California Conservative

That’s exactly what the Supreme Court did this morning in ruling in favor of Wisconsin Right to Life. Here’s a quote from Chief Justice John Roberts’ majority opinion:

“Discussion of issues cannot be suppressed simply because the issues may also be pertinent in an election,” Chief Justice John Roberts wrote for the court. “Where the First Amendment is implicated, the tie goes to the speaker, not the censor.”

Writing for the minority was Justice David Souter, who had this to say:

In dissent, Justice David Souter said the court had in effect overturned the 2003 decision and its effort to limit the role of money in political campaigns.

“After today, the ban on contributions by corporations and unions and the limitation on their corrosive spending when they enter the political arena are open to easy circumvention,” Souter wrote.

Notice the appeal to emotion in Souter’s dissenting opinion:

“the limitation on their corrosive spending when they enter the political arena”

Memo to Justice Souter:

Your job isn’t that of a legislator. Therefore, your rulings shouldn’t be based on whether you think BCRA is good policy. Your job in this case, which you obviously chose not to accept, is to determine whether Wisconsin Right to Life’s First Amendment rights were violated.

Implicit in Justice Souter’s dissenting opinion is that political advertising ‘consumers’ (those that watch the advertisements) can’t judge for themselves which advertisements appeal to them and which ones disgust them.

Also implicit in Souter’s dissenting opinion is that the Constitution shouldn’t be taken literally. Most political junkies (I fit into that category) can recite the First Amendment but I’ll repeat here:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

The key operative word in the First Amendment is abridging. Here’s the first definition of abridging provided by Dictionary.com:

1. to shorten by omissions while retaining the basic contents: to abridge a reference book.
2. to reduce or lessen in duration, scope, authority, etc.; diminish; curtail: to abridge a visit; to abridge one’s freedom.
3. to deprive; cut off.

TRANSLATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT: Congress shall make no law that…cuts off the freedom of speech, or of the press…”

You’d also be right in translating it to say “Congress shall make no law that…deprives any person of their God-given right to speak freely on any subject…”

MEMO TO JUSTICE SOUTER: Notice that it doesn’t say “Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press…except if it has corrosive effects on the political system.” The First Amendment said that the ninnies in Washington can’t make any law that cuts off anyone’s right to express their political opinions. To cut off one man’s right to air his grievances is censorship.

Here’s a line of whining in the article:

Justice David Souter said the court had in effect overturned the 2003 decision and its effort to limit the role of money in political campaigns.

EXACTLY RIGHT!!! We should’ve thrown BCRA out entirely but this is a good start. In fact, the Roberts Court rectified the error of the Rehnquist Court, though I don’t fault Chief Justice Rehnquist for that ruling. I reserve that fault to Justices Stevens, O’Connor, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer.

Over the past year+, I’ve criticized President Bush on several things, with immigration being the most recent complaint. That said, I can’t thank him enough for nominating and appointing Chief Justice Roberts and Justice Alito. It was Alito’s vote that corrected the 2003 ruling. (Thank You, Justice Alito!!!)

If they’d strike down Kelo v. New London, I’d be smiling from ear to ear. Hopefully, that day will soon come, hopefully right after we replace one of the lefties with someone like Michael Luttig.

Technorati Tags: First Amendment, BCRA, Supreme Court, John Roberts, Samuel Alito, David Souter, Justice Stevens, Justice Ginsburg, Eminent Domain

Cross-posted at LetFreedomRingBlog

This entry was posted on Monday, June 25th, 2007 at 10:59 am and is filed under 1st Amendment, Activism, Author: Gary Gross, Judiciary, Liberals, W. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.