WSJ.com - The March of Folly: "Justice Antonin Scalia dryly noted, for instance, that over the past four years the Court had disapproved of speech restrictions on virtual kiddy porn, tobacco advertising, illegally intercepted communications and sexually explicit cable programming, yet couldn't summon the nerve to allow citizens to criticize their own government."

It seems to me, after Lawrence v. Texas and this case, Scalia's dissents are quite logical. (In his Lawrence dissent, he said that the decision would lead to a flood of suits for gay marriage--it did.)I hear a lot from my liberal friends at school about how Scalia is the devil, and since I've never really followed the court closely before this year, I couldn't refute them. Now I'm beginning to see a pattern which I think I can use. Once again, I think here he hits the nail on the head: the current Court is more concerned with the rights of pornographers than with those of citizens and political organizations. I could probably have understood if the money restrictions weren't considered to abridge "speech," though I would have disagreed, but even after reading this 298 page decision I still don't think I'll understand how what we say about candidates and incumbents in the weeks before an election are not speech.
The Dems are right: even as we're giving freedoms to Iraq, we're taking them from ourselves--only it's not the Patriot Act we need to fear, it's Campaign Finance Reform.

0 Comments:

Post a Comment