L.A. Times Editors Need to Learn How to Read Their Own Paper
L.A. Times editors published an editorial about Sam Alito this morning. It said, among other things:
In discussing the landmark case holding President Truman’s seizure of some steel mills during the Korean War unconstitutional, Alito agreed that presidential authority is severely constrained when he acts against the expressed will of Congress. That is the context in which President Bush has allowed the National Security Agency to eavesdrop, without any court warrant, on phone calls in the United States.
The editors appear blissfully unaware that this is a hotly contested issue. Perhaps they missed what their own paper printed about the issue on December 20, because it was buried on Page A32:
Bush and Gonzales also said Congress had authorized such extraordinary measures in the wake of the Sept. 11 attacks. The “Authorization for Use of Military Force” adopted by Congress said the president could “use all necessary and appropriate force” to capture those who planned the attacks and “to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States.” Several legal experts said this was a stronger justification for Bush’s action.
“I think the [congressional] authorization of use of military force is probably adequate as an authorization for surveillance,” said Cass Sunstein, a University of Chicago law professor.
If Sunstein (a self-described liberal) is correct, then Bush was not acting “against the expressed will of Congress,” but rather in accordance with that expressed will.
The editors need to learn to read their own paper more carefully. Here’s a hint, editors: your colleagues on the news side don’t always put everything important on the front page, so you have to read the whole story — even if it means turning all the way to Page A32.
P.S. The editorial doesn’t bother to take a stand on Alito. My guess is that they are in the same position as Senate Democrats: they don’t want to go on record supporting him, but they can’t think of a defensible reason not to. Unlike the Senate Democrats, the editors can just duck and refuse to take a position — and that’s what they’re doing today.
LAT’s editors left out a few words:
“…when he acts against the expressed will of (our two-faced stooges, in the minority of both Houses of) Congress. (Who were in favor of efforts “…to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States…” before they were against such efforts.)
Black Jack (d8da01) — 1/15/2006 @ 12:55 pmYou know, they’re going to scream bloody murder if a bill is proposed:
“Although we feel the President already has this authority, Congress hereby declares explicitly that he has the authority to eavesdrop on anyone whose telephone number appears in the possession of a known Al Queda figure.”
Al (2e2489) — 1/15/2006 @ 1:26 pmOur esteemed host wrote:
The editorial doesn’t bother to take a stand on Alito. My guess is that they are in the same position as Senate Democrats: they don’t want to go on record supporting him, but they can’t think of a defensible reason not to. Unlike the Senate Democrats, the editors can just duck and refuse to take a position — and that’s what they’re doing today.
The Senate Democrats couldn’t think of a defensible reason not to support John Roberts, either, but twenty-two of them still voted against his confirmation.
Maybe we could have a Patterico contest: whoever gets closest to the number of Democrats voting against confirmation of Mr Alito wins, of, one year’s free access to your website. 🙂
Put me down for 32 votes against.
Dana (a90377) — 1/15/2006 @ 1:31 pmPatterico’s title should really read: “L.A. Times Editors Need to Think Like Me, Me, Me!”
His whole boldfaced-ladened screed is based on a hypothetical:
“If Sunstein is correct”…
Not a few others disagree with Sunstein. The LA Times Editors are well within their rights to have considered and rejected his arguments. Patterico’s speculation that they reject his pet position from ignorance is just hot air.
m.croche (8e3bfc) — 1/15/2006 @ 1:41 pmWhy do people still pay money to read the LAT and NYT when they already know that 99% of the content is warped at best and total lies at the worst. The American people are done, the brainwashing is complete on almost half of them.
100% of the Islam radicals want to kill us in the name of ‘GOD’?
45% or the American people (left wing) are helping them in the name of politics.
The fact is that the terrorists nor the left wing will win, but due to the assistance of the left from top down hundreds of Americans will die before the left is attacked by the patroitic americans, and I mean attacked with deadly force. It’s coming, and won’t be long in coming. Probably immediately following the next major terrorists attack. It will be a case of kill them all and let God sort them out.
scrapiron (a90377) — 1/15/2006 @ 3:23 pmScrapiron asks:
Well, the number of people doing that is steadily declining.
