A recent issue of the New Yorker had an long essay on Clarence Thomas and his legal philosophy. The first thing I learned is that Clarence Thomas is not the idiot I thought he was. He actually had a legal philosophy that is rather consistent, and his decisions on the Court reflect that philosophy.
The second thing I took away from the article is that the philosophy itself is idiotic. He tries to figure out the real intent of the Founding Fathers and interpret the Constitution according to their thinking. From that we get decisions like the 2010 ruling that independent groups are allowed to raise unlimited amounts to support candidates.
This, in turn, has led to the creation of PACs like “Restore Our Future,” a PAC that supporters of Romney have created to push his candidacy. Bachman has one, Obama has one, Perry has a number of them. While the PACs must disclose their donors, they can accept unlimited donations. Another group of PACS, like the one Karl Rove founded, have affiliates that don’t even have to report their donors.
I taught American government for years. I lectured on Federalist Papers. I read about the debates in Philadelphia in 1787. There is no way that the Founding Fathers would have approved the current system of campaign finance. They were opposed to all forms of tyranny. They would not have approved the tyranny of big donors. I think they would have been appalled. Of course, I have no absolute way of knowing how a person from 1787 would think about issues in 2011. Neither does Clarence Thomas.
No comments:
Post a Comment