New York Times Editors Regurgitate Democrat Talking Points — Without Even Checking Them Out First
Not only are New York Times editors regurgitating Democratic talking points in their editorials, they aren’t even bothering to check them out first. The proof appears in this morning’s editorial on judicial filibusters, titled Mr. Smith Goes Under the Gavel:
Judicial nominees have never been immune from filibusters. When Republicans opposed President Lyndon Johnson’s choice for chief justice, Abe Fortas, they led a successful filibuster to stop him from getting the job. More recently, in the Clinton era, Republicans spoke out loudly in defense of their right to filibuster against the confirmation of cabinet members and judicial nominees. Republican senators, including Rick Santorum of Pennsylvania and Mike DeWine of Ohio, used a filibuster in 1995 to block President Bill Clinton’s nominee for surgeon general. Bill Frist, now the Senate majority leader, supported a filibuster of a Clinton appeals court nomination. Senator Christopher Bond, a Missouri Republican, was quoted in The St. Louis Post-Dispatch in 1993 saying, “On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster.”
I looked up this last quote. Contrary to the clear implication of the editors, the quote from Senator Bond has nothing to do with judicial filibusters. It related to his participation in a filibuster to block President Clinton’s economic stimulus package. Here is the full context for the quote:
This month, the Republican minority used their unity and Senate rules to block Clinton’s $16.3 billion economic stimulus package. “On important issues, I will not hesitate to join a filibuster,” declares Sen. Christopher S. Bond, R-Mo., who offered four amendments and orated as part of the Republican campaign.
You might well wonder: where did New York Times editors get the idea to include this irrelevant quote from a 1993 article in a St. Louis paper? A quote that has nothing whatsoever to do with filibusters of judicial (or even cabinet) nominees?
Wonder no longer. A Google search of that quote yields two results: today’s NYT editorial, and a Democratic Policy Committee page of talking points about judicial filibusters, titled “The Republican Flip-Flop on Filibusters.”
Ouch. The New York Times editors simply swallowed the Democrat talking points whole, rather than checking out this material for themselves.
I have further criticism of the editorial in the extended entry.
The editorial is tripe, start to finish. It opens with this amusing line:
Republicans control the White House, both houses of Congress and the Supreme Court.
I’m not sure exactly what the editors mean when they say “Republicans . . . control the Supreme Court.” Do they mean that most of the Justices were appointed by Republicans? That’s true, as far as it goes — but I think John Paul Stevens, arguably the Court’s most liberal Justice, would laugh long and hard if you told him Republicans “control” him, just because he was appointed by a Republican. By that logic, Republicans “controlled” Eisenhower appointees William Brennan and Earl Warren, two of the most liberal Justices in history.
The fact is that nobody “controls” the Justices. Even Justice Scalia routinely votes in ways that dismay Republicans, including his votes against the view that the Constitution places an upper cap on punitive damages, against unilateral executive authority to imprison citizens considered “enemy combatants,” in favor of the right to burn the flag, and countless others.
The editorial then launches into a defense of the filibuster as a time-honored tradition, alleging that Republicans
are so concerned that Democrats will use the filibuster to block a few far-right judicial nominees that they are talking about ending one of the best-known checks and balances in government.
And, of course, we get the inevitable allusion to “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington.”
The problem is that the subject matter of the editorial is not just any filibuster — it’s judicial filibusters. And the ugly truth, which the editorial does its best to disguise, is that it is unprecedented to filibuster judicial nominees who have majority support on the Senate floor.
The editorial cites the case of Abe Fortas (another Democrat talking point), but Fortas would have lost a floor vote, 46-49. Moreover, Fortas’s opponents debated his nomination only four days, and repeatedly insisted that they were not engaging in a filibuster.
Until the filibuster of Miguel Estrada and numerous subsequent Bush nominees, Fortas was the only nominee who ever faced a partisan filibuster who was not subsequently confirmed. The editorial claims that Bill Frist “supported a filibuster of a Clinton appeals court nomination.” This is another point taken from the Democratic Policy Committee page of talking points, and apparently refers to the nomination of Richard Paez. But Paez was actually confirmed, precisely because Senate Republicans didn’t filibuster him — even though he was supported (and eventually confirmed) by fewer than 60 Senators.
