In its glowing tribute to Associate Justice John Paul Stevens, The New York Times is strangely detached from any First Amendment concerns. There is nothing wrong in principle with calling attention to the legal career of a long-serving Supreme Court justice who is obviously preparing to step down.
The coverage of Justice Antonin Scalia’s retirement, looking out over the next 10 years or so, is probably already written. TimesCheck will be sure to file this puff piece away for purposes of comparison.
The 5-4 ruling in Citizens United v FEC speaks to a very sharp philosophical divide on campaign finance that should figure prominently into the 2012 presidential race and perhaps this year’s U.S. Senate elections. There is a rich mix of views here that include the dissenting, concurring and majority opinions that deserve media attention. But we only get a small slice of the whole.
“The rule announced today — that Congress must treat corporations exactly like human speakers in the political realm — represents a radical change in the law,” Justice Stevens is quoted as saying in oral arguments. “The court’s decision is at war with the views of generations of Americans.”
That’s debatable and The Times does a great disservice to its readership by allowing the court’s longest serving liberal to huff and puff about corporations. In his majority opinion, Justice Anthony Kennedy gives a compelling overview what is at stake in terms of political activism.
“The law before us is an outright ban, backed by criminal sanctions. Section 441b makes it a felony for all corporations—including nonprofit advocacy corporations—either to expressly advocate the election or defeat of candidates or to broadcast electioneering communications within 30 days of a primary election and 60 days of a general election. Thus, the following acts would all be felonies under §441b: The Sierra Club runs an ad, within the crucial phase of 60 days before the general election, that exhorts the public to disapprove of a Congressman who favors logging in national forests; the National Rifle Association publishes a book urging the public to vote for the challenger because the incumbent U. S. Senator supports a handgun ban; and the American Civil Liberties Union creates a Web site telling the public to vote for a Presidential candidate in light of that candidate’s defense of free speech. These prohibitions are classic examples of censorship.…”
Whereas all the liberal judges were lockstep with their dissenting opinion, there was “no such solidarity” among the conservatives, The Times reports and by this a certain degree if criticism is implied. But the various concurring decisions point to a certain intellectual vitality on the right side of the bench and there’s a great opening here for some enterprise reporting on where the other justices would like to see the court.
This shortcoming is not unique to The Times and there is healthy debate brewing about how best to cover and report on the high court in age of new technology.
But to overlook the contributions of five justices who restored First Amendment freedoms previously lost under campaign finance rules, speaks to an ongoing bias that continues to permeate The Times where the judicial branch is concerned.
Popularity: 1% [?]
“The Times does a great disservice to its readership by allowing the court’s longest serving liberal to huff and puff about corporations” Um..NYT is simply quoting an opinion issued by the nations highest court…Hardly what you characterize as “allowing” him to huff and puff. Another rightwinger blow hard FAIL.