These are the worst of Times, when they jeopardize their own livelihoods for an agenda
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.
As I pointed out in an earlier column, Justice Clarence Thomas, speaking at a Florida law school following the press uproar over the ruling, noted the irony.
"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:
This entry was posted on Monday, Jul. 05, 2010 at 08:49 AM
and is filed under Thomas Mitchell.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
You can leave a response.
23
Responses
to "These are the worst of Times, when they jeopardize their own livelihoods for an agenda"
I think they had more than a statutory exemption. Freedom of the press? The written in exemption was probably put there to save MC-F from a facial challenge. It was not as if the Congress bowed to special interests here. They realized that drafting the legislation required specifically excluding the media. Otherwise good post and, I am surprised to hear you wrote that this paper disagreed with the substance of the decision, I must have missed that. Can you point me to the article. Thanks.
Tom, we all know that this newspaper would not take a stand contrary to "its own interests", whether that stand be objectively right or wrong don't we. Sad that one's own perceived interests can stand in the way of truth, justice, and the American way. I mean seriously Tom, you do know that there are things more important than your own self-interest don't you? I mean, are you REALLY suggesting that those guys in Germany making ovens and gas should never have done anything about the Jews being killed because they made more money when it was going on? Geez man.
Your best Republican, Senator McCain, was for campaign reform; and would have been against corporations being able to secretly bribe politicians. Yet your newspaper backed Dick Cheney and his secret meetings in the White House. And even you can't bring yourself to even suggest the morality that corporate 'donations' be open and published. Yet you demand open meetings in the rest of government. Your hypocrisy is disgusting.
I said nothing about "donations." Candidates are creatures of the state and can be forced to comply with limits.
The First Amendment includes "freedom of speech" that may no be abridged.
All of you have missed a lot of things.
The First Amendment includes "freedom of speech" that may no be abridged.
All of you have missed a lot of things.
Did Sharron Angle really send a cease and desist letter to the Reid campaign demanding that they stop quoting her own website?
@ written on Monday, is there anything of note worth quoting off Senator Reid's website? Oh that's right, his transparency is public knowledge.
worst comment troll awards steven.alexander and Jerry.Sturdivant for first place! These guys do nothing but spew hate, distorted views, and actually believe people listen to their daily rants in the comment sections. CONGRATS!
Wow! Gben; is this a classic example of the rabid right wing in this country or what? "Loud", ignorant, and persistent is no way to go through life son; smarten up! Or for God's sake, keep it to yourself.
Who you calling right wing? Im a democrat, just goes to show your distorted views and hate. My suggestion is to grab some summers eve and rinse your mouth out. Stop with the name calling.
"The First Amendment includes "freedom of speech" that may no be abridged."
When the Founding Fathers indicated they wanted free speech; they did not have making political donations to politicians in mind; and you know that.
When the Founding Fathers indicated they wanted free speech; they did not have making political donations to politicians in mind; and you know that.
Yet another right-winger trying to make it about the poster, rather than the post.
Wow, some people never get it. A question is weather a corporation should have the "right" to the constitution, Weather the status of the corporation is a person or a entity. On the other hand you say it is a entity and not a person it argues that this would fall under same discription of a PAC, newspaper, or group of people(party). Either way, yes they have the right to free speech, but the way in which they use money in a campaign could fall under the same principles that you, I, and the BS political orginizations that spend millions to back their canadites are under. Please stop whining, I understand some people take up causes that they feel heartfelt but please know what your arguing about. Have a nice day.
GBen: Well, gee...ben, I suggest you follow your own advice about name calling cause maybe if YOU hadn't started it first, I wouldn't have been forced to respond in kind. (See, "troll" of the year or whatever nonsense you wrote is exactly what you want me to stop genius) And now that I've read your most recent post, I gotta say maybe its why you wrote the first response; you're just a little dense is all. No problem, I see it all the time, but when you write stuff like "weather" something something, and you REALLY MEAN "whether", or when you write "canadites" and you REALLY MEAN "candidates" it reduces your credibility man. Seriously. And, a corporation is NOT included in the constitution AT ALL. There is no constitutional recognition of a corporations "rights" to free speech; how could there be, they aren't even mentioned in the document. For a "strict constructionist" like Tom here to claim that they indeed have such rights is, well, hypocritical at best. But, alas at least HE knows how to use whether in context.
