Patterico's Pontifications

5/13/2005

Update to CBS Post

Filed under: Media Bias — Patterico @ 5:21 pm



Don’t miss the update to the post below about CBS’s distortion of Ken Starr’s views. It’s a pretty convincing rebuttal of the Mickey Kaus theory that CBS reporter Gloria Borger managed to “wrench” the “radical, radical” comment into something approximating its proper context.

4 Responses to “Update to CBS Post”

  1. And should we appoint justices who want to rule on everything from abortion to gay marriage to civil rights?

    This is the key non-sequitur/obfuscation of the whole piece that gives CBS the out. I’m not sure what this is supposed to mean.

    Are we supposed to appoint judges that DON’T want to rule on these issues? No thinking person on the right or left wants to eliminate judicial review, it’s HOW the judicial review is done that is the question. But this stupid phrase allows CBS to say: “See, we were talking about judicial philosophy before the first Starr quote”, even though no one hearing this segment understands that that is what the Starr is discussing

    JFH (d1e47f)

  2. And should we appoint justices who want to rule on everything from abortion to gay marriage to civil rights?

    Hmmm… I seem to understand this differently. I would read it as a rhetorical question put forward by concerned traditionalists [ as opposed to activists] that justices are NOT to make NEW rules on matters like abortion to gay marriage, for such matters are properly within the province of the legislatures. It is something so simple and basic to the separation of powers, that, it is self evidence that judges are not appointed for making new rules on subjects from abortion to gay marriage.

    If we visit Justice Robert Young , Michigan Supreme Court, he has put it more elegantly as

    “And judicial philosophy matters precisely because, for the past 40 or so years, the courts at the state and federal levels have transformed themselves into “auxiliary legislatures.” Courts have become a new and previously unmonitored source of social and political policy making. There has been a belated, but growing public awareness that the courts, not the legislatures, are in control of the important social issues of American life.”

    “What has happened during this period is that the judicial traditionalists—those who, like me, believe that judges are constrained to apply the actual text of the constitution and statutes to particular fact patterns in the cases before them—have been eclipsed by judicial activists who believe that judges should serve as a counter-majoritarian hedge against legislative actions that they believe to be insufficiently “just.”

    Yi-Ling (ba61aa)

  3. I meant to link this http://www.manhattan-institute.org/html/cjr_2.htm in above post.

    Yi-Ling (ba61aa)

  4. No thinking person on the right or left wants to eliminate judicial review, it’s HOW the judicial review is done that is the question

    I believe judicial review is a different cup of tea, when talking of judicial activism.

    Yi-Ling (ba61aa)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0715 secs.