Judges don't usually come off their benches with flamethrowers, but when they do, you'd better stop, drop, and roll.

A truly extraordinary onslaught of words was delivered by D.C. Circuit Senior Judge Laurence Silberman in his dissenting opinion on a libel case this week.

In his dissent, Silberman absolutely torched the commies invading and controlling nearly every aspect of American public life.

He first took aim at a court case from the civil rights movement in 1964 where the Supreme Court said publicly elected officials are limited in their ability to sue for libel.

The case has given the establishment press extraordinary power to lie about said officials they don't like, say, by claiming they keep kids in cages at the border. A politician has to prove they mean actual malice, which is near impossible (but evident if you've ever watched CNN for more than ten seconds).

"After observing my colleagues' efforts to stretch the actual malice rule like a rubber band, I am prompted to urge the overruling of New York Times v. Sullivan. Justice [Clarence] Thomas has already persuasively demonstrated that New York Times was a policy-driven decision masquerading as constitutional law."

After setting up this intro, I imagine Silberman reached under his bench and pulled a flamethrower out, ready to dole out justice.

The Reagan appointee went on to say that overturning such a ruling is difficult because "once the [Supreme] Court has 'constitutionalized' a new area of the law, it will never willingly retreat."

He acknowledged the usefulness of such a law during the years when leaders sought to keep the press from covering the civil rights movement, but lamented the judiciary taking the role of making law. He then argued that papers like the Times have used the ruling to pull power in their favor and openly lie about individuals with no fear of recourse:

"One can understand, if not approve, the Supreme Court's policy-driven decision. There can be no doubt that the New York Times case has increased the power of the media. Although the institutional press, it could be argued, needed that protection to cover the civil rights movement, that power is now abused. In light of today's very different challenges, I doubt the Court would invent the same rule."

And here is where Silberman lets loose the cannon. What was meant to be given for protection and equal rights under the law is now being used as a weapon by the media and the Marxist Left (but I repeat myself).

Prepare your eyeballs as I summarize Silberman's truly extraordinary words – words you don't hear from a judge every day:

"As the [Times] case has subsequently been interpreted, it allows the press to cast false aspersions on public figures with near impunity. It would be one thing if this were a two-sided phenomenon.... The increased power of the press is so dangerous today because we are very close to one-party control of these institutions. Our court was once concerned about the institutional consolidation of the press leading to a "bland and homogenous" marketplace of ideas...

It turns out that ideological consolidation of the press (helped along by economic consolidation) is the far greater threat."

Although the bias against the Republican Party—not just controversial individuals—is rather shocking today, this is not new; it is a long-term, secular trend going back at least to the '70s... Two of the three most influential papers (at least historically), The New York Times and The Washington Post, are virtually Democratic Party broadsheets. And the news section of The Wall Street Journal leans in the same direction. The orientation of these three papers is followed by The Associated Press and most large papers across the country (such as the Los Angeles Times, Miami Herald, and Boston Globe).

Nearly all television—network and cable—is a Democratic Party trumpet. Even the government-supported National Public Radio follows along."

"As has become apparent, Silicon Valley also has an enormous influence over the distribution of news. And it similarly filters news delivery in ways favorable to the Democratic Party....

It is well-accepted that viewpoint discrimination 'raises the specter that the Government may effectively drive certain ideas or viewpoints from the marketplace...' But ideological homogeneity in the media—or in the channels of information distribution—risks repressing certain ideas from the public consciousness just as surely as if access were restricted by the government."

To be sure, there are a few notable exceptions to Democratic Party ideological control: Fox News, The New York Post, and The Wall Street Journal's editorial page. It should be sobering for those concerned about news bias that these institutions are controlled by a single man and his son. Will a lone holdout remain in what is otherwise a frighteningly orthodox media culture? After all, there are serious efforts to muzzle Fox News.

And although upstart (mainly online) conservative networks have emerged in recent years, their visibility has been decidedly curtailed by Social Media, either by direct bans or content-based censorship.

There can be little question that the overwhelming uniformity of news bias in the United States has an enormous political impact....

And this distorted market has the effect... of aiding Democratic Party candidates by 8–10% in the typical election."

Then, to finish things off, Silberman rolled up the sleeves of his black robe and cranked his flamethrower beyond its max setting, sending ripples of liquid fire across the nation:

"It should be borne in mind that the first step taken by any potential authoritarian or dictatorial regime is to gain control of communications, particularly the delivery of news. It is fair to conclude, therefore, that one-party control of the press and media is a threat to a viable democracy. It may even give rise to countervailing extremism. The First Amendment guarantees a free press to foster a vibrant trade in ideas. But a biased press can distort the marketplace. And when the media has proven its willingness—if not eagerness—to so distort, it is a profound mistake to stand by unjustified legal rules that serve only to enhance the press' power."

What. A. Statement.

Hold on to your hats, folks, because as more judges step out of the arena of law to opine on how one-sided and authoritarian our woke society is becoming, the media and the Left (but I repeat myself again) are going to push back.