Will Justice Roberts Legislate from the Bench??

Crossposted from Hillbilly Report.

You know, the hypocrisy of Repubicans has become quite astounding. They whine and moan about welfare but dole out hundreds of billions in Corporate Welfare. They talk about "capitalism", but fell in love with the no-bid contract. They talk about keeping us safe while incompetently allowing the worst attack ever on American soil. They rail against the Obama stimulus while they never mention the Bush banking bailout and his crashing of the economy. They rail against the inefficiency of government, government that they completely failed in running.

Now we have all these tea-baggers that voted for Bush and a Republican Congress that completely crashed our economy lecturing us on fiscal responsibility. After all the wasted money, and after their policies of spend and spend and give what is left and a lot more you borrow to fatcats as Corporate Welfare while they outsource jobs and desroy and American middle-class, now they seek to lecture us on the Government and spending and the welfare of our country?? These folks and their "heros" in the leadership of the Republican party have completely, totally, and utterly failed miserably on every account.

Oh, but their ultimate hypocrisy may be springing forward shortly. After crying, kicking and screaming, and giving much self-righteous indignation about all these "activist judges" who were "litigating from the bench", it appears as if judicial activist judges are what they really wanted.

In the case of Campaign Finance Reform it appears as if Chief Justice Roberts might have been a judicial activist after all, stealthly and hypocritically inserted into the court by a failed President in a failed administration. He seems ready to legislate from the bench and roll over reform law and allow Corporate and other donors to saturate a system with way to much money and corruption, with more money and corruption:

The Supreme Court's unusual hearing Wednesday on the role corporations can play in influencing elections carries the potential not only for rewriting the nation's campaign finance laws but also for testing the willingness of the court led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. to defy the decisions of Congress and to set aside its own precedents.

The court will consider whether the "proper disposition" of a case -- pitting a conservative group's scorching campaign film about Hillary Rodham Clinton against federal campaign finance laws -- requires overturning two decisions that said government has an interest in restricting the political activities and speech of corporations.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con tent/article/2009/09/07/AR2009090702040. html?nav=hcmodule

This is clearly in violation of Conservative Republican ideology of courts writing law, but do we really expect to see Tea-baggers hanging Justice Roberts in effigy, or making little signs with him and the little square Hitler mustache complete with the uniform and swastika?? This is just another one of their "bait and switch" tactics just like the tea-parties where they rail against something incessantly and then proceed to do the very thing they railed against. I mean, this appears to have been in the offing the whole time:

That raises ageless questions about the role of stare decisis -- the court's custom of standing by its previous decisions. But it also raises new ones about the boldness of a court that has moved to the right with the addition of Roberts and Justice Samuel A. Alito Jr.

"Everyone knows this is a case about the chief and Justice Alito," said Richard J. Lazarus, co-director of the Supreme Court Institute at the Georgetown University Law Center. "And the real question here is whether the chief is ready to pull the trigger" on declaring the restrictions unconstitutional.

Roberts's instincts have been to move incrementally, Lazarus noted. But such a narrow and consistent chipping-away approach -- Roberts and Alito have voted for every challenge to campaign finance laws since joining the court -- may simply be a way to make more-sweeping decisions appear inevitable.

Critics however, have pointed out how Roberts is directly contradicting his own words in his confirmation hearing:

To that end, those who favor strong government controls on campaign finance, such as Democracy 21's Fred Wertheimer, say Roberts should stand by his own words about how careful the court should be in overturning precedent.

"It is not enough that you may think the prior decision was wrongly decided," Roberts said at his confirmation hearing. "That really doesn't answer the question; it just poses the question."

Instead, he said, justices must "look at these other factors, like settled expectations, like the legitimacy of the court, like whether a particular precedent is workable or not, whether a precedent has been eroded by subsequent developments."

At issue are two decisions, one against Corporate clown Mitch McConnell(R-Communist China):

Three current justices -- Antonin Scalia, Anthony M. Kennedy and Clarence Thomas -- have said Austin should be overturned, and all three said in McConnell v. FEC that McCain-Feingold violates the Constitution's guarantee of free speech.

Those who favor the restrictions said a recognition that government may treat corporations and individuals differently when it comes to political spending dates back more than 100 years.

"Overruling Austin or McConnell in this case would be unwarranted and unseemly," former solicitor general Seth P. Waxman told the court on behalf of McCain and other congressional sponsors. "Stare decisis requires respect for precedents absent a special justification for overruling them. No such justification exists."

So how about it tea-baggers?? When are we going to see you blow a gasket and give it to Justice Roberts for stealing your country and turning it into a Leninist-Marxist utopia where judges randomly march us into death panels that consist of Irish and African Nazis to be euthanized with much vengeance and malice?? Will we see you show up outside of the Supreme Court building with your AK-47s in tow?? It would be so comical to watch your spitting, shouting butts carried away to Gitmo for a real lesson in Republican Americanism.

This is of course complete hypocrisy and ridiculous. Especially when the legislation in question is so desperately needed and in fact needs to be taken much further. We should all agree whether Conservative, Progressive, or Liberal that we should be taking money OUT of the campaign system not inserting it back in. However, watching the tea-parties and the townhall protests one can only be struck by the ugly and rank hypocrisy these folks display. You must wonder if they are really listening to any of the garbage they spew.

They care not about any of the "Conservative" principles they spout like gospel. They aren't mad that money is being spent, as long as it goes to the greediest and least patriotic among us. They don't care about the Constitution, as long as it can be manipulated to steal from workers and the American economy.

Now this ultimate hypocrisy is that it appears as if the whole time they railed against legislating from the bench they were secretly salivating about they day when their Corporate lackeys could do so.

Tags: campaign finance reform, john roberts, Judicial Activist Judges, McCain-Feingold, Supreme Court, Tea-baggers (all tags)


1 Comment


They would say that those precedents don't make sense in the context of Buckley v. Valeo.  This is different in other places where the law is invented whole cloth by conservatives such as Bush v. Gore.

by AZphilosopher 2009-09-07 11:55PM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads