Patterico's Pontifications

4/1/2012

Signs of Supreme Court activism worry Reagan administration lawyers

Filed under: Dog Trainer — Karl @ 8:33 am



[Posted by Karl]

David Bernstein correctly notes a more accurate title for this page one propaganda would be “Lawyers Who Voted for Obama Want his Health Care Law to be Upheld“:

It turns out that the only “Reagan Administration lawyers” they are able to quote are Charles Fried and Doug Kmiec, both of whom quite publicly endorsed candidate Obama in 2008.  Kmiec, in fact, was rewarded with an ambassadorship for his service.

As for Fried, one of his former constitutional law students, Dan McLaughlin, observes:

It is fair and accurate to describe Prof. Fried as a former Reagan official and former member of the GOP legal establishment. But it is deeply misleading to suggest that he speaks today for some element of mainstream thought on the Right, or to tout his views on Obamacare without presenting to readers his support for Obama, his effective divorce from the modern GOP, and the extreme nature of his views on the government’s ability to make you buy broccoli.

The L.A. Times bias here is probably not merely ideological.  After all, they could certainly use a newspaper mandate.

–Karl

15 Responses to “Signs of Supreme Court activism worry Reagan administration lawyers”

  1. Ding!

    Karl (6f7ecd)

  2. You would think, if the Times was really concerned about judicial activism, that they would be looking at Thelton Henderson and the court-ordered release of thousands of violent felons from California prisons.

    I’m sure we’ll see a story on that real soon now.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  3. Gosh, it’s almost like they’re deliberately lying in order to push an agenda…

    Ghost (6f9de7)

  4. Liberals are truly desperate when it comes to Obamacare.

    William Teach (e7c30b)

  5. David Savage is a true embarassment. I saw the headline in this morning’s Times–and went looking for any mention of a GOP lawyer who was worried. The penny finally dropped way inside the jump page; but then was ripped away when the two “GOP lawyers” qouted were (a) identified as folks who’d voted for Obama in 2008; and (b) had written articles before the hearing confidently stating that Obamacare was constitutional!

    So long as the Times “legal” reporters confine themselves to interviewing members of the academic left, they are going to get surprised, time and time again. See the comments on Eugene Volokh’s blog “The Volokh Conspiracy”.

    You grow too soon old and too late smart and I’m still subscribing to the Los Angeles Times—but only for the sports section. The front page and “LA Extra” sections are merely extensions of the comic pages. And of course the Business section features Michael Hiltzik! Oh frabjous day for sock puppets.

    Comanche Voter (dc4fc0)

  6. The story is only based on semantics. Its premise is that those who are against judicial activism should not strike down a law. Pretty stupid idea for a front page story.

    But my favorite line from the story was that the conservative justices merely adopted slogans from the Tea Party. This is a liberal talking point I heard from Mark Shields on PBS Nightly News.

    Those Tea Party ideas go back to the reason we adopted a Constitution. Unless it helps a criminal go free, the left has no use for the Constitution.

    AZ Bob (1c9631)

  7. After all, they could certainly use a newspaper mandate.

    Don’t worry, if President Downgrade gets re-elected, I’m sure welfare support for newspaper publishers will be in the aftermath.

    IGotBupkis, Climate Change Denier and Proud Of It. (8e2a3d)

  8. AZ Bob:

    Those Tea Party ideas go back to the reason we adopted a Constitution. Unless it helps a criminal go free, the left has no use for the Constitution

    Don’t forget protecting the right to abortion and contraceptives.

    DRJ (a83b8b)

  9. Activism?

    They can’t even be bothered to read the bill in question (sounds like). For that matter, I doubt if most SCOTUS judges have even read the Constitution (I’m not even sure if Ginsburg can read, period).

    It’s their inactivism that bothers me.

    Dave Surls (46b08c)

  10. What is it about some people that lose any sense of proper judgement,

    http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-plank/reagan-appointee-and-recent-mccain-adviser-charles-fried-supports-obama

    narciso (099a7b)

  11. And of course the Business section features Michael Hiltzik!

    And there are business columnists to HIltzik’s left. The LA Times business section is a metaphor for the California business climate.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  12. I’ll give Kmiec credit for this much — once he’s bought, he stays bought.

    Mr. D (063632)

  13. But my favorite line from the story was that the conservative justices merely adopted slogans from the Tea Party. This is a liberal talking point I heard from Mark Shields on PBS Nightly News.

    Liberals actually believe that the Right is using the mandate issue as a convenient club to strike down Obamacare. It does not register with them that the idea of limited government is a core issue with us.

    Kevin M (bf8ad7)

  14. Narciso has sold me. I went to the link–a New Republic story from 2008 where it identified Charles Fried as “thoughtful”.

    Well what the heck, if the New Republic thinks he’s “thoughtful”, who am I to disagree?
    I am now completely convinced by David Savage’s piece in this mornings Los Angeles Times.

    Blipping Moron And Sock Puppet (dc4fc0)

  15. It’s never about the law or whether it really is constitutional, is it? It always has to be recast into how it will impact liberals.

    Just once, I’d like to see the Democrats and the media take up a big issue like Obamacare discussed without turning it into a hate-driven grudge match.

    I’m not holding my breath.

    bobdog (166386)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0768 secs.