Friday, January 22, 2010

Bits and Pieces - Supreme Court Edition

Erwin Chemerinsky blasts judicial activism. Let's was the conservative argument that their judges weren't judicial activists, that judicial activism was bad, and the same public swallowed it that is now swallowing that health care reform is bad, that public debts are bad,...I'm just wondering when these folks are going to realize that conservatives, particularly the Republican variety, lie.

The Court’s Blow to Democracy (New York Times editorial)

Conservative Supremes: superheroes of hypocrisy (Eva Rodriguez, Washington Post)

Campaign finance ruling reflects Supreme Court's growing audacity (Michael Waldman, executive director of the Brennan Center for Justice at NYU School of Law)

The Supreme Court removes important limits on campaign finance (Washington Post editorial)

Juan Cole considers the effect of the ruling in a Web 2.0 world.

Added later:
James Fallows:
The head of the nation's judicial branch was purposefully deceptive during his "umpire" testimony. Or he had no idea what his words meant. Or he has had a complete change of philosophy and temperament while in his mid-50s. Those are the logical possibilities. None of them is too encouraging about the basic soundness of our governing institutions.

No comments: