OK.  There apparently seems to be a difficulty with the definition of terms.  The “activist” in Activist Court has generally been used to describe when the court more or less makes things up not found in the constitution.  Like a fundamental right to an abortion or gay sex.  Conservative on the other hand has been used to mean a court that upholds the traditional past, conserving institutions, or perhaps even rarely deciding to follow the written words of the constitution.

Now a certain writer is accusing the court of activism by possibly disregarding certain supreme court precedents and even congressional intent in lawmaking.  Mark Willen, writing for Kiplinger’s blog levels accusations that Chief Justice Roberts would be a raging activist on par with Earl Warren if he strikes down that monstrosity, the McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill.

If the Roberts Court strikes down the legislation it is just giving a plain meaning reading to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.  That is not activist, it is refreshing and exactly what the Supreme Court should have been doing for the last 80 years instead of giving a tortuous reading of the constitution to enable the Federal Government to be an all powerful entity.

Congress has enumerated powers, regulating speech is not in the enumerated powers and it is also prohibited by the First Amendment.  I hope the Court gets it right this time.

Comments Welcome