Posted by Jed Lewison on Thu Jun 26, 2008 at 11:49 AM Pacific

Judicial activism goes both ways

Two big SCOTUS decisions today: one on handguns, one on the "Millionaire's Amendment" to the BCRA. I'm no constitutional lawyer, but both rulings, it would seem to me, give lie to the notion that somehow only so-called "liberals" can be judicial activists.

To me, the ruling striking down the "Millionaire's Amendment," which raises contribution limits for candidates who face wealthy challengers, is the weaker of the two rulings, but that's probably because I'm more sympathetic to the handguns argument on policy grounds.

My point isn't really to engage in any detail on the constitutional merits of either ruling; I'm not exactly qualified to do that. But from my lay perspective, it sure does look like the political views of the justices guided their votes and opinions, not the other way around.

I'm not necessarily lamenting this fact -- I'm just a little bored of hearing from conservatives about how liberal judges are big bad activists. But I'd much rather hear their complaints than be put in the position of constantly complaining myself, and that's just another reason why it is so important to elect Barack Obama to be our next president.

As he said in a diary on Daily Kos in 2005:

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate.

Barack, who was explaining his decision to not support a fillibuster of John Roberts, continued:

And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position.    I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

I found those quotes from another diary written a few days ago discussing Barack's approach towards FISA. It's a great diary, and makes a compelling case (one which I absolutely believe) that Barack's approach towards Roberts and towards FISA have been utterly consistent.

And as Barack himself explained in the diary there's an important lesson when a ruling or political vote doesn't go your way: keep your eyes on the prize. That's something that I think a lot of my friends ought to keep in mind these days.

We are in the process of removing from power one of the most destructive political machines in the history of the United States; the notion that the process would unfold smoothly and without compromise is foolish and naive. Hopefully, today's rulings are a reminder to those who are so up in arms about FISA that there is a larger picture here, and if by some chance Barack Obama does not become the next president of the United States, then FISA will be the least of our worries.

Judicial activism goes both ways

Two big SCOTUS decisions today: one on handguns, one on the "Millionaire's Amendment" to the BCRA. I'm no constitutional lawyer, but both rulings, it would seem to me, give lie to the notion that somehow only so-called "liberals" can be judicial activists.

To me, the ruling striking down the "Millionaire's Amendment," which raises contribution limits for candidates who face wealthy challengers, is the weaker of the two rulings, but that's probably because I'm more sympathetic to the handguns argument on policy grounds.

My point isn't really to engage in any detail on the constitutional merits of either ruling; I'm not exactly qualified to do that. But from my lay perspective, it sure does look like the political views of the justices guided their votes and opinions, not the other way around.

I'm not necessarily lamenting this fact -- I'm just a little bored of hearing from conservatives about how liberal judges are big bad activists. But I'd much rather hear their complaints than be put in the position of constantly complaining myself, and that's just another reason why it is so important to elect Barack Obama to be our next president.

As he said in a diary on Daily Kos in 2005:

There is one way, over the long haul, to guarantee the appointment of judges that are sensitive to issues of social justice, and that is to win the right to appoint them by recapturing the presidency and the Senate.

Barack, who was explaining his decision to not support a fillibuster of John Roberts, continued:

And I don't believe we get there by vilifying good allies, with a lifetime record of battling for progressive causes, over one vote or position.    I am convinced that, our mutual frustrations and strongly-held beliefs notwithstanding, the strategy driving much of Democratic advocacy, and the tone of much of our rhetoric, is an impediment to creating a workable progressive majority in this country.

I found those quotes from another diary written a few days ago discussing Barack's approach towards FISA. It's a great diary, and makes a compelling case (one which I absolutely believe) that Barack's approach towards Roberts and towards FISA have been utterly consistent.

And as Barack himself explained in the diary there's an important lesson when a ruling or political vote doesn't go your way: keep your eyes on the prize. That's something that I think a lot of my friends ought to keep in mind these days.

We are in the process of removing from power one of the most destructive political machines in the history of the United States; the notion that the process would unfold smoothly and without compromise is foolish and naive. Hopefully, today's rulings are a reminder to those who are so up in arms about FISA that there is a larger picture here, and if by some chance Barack Obama does not become the next president of the United States, then FISA will be the least of our worries.

The Jed Report Home Page

© Jed Lewison