Of course, the editors are trying to point out alleged Republican hypocrisy — but naturally fail to observe the numerous examples of Democrat hypocrisy on the same issue. To take one infamous example:
I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty.
That’s Pat Leahy, folks.
But the most boneheaded comment in the editorial comes here:
According to Senate rules, changing the filibuster rule should require a two-thirds vote. But in the “nuclear option,” Vice President Dick Cheney, as Senate president, would rule that filibusters of judicial nominees could be ended by a simple majority.
That would no doubt put the whole matter in the courts, an odd place for the Republicans - who are fighting this battle in the name of ending activist courts - to want it resolved.
This comment earns the offending editor the dunce cap and a trip to the corner. Once he returns, ask him this question: Just how you do think this issue would get to the courts in the first place? You think the Republicans would invoke the nuclear option and then sue themselves? No! (Here’s where a crisp slap across the face would help drive the point home.) DEMOCRATS will be the ones suing. Republicans will be the DEFENDANTS — you know, the people who generally don’t want something resolved in court, because they think they shouldn’t be there to begin with.
And contrary to the editors’ assertion that “Republicans would have a weak case,” Democrats would be the ones with a crappy case. Any such lawsuit would get tossed out of court as a political question in no time flat — in less time, actually, than it takes for a New York Times editor to cut-and-paste a Democratic talking point into an editorial without checking it first.
UPDATE: Thanks to Professor Bainbridge for the link. I hope any new readers who like this piece will visit and bookmark my main page.
UPDATE x2: Thanks to Instapundit for the link.
In addition to bookmarking and/or blogrolling my main page, I hope that Bloglines subscribers will consider subscribing to this blog. If you have a Bloglines account, it’s as easy as clicking on this button:
UPDATE x3: L.A. Times editors were recently guilty of a similar transgression. I explain here.
* Talking POint
New York Times Editors Regurgitate Democrat Talking Points — Without Even Checking Them Out First” href=”http://patterico.com/archives/003107.php”>Patterico’s Pontifications: New York Times Editors Regurgitate Democrat Talking Points — Without Even C…
Trackback by Shot In The Dark — 11/28/2004 @ 4:54 pm
Judicial nominees and the
Beldar has one of the best discussions of “the nuclear option” that I have read. I highly recommend you read it. I agree with him completely.
Yes, I recognize that someday the shoe may be on the other foot, and that then, to my political dismay, i…
Trackback by Media Lies — 11/28/2004 @ 5:47 pm
MSM Caught with Pants Down
Patterico catches the NYT parroting a Democrat party talking point memo in an editorial today. He then fisks the heck out of the editorial on the merits. The Times really ought to be ashamed of itself.
Trackback by ProfessorBainbridge.com — 11/28/2004 @ 6:03 pm
Patterico Goes Coast to Coast
…and he scores. He’s got a flat-out great fisking of a NYT editorial about alleged Republican hypocrisy on judicial filibusters. It’s good to see that he sometimes looks at the other Times, because I sure as hell don’t usually bother….
Trackback by Kalblog — 11/28/2004 @ 10:44 pm
I’m a second year law student, not a particularly bright one either, but I could have written a better informed editorial than this one. Which actually gives me hope on finding a job, since obviously some people don’t care about double checking your facts or analysis for accuracy.
Comment by Jinn — 11/29/2004 @ 12:59 pm
Academia: The Last Liberal Refuge?
A few months ago I read a study on leftists in media, and a liberal journalist said that Democrats dominated the media because conservatives tend not to pursue low-paying journalism jobs. You buy that? Remind me to tell you about the job interview I ha…
Trackback by La Shawn Barber's Corner — 11/29/2004 @ 1:03 pm
Nice analysis. I hope you’ll do more like this about NYT articles in general.
Comment by Jeff — 11/29/2004 @ 1:11 pm
Bloggers Fact-Checking Stories
Bloggers are supposed to be the 1000 editors double-checking every story out there. Well in this case they found something. Patterico exposes the NY Times basing a story on Democratic talking points. Ouch….
Trackback by hyku | blog — 11/29/2004 @ 1:14 pm
If the New York Times had any reputation to lose, it’s on its way to the sewage treatment plant. Good job.
