<div id="subtitle">Justice says criticism could hurt the court when the real danger is activism</div><div><p> Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently dismissed criticism of the court in the wake of its controversial decision last month that will open the door to corporate funding in political campaigns.</p><p>In a 5-4 decision, the court found that a law barring corporations from unlimited spending on elections was unconstitutional. The decision overturned a century of law and precedent and earned an outpouring of criticism, including a rebuke from President Barack Obama during his State of the Union address.</p><p>The Washington Post reported that at an appearance at the University of FloridaÕs law school on Thursday, Thomas, who was part of the conservative majority, said some of the courtÕs critics Òborder on being irresponsible.Ó Thomas said that when government officials step outside the bounds of fair criticism, there is Òthe risk in our society of undermining institutions that we need to preserve our liberties.Ó</p><p>In a speech at Stetson UniversityÕs law school on Tuesday, Thomas did not directly comment on ObamaÕs remarks or Justice Samuel Alito mouthing Ònot trueÓ in response. But, as The New York Times reported, Thomas said he had stopped attending State of the Union speeches because Òit has become so partisan and itÕs very uncomfortable for a judge to sit there.Ó</p><p>ÒOne of the consequences (of attending) is now the court becomes part of the conversation, if you want to call it that, in the speeches,Ó he said. ÒItÕs just an example of why I donÕt go.Ó</p><p>ThomasÕ comments are surprisingly thin-skinned. Criticism of the court by sitting presidents and members of Congress is nothing new. The court has been part of the ÒconversationÓ for most of the countryÕs history.</p><p>This decision, though, attracted extraordinary attention — and deservedly so. Not only did the court reverse precedent but it also did so in an unusual way. Under Chief Justice John Roberts, the courtÕs conservative majority has typically held that cases should be decided on narrow grounds, but it didnÕt do that in this case.</p><p>The court was asked to decide whether federal campaign finance laws applied to a movie that was critical of then-Sen. Hillary Clinton. After hearing the case, the court asked for more arguments on the question of the constitutionality of corporate spending on campaigns.</p><p>ÒEssentially,Ó Justice John Paul Stevens wrote in a stinging dissent, Òfive justices were unhappy with the limited nature of the case before us, so they changed the case to give themselves an opportunity to change the law.Ó</p><p>Stevens is essentially saying that his colleagues are guilty of judicial activism, a charge normally leveled by conservatives at liberals. No wonder Thomas is defensive.</p><p>Thomas shouldnÕt be concerned that public criticism of a decision would undermine the court as an institution. The court should be able to withstand a little free speech.</p><img src="http://admatch-syndication.mochila.com/images/ad.gif?aid=68737714&bid=informcom" /></div><div id="copyright"><div>

Copyright 2010  <a href="http://lasvegassun.com">Las Vegas Sun</a></div></div>