Didn't Justice Scalia used to be a big advocate of judicial restraint?

Question

So why are he and the other "constructionists" so gung-ho about undoing McCain Feingold? The decision in the campaign finance law directly contradicted Congresses intent.

I guess we are to assume that judicial restraint only applies when it favors what the court's conservatives want.

I know this decision was last week but I was away on vacation and couldn't ask it until now.

Answer 1

I am not a big Scalia fan, but you don't understand him based on your question.

Scalia is opposed to judges creating rules not in the constitution or passed by congress. For example if congress passes a law that says one can not discriminate based on gender, he will oppose extending such a law to include barring discriminating based on sexual orientation b/c if congress intented to include that in the law they could have but didn't

However, when congress passes a law which has the intent of violating the constitution, he will oppose the law.

Answer 2

Exactly, "judicial restraint" = making conservative law through court decisions. First Amendment free speech means allowing money to control the airwaves and determine the outcome in elections. And, consider the fact that they effectively reversed Brown v. Board of Education also last week. The Voting Rights Act is next.

Answer 3

mccain feingold bill was a complete and utter waste of time, it accomplished nothing. well no actually it did accomplish something it spent alot of tax payer money while they worked on it but thats all it accomplished.

It did not solve any problems at all only created others.

Answer 4

McCain-Feingold was hardly constructionist. It was hardly "representative" of the people.

Puleeze.

Answer 5

When the restraint was removed he was just another no-balls Hadley.

Answer 6

A little thing called the 1st amendment. Read it.