Activist judges

So, yesterday, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that corporations are people too.

The court, ignoring decades of precedent, overturned laws that forbid corporations -- and labor unions; it cuts both ways -- from making unlimited financial contributions to political campaigns.

In making the ruling, five of the justices -- the conservative majority -- went well beyond what they were being asked to rule upon and established new law based on ideological and political concerns, rather than Constitutional matters.

The case before the court was whether the airing of a corporately sponsored attack documentary about Hillary Clinton counted as a political contribution -- up until yesterday, forbidden by law. Such contributions were forbidden for good reason -- to diminish the influence of special interests and prevent a de facto system of legal bribery.

The court went well beyond that and ruled that limits on corporate political contributions are unconstitutional, equating a number of things that simply don't compute.

For one thing, the majority of the court extended First Amendment rights to corporations, a right previously reserved for individuals. For another, it equated money with speech -- in essence, protecting bribery of public officials as free speech.

A couple of thoughts: I don't want to ever hear conservatives complaining about "activist judges." This case is a textbook example of activist judicial conduct -- ignoring precedent and the facts of the case to make new law based on ideological and political concerns. Of course, the real definition of an "activist" judge is one who makes a ruling you disagree with.

Another notion: If money is speech, well, feel free to yell at me all you want. I prefer cash.