To understand this, you have to understand that I sometimes try to get my kids to say silly nonsense phrases, which is what I was doing as the conversation started:

Me: You say: “Bust a move, yo!”

Matthew: No.

Me: You say: “Boy-a-Busybee.”

Matthew: No.

Me: You say: “My name is Matthew.”

Matthew: No.

Me: You say: “No.”

Matthew: No.

Me: Good job! See? You said what I told you to say.

Matthew: That’s right. You tell me to say no and I will say no.

Me: Okay. You say: “No.”

Matthew: No.

Me:

Matthew: You say yes and I say no.

Me: You say stop and I say go go go.

Matthew:

Me:

Matthew: Stop.

Me: Go go go.

Then we laughed.

There is yet another example of clever wording by the L.A. Times‘s David Savage this morning. Like last night’s example, today’s story tells the literal truth about abortion, but distorts the facts in a way that would fool unsophisticated people into thinking there is more evidence for the pro-abortion position than actually exists.

If you went to a trial and watched 6 people testifying that the light was red, and 6 people testifying that the light was green, would you go home and tell people: “The plaintiff testified the light was red, and other witnesses backed up his testimony” — and leave it at that?

Only if you were already prejudiced in favor of the plaintiff.

And so it is with Savage’s story this morning. Savage reports that the Bush administration has filed a brief in the Supreme Court supporting the federal Partial Birth Abortion Act. Here is how he describes the state of medical support for the procedure from the trial in Stenberg v. Carhart, the previous partial-birth abortion case decided by the Court:

In Nebraska, for example, Dr. Leroy Carhart was the only physician who performed midterm abortions, and in 1997 he filed a legal challenge to a state law banning intact dilation and extraction procedures, contending the law was unconstitutional. He testified that the intact removals were safer than other methods because there was less chance of bleeding and infection.

Other medical experts backed up his testimony, agreeing that, in some instances, the procedure was a better method of performing abortions.

Literally true. And very misleading — because other medical experts disputed Dr. Carhart’s testimony.

Clearly, from his record, Savage is a supporter of abortion rights. So he tells you that doctors agreed with Carhart — and completely fails to mention that other doctors didn’t.

For example:

(more…)

Chuckie S. repeatedly said that he didn’t want another Scalia or Thomas, but he would be fine with another Rehnquist. For example, Chuckie S. asked Roberts during the hearings:

So now we must take the evidence we have and try to answer the fundamental question: What kind of justice will John Roberts be?

Will you be a truly modest, temperate, careful judge in the tradition of Harlan, Jackson, Frankfurter and Friendly?

Will you be a very conservative judge who will impede congressional prerogatives but does not use the bench to remake society, like Justice Rehnquist?

Or will you use your enormous talents to use the court to turn back a near-century of progress and create the majority that justices Scalia and Thomas could not achieve?

Chuckie repeated the theme in this speech during the final Committee debate:

That’s why I struggled with this decision so long and so hard. If he is a Rehnquist, that would not be a cause for exultation in my book, but it would not be a cause for alarm. The court’s balance will not be altered. But there is a reasonable danger that he will be like Justice Thomas, the most radical justice on the Supreme Court.

Raise your hand if you think Chuckie would have voted for Roberts if Roberts had answered specific questions about how he would vote, with the same answers William Rehnquist would have given — including a declaration that he would be a vote to overturn Roe v. Wade.

I see no hands.

[Posted by The Angry Clam]

There’s reporting over at Redstate.org that the next Supreme Court nominee is down to two people:

Word in legal circles is that Priscilla Owen is set to become the next justice appointed to the United States Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I have received reliable information late this afternoon that Karl Rove, among others, is making a last minute push for the President to consider Alberto Gonzales, despite previous assurances from inside the White House, Justice Department, and Senate that Gonzales was not being considered.

One will make me pleased; one will make me furious. There’s a lot of people like me in the Republican Party base. Karl, let’s see if this is your Waterloo on reading which way the wind is blowing.