But in that case the courts found that contributions beyond the candidatee himself/herself could be limited without violating the First Amendment, which was my argument.
Quote:
| and........ Judicial Activism - regardless of the philosophy benefitted at the expense of the rule of law and expanding the limitations on the power of the judiciary is a horrible thing. |
I don't particularly think judicial activism within the rule of law is a bad thing. When the courts rule on the nature of established, codified law, or even on the nature of common law (as you well know as an attorney is a judicial tradition in the US) is utilized within the limits of the law, it protects the rule of law rather than violate it. I would agree that judicial activism beyond the rule of law is a terrible thing, but extending the common law tradition that the US adheres to is not. It's a judicial tradition that pre-dates the US itself. But you know that.
With the growing disconnection of legislators, executives, and beauracrats from the majority of the population, the judiciary seems to be the last front in which the general public can access rulemaking and make a legal impact within their government. Judicial activism may be a second choice for individuals to make a difference, but with little other choice, it's become one of the few opportunities for individuals to be heard.