreme Court, depicted above, sided with the plaintiff in ‘Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission’, thus upending meaningful campaign finance reform, crushing individual rights under the heel of the corporation and setting the stage for the ugliest, filthiest election, maybe ever, come fall.

I find it telling that many conservative pundits, while claiming to be champions of the individual, and forewarning us about the supposed socialism of Obama and the left, have only good things to say about the Supreme’s decision, one that elevates the goals of the group collective while shattering the solitary voice of the American citizen.

I say this. When the elections roll around and the horse hockey is flying, and civility is a shambles and your voice means squat, don’t moan about why. These five activist guffoons are the reason why.

Update: During the SOTU last evening, Justice Alito could be seen mouthing, "That's not true." when President Obama called out the court for it's decision allowing unfettered corporate spending on elections and the added injustice of foreign money determining American policy. Hey, Sam. Not true? Yeah it is. Decisions impact the real world beyond your chambers- perhaps you should have read the dissenting opinion.