Comment by Sword of Rigteousness — 11/29/2004 @ 1:18 pm
Regurgitative Journalism
Patterico finds more examples of The New York Times regurgitating Democratic talking points without any attempt at fact-checking or verification. The Times takes a particular statement from Kit Bond and completely ignores the actual context while makin…
Trackback by Jay Reding.com — 11/29/2004 @ 1:20 pm
While the editorial is correct that Senators (not all of them Republican) filibustered Fortas’s promotion from Justice to Chief Justice, it omits the important fact that, within a year of the proposed appointment, Fortas resigned from the Supreme Court when the news came out that Fortas had agree to accept $20,000 annually for the rest of his life for providing legal advice while serving as a federal judge.
The filibuster was not ideological, at least not entirely; there was suspicion that Abe Fortas was unethical, and the suspicion turned out to be well-founded.
Comment by Silicon Valley Jim — 11/29/2004 @ 1:26 pm
Article I, section 5 of the Constitution clearly says, “Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings…”
The courts don’t have jurisdiction. Any attempt to get the courts involved would be a clear violation of separation of powers.
Comment by Steven Den Beste — 11/29/2004 @ 1:27 pm
Dem’s feed NYT line of bullcrap which NYT gladly swallows without question
Ouch. The New York Times editors simply swallowed the Democrat talking points whole, rather than checking out this material for themselves. - Patterico [emphasis from original source]Spork award to Big Daddy for use in scrapin’ pureed puppy from his bl…
Trackback by Read My Lips — 11/29/2004 @ 1:42 pm
File it under: Required Reading
Hell, I’ll concede that Fox News Channel leans right. But when everyone else in the MSM goes to the left, including the DNC megaphone New York Times, that still isnt’ “balanced.”
Excellent fisking…
Trackback by File it under... — 11/29/2004 @ 1:54 pm
Blogosphere 1, NYT 0
Patterico shreds a New York Times editorial on judicial nominations and filibusters. Shows you what can happen when an amateur goes up against a pro. The professional in this case being the blogger and the amateur being the NYT editorial…
Trackback by HobbsOnline — 11/29/2004 @ 2:12 pm
Regarding control of the Supreme Court: Perhaps the NYTimes was quoting a Hastert spokesman, when he said: “It’s extremely difficult to govern when you control all three branches of government…”
Comment by Chris — 11/29/2004 @ 2:12 pm
Pardon my ignorance (I am after all only a country physicist), but do I have standing to sue either the Democrats or the NYT for unreported contributions in kind (kine for you purists). Perhaps a class action suit?
Comment by David — 11/29/2004 @ 2:17 pm
When Republicans controlled the Senate during Clinton’s day, they did not have to filibuster, they used something called an anonymous hold, where a SINGLE senator could block a nominee. You should know that Patterico. The Republicans then prevented the nominee from getting a vote, even though it was clear that the nominee would have gotten a majority if they were brought to a vote. What’s the difference between the hold and the filibuster? Nothing. The only difference is that Republicans let their members pull it, and now they make the democrats filibuster. From a tactical move, there is a differnece, but from a real perspective there isn’t. You should know this patterico.
Comment by joe — 11/29/2004 @ 2:41 pm
But it was a pretty press release!
Last week I rolled my eyes at the New York Times editorial board for not knowing what Roe v. Wade did. This week they’re giving me and others even more…
Trackback by The Smoking Room — 11/29/2004 @ 2:42 pm
Re: Paez, no vote for FOUR YEARS because of an anon. hold. Same thing as filibuster buddy. The only reason he got a vote was because the Republicans cut a deal to end the “hold” which is the same thing as a filibuster. So you are flat wrong to say that it has never been done before. It has, it just wasn’t called a filibuster. Go look up the names of persons Clinton nominated, but who never got votes. What do you think the Senate just didn’t get around to it? No, they were blocked by procedural mechanisms that did not let them get an up or down vote.
Patterico, you are the one cutting a pasting Frist’s talking points.
Comment by joe — 11/29/2004 @ 2:46 pm
Instapundit Says
IT’S NOT PLAGIARISM when you repeat stuff from a press release without checking it — but it’s not journalism, either…. I’ve been seeing that happen in the computer press for years. Microsoft Press Release: Food-For-Windows i…
Trackback by The Opinionated Bastard — 11/29/2004 @ 2:46 pm
And one more thing: you just linked to Senator Cornyn to “prove” that Justice Fortas would have lost a floor vote during his confirmation battle. Now, first of all that makes no sense: why in god’s name would you filibuster if you could win on a floor vote??? Think. Now, how is it diff’t for you to link to a Senator’s talking points than it is from the NY Time doing the same??!??