Dana (71415b) — 1/15/2006 @ 5:24 pmPelosi had an op-ed piece at washingtonpost.com today. In it she claims that Congress should have the right to determine “need to know” for people within Congressional ranks. She also believes that all of the people on each intelligence committee should have access to all of the intelligence data. I’ve done some analysis of this article at SpecterVision.
Specter (466680) — 1/15/2006 @ 6:18 pmThe LA Times editors don’t read their own paper because they’ve cancelled their subscriptions, too.
Justice Frankfurter (2dcd84) — 1/15/2006 @ 6:45 pmSpecter, good analysis. A minor nit to pick, however, it’s Representative (Congresswoman? Congressperson?) Pelosi. California already has more than their full alotment of senators in Senators Boxer and Feinstein.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/15/2006 @ 8:02 pmHere’s an interesting lead-in paragraph from Rep Pelosi’s article:
Review of intelligence-gathering and analysis is a critical responsibility of the legislative branch. But as the independent Sept. 11 commission concluded, “so long as oversight is governed by current congressional rules and resolutions, we believe the American people will not get the security they want and need.” As one who served on the House intelligence committee for 10 years and who continues to serve in a non-voting capacity, I know that the commission’s concerns are justified and require immediate action.
Let’s see that last comment again, just for the sake of catching our breath: I know that the commission’s concerns are justified and require immediate action. Yep, that’s exactly what Bush has done all right – taken immediate action, just as Rep Pelosi has agreed needed to be done.
Then we’ll continue for the remainder of the article attempting to prove she really didn’t mean what she said in the lead-in.
Priceless.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/15/2006 @ 8:08 pmThanks Harry…it’ll be fixed
Specter (466680) — 1/16/2006 @ 8:37 amscrapiron (#5) asks the pertinent question: “Why do people still pay money to read the LAT and NYT when they already know that 99% of the content is warped at best and total lies at the worst“…
Ask the deluded clown m.croche…:lol:
russ (2d4887) — 1/16/2006 @ 8:54 amNote Mark Steyn’s observations: Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.): “I find it troubling that as a young man you joined an all-white club affiliated with a national institution that has a very troubling historical pattern when it comes to the treatment of minorities.”
Sen. Leahy (D-Vt.): “Yes, it’s true I joined the Vermont branch of the Democratic Party in the 1950s. But, I mean, I never met George Wallace or Robert C. Byrd or anyone . . .“…:lol:
russ (2d4887) — 1/16/2006 @ 9:08 amPatterico needs a new category — try “Which Page of the (insert newspaper name) Do You Read?” For years the New Yorker did this. Maybe they still do.
dchamil (cfeac8) — 1/16/2006 @ 9:33 amruss, Mark Steyn’s analysis is nothing short of brilliant – kudos to you for the link.
As for the Senate Judiciary democrats, only the word pathetic comes to my mind. And we could have actually had a civil and informative discussion of Alito’s judicial philosophy, had the democrats the legal and intellectual capacity to do so. It’s actually OK to agree to disagree on these matters, IMHO.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/16/2006 @ 11:01 amHarry,
I have it on good authority that if GWB picks another Supreme Court nominee, the Senate Judiciary Committee Dems are going to put brown paper bags over their heads during televised hearings.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 1/16/2006 @ 12:33 pmA reprise of “the unknown comic” I presume?
I still have my fingers crossed for justice Janice Rogers Brown. I’d SO love to watch Kennedy lecture her on … well, just about any subject you can think of.
Harry Arthur (b318a5) — 1/16/2006 @ 12:43 pmHarry, not the unknown comic.
Saints football fans were so ashamed to be seen on TV sitting in the stadium, they put brown paper bags over their heads to conceal their identity. Priceless.
Black Jack (d8da01) — 1/16/2006 @ 7:18 pmOh, I don’t know, Jack: the Unknown Comic seems appropriate. He was on the Gong Show, and wouldn’t it be just wonderful if we could put the Judiciary Committee hearings on that show? If Joe Biden couldn’t get a question out in less than ninety seconds, automatic gong!
Dana (3e4784) — 1/17/2006 @ 4:41 amThe LATimes is a sick joke of a newspaper. I love it when my Friend, Hugh Hewitt, tweaks them on the air about corrections they won’t print and all the far left fanaticism that the LATimes uses for editorials.
PCD (49d1db) — 1/17/2006 @ 6:35 am