Patterico's Pontifications

7/21/2005

Annotated Story on Roberts

Filed under: Dog Trainer,Judiciary — Patterico @ 6:44 am



The L.A. Times runs a story this morning titled Democrats Forgo Discord on Court Pick, at Least for Now. As I read through it, I noticed a couple of things that were missing.

First, the entire theme of the story, as indicated by the headline, is that Senate Democrats have not been critical of Roberts. But the story does not quote Dick Durbin, who sounded a bit critical in this Fox News story:

“The president had an opportunity to unite the country with his Supreme Court nomination, to nominate an individual in the image of Justice Sandra Day O’Connor. Instead, by putting forward John Roberts’ name, President Bush has chosen a more controversial nominee and guaranteed a more controversial confirmation process,” said Illinois Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Ill., who was one of three Democrats who voted against Roberts in 2003.

I guess not all Democrats have chosen to “forgo discord.”

Also, I love the way that O’Connor’s reaction to Roberts’ nomination is doctored by the L.A. Times:

Some women’s groups said they were disappointed Bush had not named a woman to replace O’Connor.

Even O’Connor, the first woman to serve on the Supreme Court, expressed some discontent on that point.

On a fishing trip in Idaho, she told the Spokane, Wash., Spokesman-Review: “He’s good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”

Sounds positive, but a tad lukewarm. Except that you didn’t get the whole quote:

Her first words were unequivocal: “That’s fabulous!” she said. She immediately described John G. Roberts as a “brilliant legal mind, a straight shooter, articulate, and he should not have trouble being confirmed by October. He’s good in every way, except he’s not a woman.”

Conveys a slightly different flavor to read the whole thing, wouldn’t you say?

5 Responses to “Annotated Story on Roberts”

  1. My take is that main stream Dems are getting very wary of the MoveOndotOrg nut cases and are seeking moderately higher ground. Schumer and his ilk are the exception, but I’ll bet some private focus groups have given the “no mas” answer to continued smearing of everyone on the GOP side. I, among a ton of others, have reprinted on my site the Teddy Kennedy smear of Bork, and also the attacks on Thomas. The Republicans are ready for all out war this time.

    Howard Veit (baba22)

  2. Thanks for this. I linked it twice in my growing list of examples of MSM bias in the confirmation process, which is linked in this comment. With readers’ help, I built 130+ such examples during the election, any with your links I’ve already reached 1/10 of that — and we’re just getting started.

    Laer (a6a7a0)

  3. It came to my mind that the president and his advisors may have entertained the idea of nominating a woman but wisely did not want to be seen as having a knee-jerk reaction to the notion. It may come out in later years that this took courage.

    Elliot Essman (5fb412)

  4. I wanted to comment on the article in the TIMES regarding Roberts’ wife and her prolife activities. The article stated that Roberts and his wife are both devout Catholics. He would be the fourth Catholic on the Court. I wouldn’t be surprised if an eventual source of criticism is Roberts’ religious affiliation.

    Louis Parise (6f0306)

  5. We need some stinking memos:

    Who can take attacks against John Roberts seriously unless we get some forged memos? That’s the key: No phony memos, No “reality based” objections considered.

    Sorry, but I want to see some fake memos. Where are Dan Rather and Mary Mapes when their Party needs them? Have they no sense of public service? Are they unwilling to uphold the progressive traditions of professional journalism?

    Black Jack (ee9fe2)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0798 secs.