"The whole concept of 'Congress Shall Make No Law' in the First Amendment has gone missing in The Times as does the larger case history."—TimesCheck.com Editor Kevin Mooney.
March 19th, 2010, Fairfax, VA—Americans for Limited Government's TimesCheck.com today released an analysis of New York Times' coverage of recent significant Supreme Court decisions.
"Americans from both sides of the political spectrum must accommodate themselves to Supreme Court decisions that are offensive to their ideological convictions. The liberal editors with The New York Times resolve this dilemma by ignoring the majority opinions in their coverage, while martyring dissenting justices," said Kevin Mooney, Editor of TimesCheck.com.
"Despite all of the editorial posturing on behalf of civil liberties and constitutional rights, it is evident from recent reports that The Gray Lady has not come to terms with high court rulings that expand on First Amendment and Second Amendment freedoms," Mooney added.
"Whatever the merits of a particular case, the majority opinion is the law of the land and deserves consideration and attention in the reporting," said Mooney. "The cases should be open to criticism and scrutiny and it's find to give at least one dissenting view space and attention but not at the expense of arguments that carried the day in court."
The McDonald v. Chicago case now before the court is in many respects a sequel to the District of Columbia v. Heller case that ruled in favor of an individual right to own a gun. "The Times shows its hand by marginalizing the majority of opinion in Heller written by Justice Antonin Scalia. This does a great disserve to the readers because the justices who joined Scalia in Heller could very well rule the same way in McDonald," said ALG President Bill Wilson.
Mooney described other Times coverage as a "crusade in favor of legislative changes to the Citizens United V. FEC ruling, which restored First Amendment freedoms lost under campaign finance laws."
"Two of America's most important founding principles – the right to free speech and the right to freely associate – were recently reaffirmed by the court as it set aside unconstitutional restrictions," Mooney explained.
Mooney said the "whole concept of 'Congress Shall Make No Law' in the First Amendment has gone missing in The Times as does the larger case history. While it's certainly appropriate to raise questions the potential impact of the court ruling on upcoming political races, the larger case history has been omitted here to the detriment of readers."
"Allowing corporations, and for that matter unions, to have greater dexterity and flexibility where political advocacy is concerned will not threaten the republic's foundations and the burden should be on those arguing in favor of restrictions," Mooney added.
Wilson said The Times should be more "consistent," concluding, "The same newspaper that hides behind the First Amendment whenever it leaks national security information should put a little more weight into the clear constitutional language the high court has restored to its proper station."