|
The whole "strict constructionist" angle is not crap simply because it is a significant movement within constitutional law circles and this decision makes it clear that the "strict constructionist" position is also actively "legislating from the bench." This was a much more restricted case, and, as the dissenting opinion expressed, there was no need to invoke arguments regarding broad constitutional precedent that way. That is, Roberts et al went out of their way to broaden the scope of the lawsuit. And then they went an extra step in that direction by saying that corporations are entitled to those rights, and that donations are a matter of free speech.
|