One more time: Legislature writes, judiciary interprets. Any questions?

Via Metafilter [1]:

SCOTUS strikes down campaign finance restrictions [pdf]. [2] The Supreme Court issued an opinion today in Randall v. Sorrell, striking down limits on campaign contributions and campaign spending imposed by the state of Vermont. The Court, in a fractured opinion (six separate opinions, including two dissents), concluded that restrictions on both contributions and expenditures ran afoul of the First Amendment. More [3] from Amy Howe at SCOTUSblog. Expect more from Rick Hasen [4] later today.

Regardless of to which party you claim allegiance, I think we can all agree that the function of SCOTUS is to interpret the laws from a legal perspective. If you find a particular decision distasteful (such as the cutting of whistleblower protections this month) then you need to go back through the legislature and create laws that are more to your liking.

So that is exactly what congress is trying [5] to do:

In a breakthrough for advocates of whistle-blower rights, the Senate has approved an amendment that would tighten up protections for federal employees who expose waste, fraud, abuse and threats to public safety.

A bipartisan group of senators, led by Sen. Daniel K. Akaka (D-Hawaii), won unanimous consent last week to include the amendment in the fiscal 2007 defense authorization bill. The amendment was based on a whistle-blower bill introduced by Akaka last year.

Federal employees "who put their country before their personal well-being should not be restrained because of fear of retaliation for doing what's right," Akaka said in a statement.

Unfortunately, the blade cuts both ways and, as the courts prepare to hear arguments [6] in Bush’s “I get to listen to anything you say whenever I want” case, the White House is nearing a draft for congressional legislation to legalize the spying [7].

C’est la guerre!