Federalism, Free Markets, and Free Speech

2not even-handed justiceThe Supreme Court decision in Citizens United v. FEC strikes down as unconstitutional a federal law that prohibits corporations and unions from using general treasury funds to make independent expenditures that expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates for office.  The majority opinion, written by Justice Kennedy, ignores hundreds of years of Supreme Court history in interpreting the subjects of federalism, free markets, and free speech.  In its place, Justice Kennedy presents a textualist interpretation of the First Amendment that is divorced from any history or context.  Justice Kennedy engages in the sort of “faux originalism” (syn. “fake,” “artificial,” “false”) that has been criticized by Judge Richard Posner.  Kennedy places a historical glaze on his own personal values and policy preferences, and calls the result the “original understanding” of the First Amendment.

As such, Citizens United v. FEC stands with District of Columbia v. Heller, the Second Amendment case decided in 2008, as an example of the Justices slapping the “originalist” label on a profoundly un-originalist interpretation of the Bill of Rights.  It is appropriate to view the two cases together.  Both are exercises in raw political power employed in order to accomplish conservative objectives.  Both ignore hundreds of years of understanding about the meaning of the relevant constitutional provisions, in favor of a meaning derived by taking the words of the Amendment out of context.  And both embrace interpretations of the constitutional Amendment at issue that are inconsistent with the meaning ascribed to that same language by the intellectual father of originalism, Robert Bork.  In the same way that modern scholars deride the “Lochner era” as a misguided period in American Constitutional Law, I believe that future scholars and judges will recognize and reject the intellectual dishonesty of the “Heller era.”

Continue ReadingFederalism, Free Markets, and Free Speech

Judge Posner’s Argument Concerning “A Failure of Capitalism”

88px-Richard_posner_harvardzSurely there are more pressing things to do at this hour than scan my Google Reader headlines (well, actually, I’ve become a Feedly user, but the Feedly feed comes from Reader, mostly).

Nonetheless,  I couldn’t pass up today’s essay by Seventh Circuit Judge Richard A. Posner, on Foreign Policy’s website.   Titled “The Real Danger of Debt,” the article is described as having been “adapted from” Judge Posner’s book, “A Failure of Capitalism: The Crisis of ‘o8 and the Descent into Depression.”  In the article, Posner describes the “deeply wounded economy” of the United States, explaining that, essentially, “private savings are being borrowed by the government, combined with the government’s foreign borrowing, and then transferred to households to enable them to maintain their accustomed level of consumption. People are saving more, but government borrowing overwhelms their saving, with the result that aggregate saving — public plus private — is negative.”

He goes on to outline, in his usual clear, bracing style, the steps by which this state of affairs could lead to rising interest rates, instability in the value of the dollar, the loss of the dollar’s status as the chief  international reserve currency, increased savings rates, and decreased economic growth:

As real interest rates rise as a consequence of a growing public debt and declining demand for the U.S. dollar as an international reserve currency, U.S. savings rates will rise and, by reducing consumption expenditures, slow economic activity. Economic growth may also fall as more and more resources are poured into keeping alive elderly people, most of whom are not highly productive members of society from an economic standpoint. The United States may find itself in the same kind of downward economic spiral that developing countries often find themselves in.

This ominous prediction of where current trends may lead us is dramatic in itself  (although, sadly, much less dramatic than it would have seemed in 2007).  But rather than the worrisome warnings about a second economic depression, the passages that struck me most are the ones characterizing the current political situation in the United States.  

Continue ReadingJudge Posner’s Argument Concerning “A Failure of Capitalism”

Fair Judges or Judge Shopping?

I had a couple of writing deadlines so I’m a bit late to the game on the Wisconsin Supreme Court’s extraordinary decision (or, more accurately, nondecision) in Allen v. State.  The Court was not split on whether Justice Gableman should recuse himself in all criminal cases. No Justice held that he should. Three did not reach the issue and three, essentially, expressed the view that he is not required to do so.

Rather, the principal division was over whether the question of an individual’s Justice recusal could be submitted to the Court as a whole. Chief Justice Abrahamson and Justices Bradley and Crooks wanted more briefing on the issue but it seems fairly evident that they believe that a majority of the justices considering the issue can force a fellow Justice off a case if they believe (or are willing to say) that there is either a statutory or constitutional requirement for that Justice to recuse herself.

Justices Prosser, Roggensack and Ziegler disagreed. They believe that the only issue before the Court is whether the justice at who a recusal motion is directed has given it the proper consideration. They went on to conclude that Justice Gableman had done so and made it clear that they thought Allen’s motion was pretty weak tea.

Continue ReadingFair Judges or Judge Shopping?
Newer Posts
Older Posts