The rulings demonstrate the extent to which ideology — not fidelity to precedent or a particular interpretation of the Constitution — is the driving force on the court.
It's writing like that that reeks of media bias. I'm quite sure that if this author agreed with the decisions, he'd say these decisions were the result of "fidelity to...a particular interpretation of the Constitution". By the way, what's the difference between "ideology" and "a particular interpretation of the Constitution"?
Here's another example:
A one-two punch of bad news suddenly has Democrats facing an election year withthat favor Republicans and a Senate that can block Democratic initiatives.
How, exactly, does a ruling allowing corporations and unions to spend more on elections favor Republicans? As I recall, corporations spent much more money on Democrats (through PACs and 527's and the like) than on Republicans in the 2008 election--was Goldman Sachs not Obama's single largest contributor? And tell me that unions (which are now populated over 50% by government workers) aren't salivating at this new ruling?
But it gets better; later in that same article the well-known sexual reference used to describe TEA Partiers is used--stay classy, AP.
The Associated Press shouldn't be pointing fingers at anyone regarding politics, as they're nothing more than a bunch of partisan hacks. Any editor worth his salt should have picked up on the overt bias in the quotes I picked above, but clearly didn't--they don't even see the bias because they are too partisan. And those are the first two AP stories I read this morning!