I have always been interested in constitutional law and the immense impact of the Supreme Court on day-to-day life in the U.S. Clearly, appointing a Supreme Court Justice is one of the most important powers a U.S. President has because the effects last well beyond their time in office and affect society so broadly. While the Supreme Court is a highly influential and important branch of government, however, it doesn’t mean it is efficient or, at times, even logical. However much it likes to ignore the reality, it is as political an institution (subject to the same biases, emotions, and inertial forces) as the other branches of government. In particular, I am struck by the inconsistencies of the judicial logic used to rationalize particular decisions and, presumably, win majority support among the Justices for different positions in different cases under different clauses of the constitution.
These thoughts were prompted by a Supreme Court decision that was announced earlier this week in a case that focused on corporations’ right to privacy:
“… the Supreme Court on Tuesday ruled unanimously that corporations have no personal privacy rights for purposes of the Freedom of Information Act.”
While I find the intricacies of the arguments fascinating, and also agree with this decision, I cannot understand why the same arguments weren’t used to deny corporations the right to free speech in the controversial Citizens United decision in January last year that removed limits on firms’ donations to political campaigns.
I disagreed with the Citizens United decision because, although consistent with the legal definition of a corporation as an individual, it does untold damage to the sanctity of the political process (and, for the same reason, I think other organizations, such as unions, should also be banned from making donations). If the Court is going to decide that a firm has the right to free speech, however, surely it must decide that firms also have other rights that we attribute to individuals, such as the right to privacy.
Instead, we get a convoluted semantic argument by Chief Justice Roberts (who wrote the majority opinion), detailed in the article in the url below. Roberts’ opinion, which “relied as much on dictionaries, grammar and usage as it did on legal analysis,” debated the meaning of the word “personal” as a noun versus an adjective to justify a decision that appears to be inconsistent with recent precedent:
“''Adjectives typically reflect the meaning of corresponding nouns,'' he wrote, ''but not always.'' He gave examples. ''The noun 'crab' refers variously to a crustacean and a type of apple, while the related adjective 'crabbed' can refer to handwriting that is 'difficult to read,' '' he wrote, quoting a dictionary. '' 'Corny,''' he went on, ''has little to do with 'corn.' ''”
???????
Have a good weekend.
David
Instructor Teaching Site: http://www.sagepub.com/strategiccsr/
The library of CSR Newsletters are archived at: http://strategiccsr-sage.blogspot.com/
Justices' Ruling Is Wrapped in an English Lesson
By ADAM LIPTAK
781 words
2 March 2011
The New York Times
Late Edition - Final
15
