Supreme Conservative Hypocrisy of Campaign Financing Ruling

[Lionel Mandrake]

"The Supreme Court's decision in favor of corporate spending in elections makes previous rhetoric laughable", says Erwin Chemerinsky in today's LA Times:

The Supreme Court's 5-4 decision holding that corporations and unions can spend unlimited amounts of money in election campaigns is a stunning example of judicial activism by its five most conservative justices. In striking down a federal statute and explicitly overturning prior decisions, the court has changed the nature of elections in the United States. At the same time, the conservative justices have demonstrated that decades of conservative criticism of judicial activism was nonsense. Conservative justices are happy to be activists when it serves their ideological agenda.

<snip>

To conservatives, though, the phrase "judicial activism" has come to mean any decision with a liberal outcome. President George W. Bush declared: "The judges ought not to take the place of the legislative branch of government. . . . I don't believe in liberal activist judges. I believe in strict constructionists." The 2008 Republican platform declared that "Judicial activism is a grave threat to the rule of law because unaccountable federal judges are usurping democracy, ignoring the Constitution and its separation of powers, and imposing their personal opinions upon the public." The court's campaign finance decision makes this conservative rhetoric laughable. The ruling, which grew out of a conservative nonprofit corporation's attempt to air an anti-Hillary Rodham Clinton documentary during the 2008 primary, throws out a key component of the McCain-Feingold Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002. Among other things, the law banned corporations from paying to broadcast "electioneering communications" for or against candidates in the final weeks of presidential primaries and general elections.

<snip>

For years, conservatives have argued that judicial restraint requires deferring to the choices of the elected branches of government. No such deference was evident when the court's five most conservative justices struck down this provision of the McCain-Feingold law on Thursday.

For more, browse:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/la-oe-chemerinsky22-2010jan22,0,5829403.story

Erwin Chemerinsky is dean of the UC Irvine School of Law (despite attempts by Orange County conservatives to get rid of him).

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Erwin Chemerinsky has never been afraid of controversy.

And now we have his very intelligent take on the Supreme Court brouhaha. He calls them hypocrites in the gentlest way possible as he skewers this decision.

I wish we had more like him.

K&R

[Lionel Mandrake]

5. He sets a good example for the law students at UC Irvine.

It's always best to be polite while demolishing someone else's arguments.

[glitch]

2. When can we stop calling them conservatives?

Just because they call themselves that (because no one would let them anywhere near power if they called themselves by their real name) doesn't mean they are.

[Lionel Mandrake]

3. Maybe I should have used quotation marks.

Other names come readily to mind: fascists, reactionaries, plutocrats, etc.

[glitch]

4. The LA Times should, everybody should. If only to let them know that nobody is buying it anymore.

Fascists fits them best, IMO.

Thanks for posting the link, BTW.

[Lionel Mandrake]

6. You're quite welcome. n/t