No need for Markey to back down from apt comparison

Not everything is about slavery, just because it’s mentioned as an example of one of the times our Supreme Court got it wrong, and a constitutional amendment was required to make it right (“Edward Markey holds firm on his analogy to slavery ruling,” Feb. 21). Representative Edward Markey was talking about the court’s decision known as Citizens United, and later, as you report, he “refused to back down . . . from comments he made . . . that seemed to compare the US Supreme Court’s ruling on campaign finance law to the high court’s 19th-century Dred Scott decision, a notorious pro-slavery ruling.”

There is no “seemed to compare” about it. That’s exactly what he did. And there’s no reason whatsoever why he should back down.

“The Constitution must be amended,” Markey said. “The Dred Scott decision had to be repealed; we have to repeal ­Citizens United.”


We rejected slavery a century and a half ago. Today’s battle is about campaign finance.

John Harwood