The privileged elites at both The New York and Los Angeles Times took time over the Fourth of July weekend to revisit the latest term of the U.S. Supreme Court in general and bemoan specifically the 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v. FEC, the ruling that dismantle much of the McCain-Feingold Act and restored First Amendment rights to corporations and unions during election campaigns.
Both are stupidly arguing against their own self-interests.
Today’s NY Times editorial titled “The Court’s Aggressive Term” called Chief Justice John Roberts Jr.’s concurring opinion in Citizens United “the best guide to the court’s most unsettling tendency.”
Noting that Roberts wrote that the court should ignore precedence if prior rulings did damage to the Constitution, the editorial complained, “A decision can become an aberration, it turns out, if the court’s conservatives never agreed with it in the first place. If not quite legislating from the bench, this is not a formula for stability.”
Likewise, today the editorialists at the LA Times called Citizens United the “best-known and most controversial 1st Amendment decision of the term” and noted that President Obama denounced the ruling in his State of the Union address.
The editorial argued the court could have ruled narrowly on the issue, but instead “the conservative majority of the court unnecessarily decided that corporations had a 1st Amendment right to spend their own funds on political advertising. One can disagree with the decision — as we did — and still note that it continued a tradition of the court imposing the strictest scrutiny on laws challenged on 1st Amendment grounds.”
Both the NY and LA Times are owned by corporations that were exempted by the McCain-Feingold law.
"I find it fascinating that the people who were editorializing against it (Citizens United) were The New York Times Company and The Washington Post Company, who were exempted by statute. So then it becomes a statutory right, not a constitutional right," Thomas observed.
At a whim, Congress can revoke a statutory right. Are the two Times and the Post willing to depend on Congress for their free press rights?
Some people have an agenda so rigid they are willing to risk their livelihoods. Down that path lies tyranny.
By the way, this guy also works for a corporation: