Media Matters Is Shrill!

Media Matters on the clown show that is Fred Hiatt's Washington Post editorial board:

Media Matters - Will Wash. Post reconsider its Supreme Court endorsement criteria after Roberts, Alito?: In September 2005 and January 2006, The Washington Post editorial board endorsed the nominations of John G. Roberts Jr. and Samuel A. Alito to the Supreme Court, asserting in both instances that Democrats should defer to President Bush's choices.... On September 18, 2005, the Post endorsed Roberts, praising him as "overwhelmingly well-qualified, possess[ing of] an unusually keen legal mind and practic[ing] a collegiality of the type an effective chief justice must have."... The Post's January 15, 2006, endorsement of Alito made similar arguments.... A president's "well-qualified" judicial nominees are "due deference," and "Judge Alito is superbly qualified. His record on the bench is that of a thoughtful conservative, not a raging ideologue. He pays careful attention to the record and doesn't reach for the political outcomes he desires."...

However... this term... the Post has repeatedly excoriated opinions written or supported by Roberts or Alito.... A June 29 editorial blasted the court's decision in Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1.... In a June 26 editorial on... Federal Election Commission v. Wisconsin Right to Life.... A June 17 editorial on the case of Keith Bowles.... In an April 19 editorial on the Court's decision in Gonzales v. Carhart...

It's not as if the impact of adding Roberts and Alito to the Supreme Court was unpredictable or unpredicted, was it? Will the means and you will the end.

Comments

[Nan]

WP editorials were written by Benjamin Wittes who now writes for the Joe Lieberman Weekly.

Wittes never met a right wing radical he didn't like. He has written a book singing the praises of Kenneth Starr. He has been an apologist for Bush v Gore. And on the WP editorial page he has endorsed far right Bush nominees to the courts.

[trotsky]

There's no contradiction between thinking a president has the right to appoint well-qualified judges who share his philosophy and disliking those judges' rulings.

The Post endorsed Al Gore and John Kerry. Overall, it leans Democratic. It also believes in elections.

[ken melvin]

It matters little which candidate a newspaper endorses. It matters greatly which candidate(s) and issues people such as Broder and Hiatt support (and those the paper chooses to cover and emphasize). Hiatt, Downey and Broder, all, have been unabashed supporters of GWB and the Iraq invasion from the gitgo. Woodruff certainly was one early on. Hiatt is a neocon. Wittes, thanks for the info Nan, seems to be one also.

[me]

The court is becoming increasing irrelevant. All they do is rule for business. Does anyone really believe that IBM did not age discriminate against older employees?

The lower court laid out the logic and the business minded appellate court and the man who votes 100% with business, Allito ruled against the employees with the logic,"IBM says they didn't discriminate so they could not have". That is the Supreme court.

Since appointing Bush president they have become a partisan branch of the republican party, to be ignored like the rest of the republicans.

There is no law. Options, hey, go for it. Whatever it is this is the best Supreme
court business can buy.

[Barkley Rosser]

Actually, the most important role of the Court may still be coming up. One of the details in the Cheney story, although it had been more or less reported previously, was the role of Dick Cheney in vetting nominees, and what he was concerned about overwhelmingly was the attitude of nominees towards executive power and its untrammeled and unlimited exercise. In that regard it is interesting that the Court is reconsidering the military commissions issue, but maybe they can do that, given that Roberts is having to recuse himself.