Case in point: two years ago, the Court indicated a willingness to “revisit” long-settled precedents on labor unions. And they ended up with Harris v. Quinn – which could have all kinds of unintended consequences. (Are they really going to rule that employers can’t fire workers based on who they associate with? How’s that going to work, if a Homeland Security employee decides to join Al Qaeda? Or will they rule that Illinois can’t decide the employment conditions of its own employees? How are all those “States’ Rights” folks going to swallow that?)
The Harris decision is still pending… and it sounds to me like the Court is looking for even more trouble.
According to press reports, SCOTUS is now targeting state laws that prohibit lying about political candidates. Here’s the WaPo story from yesterday: Supreme Court suspicious of Ohio law that criminalizes false speech about candidates.
Ok, so… We’re still reeling from a presidential campaign where the concept of “truth” lost big time.
People’s trust in politicians is pretty much at an all-time low.
And now the Supreme Court wants to go after state laws that prohibit lying during political campaigns? Really gotta wonder.
If the standards used in the Ohio statute sound familiar – “knowing the same to be false or with reckless disregard for whether it was false or not” – well, that’s probably because those same standards are used in libel law.
So… If the Supreme Court rules that corporate-money groups trying to influence elections have a First Amendment right to recklessly disregard the truth about political candidates… wouldn’t that also throw a whole lot of libel precedent out the window?
(Can’t help but notice that there are some high-dollar libel lawsuits pending in lower courts. MediaMatters’ story: Libel: Will Defamation Suits Doom Three Right-Wing Media Outlets? How will the Ohio decision affect those cases?)
The judiciary is still the most-trusted branch of the federal government. But that, of course, could change. Observers describe an increasingly pro-business tilt to SCOTUS decisions. (How the Chamber of Commerce conquered the Supreme Court – Supreme Court Hands Chamber Of Commerce Blockbuster Pro-Corporate Term)
And, according to researchers, the rest of our government already represents business interests, rather than the average citizen.
The central point that emerges from our research is that economic elites and organized groups representing business interests have substantial independent impacts on U.S. government policy, while mass-based interest groups and average citizens have little or no independent influence.
So… what happens if (when?) Average Americans lose trust in all branches of their federal government?
Can’t help but wonder how this is going to play out, long term.