[I]t has long been a staple of conservative thought to criticize “judicial activism”—the practice of unelected judges imposing their own policy judgments to overrule the will of the people’s elected representatives. But it is hard to imagine a more activist decision than the Citizens Union case. Congress passed the McCain-Feingold law, and President George W. Bush signed it, in the knowledge that the Supreme Court had repeatedly blessed restrictions on corporate political activity. But Justice Anthony Kennedy’s opinion blithely overturned Court precedent, and rejected the work of the elected branches—all in service of the bizarre legal theories that (1) corporations have the same rights as human beings, and (2) spending money is the same thing as speaking. This was judicial activism of the most egregious kind. Indeed, it wasn’t as much a judicial opinion as it was Republican talking points.
2 thoughts on “Bad Judgment”
Comments are closed.
If there was ever a question in your mind that the Supreme Court thought and voted along party lines, it should now be clear. Boy, are we screwed, and is this a great country or what?
When I first heard about this latest right wing muscle flexing from the Supremes, I thought “Wasn’t that always the case? Haven’t corporations always the ability to buy politicians to do their bidding?” If not, the SC now makes it official. Once these prima donnas get appointed, it’s our hard luck we have to put up them for the rest of their natural lives. Funny how it works; at least it did in 2000. Right wing presidents appointed them, then they appoint a right wing president. Wasn’t Bush vs. Gore about “equal protection under the law?” How ironic.
The timing of this is very convenient. Just as the Obama administration is feebly trying to rein in the banksters, the Wall Street casino fixers, and the healthcare extortionists, the Supreme posse comes to the rescue. Yeah, I’d call it judicial activism. And something much darker.