To the Editor:
So much for the vaunted “conservative legal philosophy” espoused by the majority on the Supreme Court. This philosophy, affirmed by each of these justices at their confirmation hearings, supposedly prizes judicial restraint, respect for the letter of the Constitution and the intentions of its authors, respect for precedent and a rejection of so-called legislating from the bench. The court’s decision on corporate speech violates every one of these principles.
Rather than deciding a narrow case, the court explicitly asked for arguments on a broad constitutional question at best tangentially related to the case before it.
In a finding that overturns large swaths of established law and judicial precedent, the court shows that it is fully comfortable legislating from the bench, so long as such legislation supports a conservative political agenda.
Jonathan Maskit
Granville, Ohio, Jan. 22, 2010
Note from KBJ: The letter writer doesn't know what he's talking about. (1) As I explained yesterday, the ruling is a case of judicial activism only if it's wrong. If it's right, it's a case of judicial review. The letter writer assumes, without argument, that it's wrong. Are we simply to take his word for it? (2) The letter of the Constitution supports the ruling. The First Amendment could not be clearer. (3) The intentions of the authors of the Constitution support the ruling. Certainly the letter writer has done nothing to show that they don't. (4) Respect for precedent is not absolute. It is presumptive. When a precedent is clearly wrong, as it is here, it should be overruled, as it was here. Old mistakes are still mistakes. (5) There was no "legislation from the bench." The justices exercised judicial review and struck down an unconstitutional statute. That's their job. It's what they're paid to do. The letter writer says the court's decision "violates every one of these principles." It violates none of them. The letter writer needs a critical-thinking course. I hope to God he isn't teaching one.
Note 2 from KBJ: The author has credentials in economics and philosophy, but not law, and yet he pronounces confidently on the legal aspects of the case. Has this man ever heard of the fallacious appeal to authority? Not only does he make no argument for his bold assertions; he has no authority on which to rest them. Unbelievable. Why do so many people in academia think they are competent in fields outside their areas of expertise?
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 