Humor Blogs - Blog RankingsBlog DirectoryRSS Search

Conservative Supreme Court Majority Not Constitutional Constructionists

by George on March 19, 2011

The conservative bastion of the Supreme Court rendered their conspicuously logic-deficient “Citizens United” decision and revealed that their political persuasion is more dominate in their minds than the judicial restraint they claim to hold so dear.

It’s a mind-boggling notion, especially when these same ass-hats claim to be “constitutional constructionists”.

The term of “constitutional constructionist” means, simply, that the justices make judgments on legal decisions before them based on the Constitution as it is written.

This is supposed to mean that they don’t spending any time wondering what the founding fathers intended, they just make decisions based on what they see with their own two eyes and the precedents set by earlier court decisions.

Constitutional constructionists favor judicial restraint, which has more reverence for decided law, i.e., precedent, instead of judicial activism which is somewhat akin to “making shit up”.

Now, while that might seem all fine and good, the Citizens United decision betrays a loyalty to conservatism and its corporate masters that exceeds the justices’ commitment to the Constitution itself and contraindicates any claim to constitutional conservatism.

In the Citizens United case, the Supreme Court really needed to just determine whether a documentary created by a conservative political action committee was a political “electioneering communication” which was prohibited by guidelines of the Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act of 2002 (BCRA) – better know as the “McCain-Feingold” campaign finance reform legislation.

It is worth noting that McCain-Feingold was bipartisan legislation intended to keep unions and corporations from contributing massive amounts of money to influence elections.

It is also worth noting that precedent was already established about the constitutionality of McCain-Feingold – and overturning precedent is, well, very rare. Especially, if you are a constitutional constructionist.

The conservative justices of the Supreme Court saw this case differently.

They saw it as an opportunity to reward their corporate masters. Since their corporate masters have far more money than unions – union membership has been on a steady decline since the 1960 – this was a ripe opportunity.

In essence, the Supreme Court decided that the expenditure of money is protected a free speech under the First Amendment. They might has well have decided that monkeys that fly out of my ass have a similar protection under the First Amendment.

They conservative majority of the Supreme Court didn’t rule on the merits of Citizens United. What they did was expand the case to include matters that were not before them and issue a ruling.

A finer example of judicial activism will be harder to find than this turd.

{ 2 comments… read them below or add one }

Mirta Tomkins April 25, 2011 at 11:04 am

Couldnt agree more with that, very attractive article


Geoffrey Rush March 20, 2011 at 6:41 pm

Our current Supreme Court has at least one too many conservative members.


Leave a Comment