Comment by joe — 11/29/2004 @ 2:59 pm
Very nicely “Fisked.”
The media, both journalists and commentators, have been getting away with running boilerplate press releases as “news” for too long without conducting adequate fact-checking.
Again, well, done.
Comment by Confederate Yankee — 11/29/2004 @ 3:00 pm
The Fortas example, as you note, is a red herring.
Nobody disputes that there should be a way to slow down the nominating juggernaut if there are serious questions to be looked into about a nominee; there are time-honored ways of using delays to build opposition to a nominee. What is at issue here isn’t just the use of the filibuster but the use of the indefinite, open-ended filibuster designed not to inform but to entirely block the floor vote.
Comment by Crank — 11/29/2004 @ 3:23 pm
He clearly said ‘on important issues’. It doesn’t sound like thats limited to economics.
Comment by actus — 11/29/2004 @ 10:29 pm
Whatever. I know you read the article, and it had nothing to do with judicial filibusters. Admit it: the Times editors got taken in.
Comment by Patterico — 11/29/2004 @ 10:45 pm
Ouch!
The New York Times gets spanked and sent to bed without its supper….
Trackback by The Gweilo Diaries — 11/30/2004 @ 4:36 am
‘Whatever. I know you read the article, and it had nothing to do with judicial filibusters. ‘
I know, there was a different filibuster going on. And the guy said what was important to him was ‘important issues’. I don’t know how else to read that but to think that this guy filibusters important issues. period.
Comment by actus — 11/30/2004 @ 5:20 am
I’ve argued on my blog that the Dems unprecedented filibuster of appellate court judges is akin to the use of non-conventional weapons (e.g. bio or chem weapons). Therefore, the appropriate response is nuclear.
Comment by Rick Brady — 11/30/2004 @ 6:12 am
WMD are WMD
I’ve argued that the Dems unprecedented filibuster of appellate court judges is akin to the use of non-conventional weapons (e.g. bio or chem weapons). Therefore, a nuclear response is justified. Beldar and Patterico have recent posts on this issue. (H…
Trackback by Stones Cry Out — 11/30/2004 @ 6:28 am
‘I’ve argued on my blog that the Dems unprecedented filibuster of appellate court judges’
Wasnt there a filibuster by the GOP in the 60’s?
Comment by actus — 11/30/2004 @ 11:37 am
Didja read the post?? There was a little information there. Try clicking on the links too.
Comment by Patterico — 11/30/2004 @ 11:58 am
The appointment of judges always amuses me. During Gore’s election campaign in 2000, Clinton charged the Republicans with the obstruction of appointments of minority judges. The Democrats were again playing the race card since Clinton was not following protocol with the minority judges as outlined by Orrin Hatch in an op-ed to the WSJ [which I am having difficulty finding the exact pages] but here is a synopsis of several pieces at the time.
http://www.brennancenter.org/programs/press_clippings/court_pester_files/Min_Fed_Jud_FileWeb.doc
Basically what happened, is that Clinton nominated minority judges without following Senate protocol, by confering with the representitives of those states…ones that are principally Republican. As a result, these judges were not confirmed, as Clinton expected. However, it was cynically set up so that the judges were blacks and hispanics. This allowed Clinton to charge the Republicans with racism.
Democrats playing the race card again!!! But notice that the Republicans are not doing the same with hispanic judge Estrada.
Comment by glenzo — 11/30/2004 @ 10:12 pm
NYT Doesn’t Fact Check Either
New York Times Editors Regurgitate Democrat Talking Points — Without Even Checking Them Out First Can anyone at the NYT say, “oops”?…
Trackback by callete.com linkblog — 12/1/2004 @ 1:04 pm
The Gray Whore, Part the Second
I love what other people uncover on the web. I relish the daily dive into the opinions of others, the delicious servings of rumor and the exposing of leftist lunacy. Today is no different. The skewering of the latest bungling…
Trackback by Intermittent Stream — 12/2/2004 @ 9:25 am
[...] oo. But the “many” don’t work at the L.A. Times. By the way, as I have pointed out b [...]
Pingback by Patterico's Pontifications » Biased L.A. Times Piece on Filibusters — 4/10/2005 @ 11:18 pm