To the editorial board of the New York Times, law is but politics in disguise. Here is the key paragraph of today's editorial opinion about yesterday's Supreme Court ruling on the First Amendment:
In dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens warned that the ruling not only threatens democracy but “will, I fear, do damage to this institution.” History is, indeed, likely to look harshly not only on the decision but the court that delivered it. The Citizens United ruling is likely to be viewed as a shameful bookend to Bush v. Gore. With one 5-to-4 decision, the court’s conservative majority stopped valid votes from being counted to ensure the election of a conservative president. Now a similar conservative majority has distorted the political system to ensure that Republican candidates will be at an enormous advantage in future elections.
The board's favorite strategy, which I have seen many times over the years, is to pick the dissenter with whom it agrees (as to result) and claim that his or her reasoning is impeccable. Note that the board emphasizes "democracy" but says nothing about liberty. Democracy isn't the only value. There is a strong presumption that individuals (including corporations, which are legal persons) are free to speak, especially on political matters. As for Bush v. Gore, there is nothing the least bit "shameful" about it. Progressives simply didn't like the result. Had the same reasoning put Al Gore in office, the ruling would be hailed as a classic case, right up there with Miranda v. Arizona. Finally, notice how the board politicizes the ruling, implying that it came out the way it did because of the "conservatism" of the majority, rather than because the law required it. The New York Times is a disgrace to journalism.
Keith Burgess-Jackson, J.D., Ph.D. 