The Truth about Judicial Activism

This piece by Erwin Chemerinsky (the dean of UC Irvine's Law School) shows how conservatives can become caught up in their rhetoric. Yesterday's Supreme Court decision proved that judicial activism is not solely a tool of liberal judges. This article shows another important possible outcome that this decision could lead to.

Almost 10 years ago, in Bush vs. Gore, the five conservative justices for the first time decided a presidential election. One would have thought that decision would have laid to rest the notion that judicial activism is a tool of liberal judges and revealed that the real judicial activism today is from the right. Perhaps Thursday's decision will finally reveal the truth.

~Ori

Action against yesterday's Supreme Court Decision

While I will not trumpet a particular political candidate or party on this blog, I will advocate for the issues that I feel are important to me.

Organizing for America sent out this email yesterday with a petition to sign that support Congressional action to limit the decision.

Here is the e-mail:

Yesterday morning, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations can spend freely in federal elections.

It's a green light for a new stampede of special interest money in our politics, giving their lobbyists even more power in Washington. Now, every candidate who fights for change could face limitless attacks from corporate special interests like health insurance companies and Wall Street banks.

While the GOP is celebrating a victory for its special interest allies, President Obama is working with leaders in Congress to craft a forceful response that protects the voices of ordinary citizens.

Please add your name right away to help show that the American people support strong, urgent action to prevent a corporate takeover of our democracy.

The Supreme Court decision overturned a 20-year precedent saying that corporations could not pay for campaign ads from their general treasuries. And it struck down a law saying corporations couldn't buy "issue ads" -- which only thinly veil support for or opposition to specific candidates -- in the closing days of campaigns.

The result? Corporations can unleash multi-million-dollar ad barrages against candidates who try to curb special interest power, or devote millions to propping up elected officials who back their schemes.

With no limits on their spending, big oil, Wall Street banks, and health insurance companies will try to drown out the voices of everyday Americans -- and Republicans seem ecstatic.

While opponents of change in Congress are praising this victory for special interests, President Obama has tasked his administration and Congress with identifying a fix to preserve our democracy -- and we need to show that the American people stand with him.

You can add your name through this link:

http://my.barackobama.com/FairElections

~Ori

Campaign Finance

I think the New York Times really sums up the disgust that I feel for the Supreme Court's decision to allow corporations to contribute to political campaigns. Anything I say here would really just be overkill.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/22/opinion/22fri1.html?hp

Again the pertinent quote comes at the end of the article:

The real solution lies in getting the court’s ruling overturned. The four dissenters made an eloquent case for why the decision was wrong on the law and dangerous. With one more vote, they could rescue democracy.

~Ori