Outrageous

Over at Slate, Dahlia Lithwick lists "The 10 most outrageous civil liberties violations of 2006." Most of them are predictable (if you know her politics), but a few are questionable, particularly #7, which is about criticizing judges. Why does she consider this a violation or our civil liberties?

As public distrust of the bench is fueled, the stripping of courts' authority to hear whole classes of cases[...]almost seems reasonable. Each tiny incursion into the independence of the judiciary seems justified. Until you realize that the courts are often the only places that will defend our shrinking civil liberties.

You know, the other two branches of government can presumably do good things, and negative words can undermine them as well. How does this argue against criticism?

Lithwick asks for any outrages she forgot. How about this one, the winner and still champeen: Campaign Finance Reform.