... for its thoughtful consideration of this difficult issue.* The justices had to consider the First Amendment rights of individuals and organizations to participate in elections and the due process rights of litigants to receive a fair and impartial hearing before a court. These are both fundamental rights and weighing them can be a tough balancing act.Not really. Without due process, the government could otherwise deprive persons of their property, their liberty, and even their lives.
Without the First Amendment ... what? You couldn't cut a Supreme Court judge a check for ten grand? And call that a balancing act?
* And, presumably, also for the majority's verbatim adoption of the quoted author's trade association's proposed rules of judicial ethics, which was ostensibly intended to improve upon the public's perception of the court as a fair and unbiased dispenser of justice.