The post about trolling is your name appears on every political article on this site ranting on about idiots, you know everything and, your opinion is gospel. The spelling topic, your right. Your opinion on being dense is going back to trolling. A NEWSPAPER IS A CORP.! So should newspapers not have F.O.Press? Thats the point, this is not a political view other than reading the constitution. A corp. isn't in the constitution, so i guess your statment is corps should not own newspapers cause that gives them constitutional rights?
Wow, my creds in question? You are unreal.
Wow, my creds in question? You are unreal.
Gee Ben, newspapers DO NOT HAVE TO BE CORPORATIONS. And, while the "press" is guaranteed freedom, this does NOT mean that "corporations" are guaranteed...well ANYTHING. And simply BECAUSE a corporation MAY own a NEWSPAPER, does NOT mean that the Constitution PROTECTS IN ANY WAY THE CORPORATION, which of course, HAS NO RIGHTS UNDER ANY STRICT READING OF THE CONSTITUTION, but instead what it means is that, possibly, THE NEWSPAPER, has a right. Dang man, if you want to read the Constitution that's fine, have at it, if you want to UNDERSTAND the Constitution you are going to have to do more than be able to see the words on the page.
"When the Founding Fathers indicated they wanted free speech; they did not have making political donations to politicians in mind; and you know that."
I nothing of the sort and neither do you. The topic is not "donations," but freedom to speak about issues and candidates without government limits. Stay on topic.
I nothing of the sort and neither do you. The topic is not "donations," but freedom to speak about issues and candidates without government limits. Stay on topic.
"The topic is not 'donations,' but freedom to speak about issues and candidates without government limits. Stay on topic."
I am. You're off topic. Freedom of speech is not about corporations making secret donations to politicians. And; again; you know it.
I am. You're off topic. Freedom of speech is not about corporations making secret donations to politicians. And; again; you know it.
Ok Stevie, I am having trouble following your tripe of a arguement. Freedom of press is a constitutional right. You are saying if a corporation ownes the news, than it should no longer have constitutional rights. You are wrong. The article is pointing out the fact "don't bite the hand that feeds you."
The other argument is that a corporation is not given freedom of speech rights. Why? Cause they are not a "person"? I tried explaining to you why that argument still does not take away thier rights to freedom of speech. If you want me to repeat myself I will but, it is somewhat sloppy writen a few posts up.
The other argument is that a corporation is not given freedom of speech rights. Why? Cause they are not a "person"? I tried explaining to you why that argument still does not take away thier rights to freedom of speech. If you want me to repeat myself I will but, it is somewhat sloppy writen a few posts up.
Gee Ben, since you repeated what you wrote, let me repeat what I wrote (seems to be some communication problem, or maybe a comprehension problem) CORPORATIONS, whether they own newspapers or taco bell stands, HAVE NO RIGHT RECOGNIZED BY THE CONSTITUTION. Is that clear? Now, whether a CORPORATION OWNS A NEWSPAPER OR NOT GIVES THE CORPORATION NO ADDITIONAL RIGHTS AS AN ENTITY. Is that clear? See, what you seem to be confusing is at the center of all of this; simply because a corporation "owns" a newspaper, does NOT make the corporation "the newspaper". While a corporately owned NEWSPAPER, HAS a right probably protected by the Constitution, THE CORPORATION DOES NOT. There is a DISTINCTION between the "newspaper" AND the "corporation" such that whatever right may attach to the NEWSPAPER is not the same as that which the corporation has, which is to say NONE. Now, you want to consider that this is said within the context of my opinion about Tom here. See, Tom fancies himself as a "strict constructionist" which means that he thinks the Constitution is simple enough to read and that it doesn't need a whole lot of "interpreting" and that if something isn't EXPRESSLY (in other words if the document doesn't say it IN WORDS YOU CAN READ WITHIN THE CONSTITUTION) then it doesn't EXIST AT ALL. What I have been repeating, mostly for me since its obvious that one of us can't understand what it is they are reading, is that because the Constitution DOES NOT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZE a "right" of free speech for a CORPORATION, then one can't exist so long as you interpret the Constitution "strictly" as Tom would have. This makes his position hypocritical. You with me here? Somehow I didn't think so. Oh well.
