Supreme court suspicion was valid

In her April 24 column, "Protecting Pups and the First Amendment," Susan Estrich leaves out several key pieces of the puzzle.

First, she refers to the "conservative court" that struck down the broad law. In fact, the decision was 8 to 1 - not 5 to 4 like is usual with partisan opinions. The only disagreement of the lone dissenter, Justice Alito, was that part of the law should have been struck down.

Second, Estrich says "these are not hunting videos we are talking about." Wrong. The invalid law prohibited any media which depicted "the intentional killing" of an animal. That clearly affects hunting and agricultural media.

Third, Estrich says that "no one ever has" applied the invalid law to hunting videos. Chief Justice Roberts answered that argument, on behalf of eight supreme court justices. He said, "We would not uphold an unconstitutional statute merely because the government promised to use it responsibly."

I am opposed to animal cruelty. But I am in favor of a supreme court that is as suspicious of government power as our founding fathers were.

Tyler Benjamin

Wheaton