Just when I thought you could sway my opinion, you failed. It was close, I really put thought into what you are saying but doesn't make what your saying right.... quote #1-"Now, whether a CORPORATION OWNS A NEWSPAPER OR NOT GIVES THE CORPORATION NO ADDITIONAL RIGHTS AS AN ENTITY"
Well yes and no, it depends on context really. We will stay on topic and use the articles "right to free speech" by allowing campaign contributions. I observe that they can be fairly resticted it should not be barred. There is no difference between a political party(as a group) giving money to a person than a corporation doing the same. The thought of the evil corp. is just not a accurate sale of idealogy. What gives any business the right to anything? It is the people that own the corporation that give the constitutional rights to the business...Quote #2- "simply because a corporation "owns" a newspaper, does NOT make the corporation "the newspaper". Yes it does, and we are feed that corporations agenda through "their" version of news..Quote #3-"because the Constitution DOES NOT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZE a "right" of free speech for a CORPORATION"-you are correct, but it does not express steven.alexanders "right" to free speech expressly either. So I do understand your views, AND I think you did a good job speaking intelligently, I do not agree with you.
Well yes and no, it depends on context really. We will stay on topic and use the articles "right to free speech" by allowing campaign contributions. I observe that they can be fairly resticted it should not be barred. There is no difference between a political party(as a group) giving money to a person than a corporation doing the same. The thought of the evil corp. is just not a accurate sale of idealogy. What gives any business the right to anything? It is the people that own the corporation that give the constitutional rights to the business...Quote #2- "simply because a corporation "owns" a newspaper, does NOT make the corporation "the newspaper". Yes it does, and we are feed that corporations agenda through "their" version of news..Quote #3-"because the Constitution DOES NOT EXPRESSLY RECOGNIZE a "right" of free speech for a CORPORATION"-you are correct, but it does not express steven.alexanders "right" to free speech expressly either. So I do understand your views, AND I think you did a good job speaking intelligently, I do not agree with you.
Gee Ben, I am certainly open to honest disagreement. I can see that we probably will not agree and that's fine, no hard feelings. I just want to make one more point though; what I said originally, and really throughout, though written "to" you, was really intended for Tom here. See, although he hardly responds, and I doubt that he cares, it salves my conscience that I point out his hypocrisy when the chance comes up. And believe me, it comes up A LOT with this guy. Tom professes all kinds of stuff that is written with the most sincere "heartfelt" fervor that he can muster. Problem is, most of it is so laced with partisanship that one thing he writes is just completely inconsistent with the other stuff he writes. Now, this is a constant with lots of people, but Tom here professes his belief in being OBJECTIVE, when nothing could be farther from the truth. Tom likes to claim that he reads the Constitution, and the words so lovingly included within the document "as the founders intended" and as STRICTLY as they intended. The problem he has is that when his own "selfish self interest" conflicts with that philosophy he just can't justify it, and that is what I like to point out. I think you just got caught up in one of my efforts to show Tom who hypocritical he is. In closing let me say that the consequences of your position are that those with the most money, will be those doing the most talking and unfortunately given our rather uneducated, and disinterested citizenry, this will mean that corporations will control lots of things including elections. This country was NOT established, and fought for, so that we could be governed by large corporations that have ONLY their own selfish self interests at heart.
There you are, this is the type of "discussion" I expected, and yes I did (to my understanding now) think you were trolling on Tom and others. I apoligize for a abrasive harshness I may express when using words as I tend to go for the kill quickly.
No sweat, I've endure, and handed out, lots worse. Glad we could come to an understanding, about our differences if nothing else. Cheers!
RSS
Twitter
Facebook
Comments (23)
Registration Notice: The Review-Journal has implemented a new registration procedure that requires all existing and new accounts to validate and login using Facebook. Visit the Registration FAQ for more information.
Share your thoughts on this story.
Sign in or register to make a comment.
Some comments may not display immediately due to an automatic filter. These comments will be reviewed within 24 hours. Please do not submit a comment more than once.
Note: Comments made by reporters and editors of the Las Vegas Review-Journal are presented with a yellow background.