Featured Article

The Gods of Liberalism Revisited


The lie hasn't changed, and we still fall for it as easily as ever.  But how can we escape the snare?



Tuesday, January 24, 2006

Supreme Ethics Problem (for Court or for media)?

ABC implies Judge Scalia is guilty of some nebulous ethical infraction.

Really? Or is this just another hatchet job on conservatives, as the mainstream press is so known for?

A quick look at the story reveals the latter.

The dominant theme of the story is that Judge Scalia was away during Judge Roberts' swearing in, at an event sponsored by the Federalist Society (a group which supports the Constitutional sharing of powers between the federal government and state governments--a scary thought to liberals, I know, that the states might be anything other than lap dogs and gophers for the federal government). Granted, it would have been good for Scalia to be there for Roberts' swearing in, but it was a prior commitment.

Then we're told:

An examination of the Supreme Court disclosure forms by ABC News found that five of the justices have accepted tens of thousand of dollars in country club memberships.

Really? Which ones? We aren't told. The story does, however, mention that Judge Thomas had received some of these goodies. Okay. Who else? Breyer? Ginsberg? Souter? I guess that little detail wasn't important.

As long as we've smeared Judge Thomas, there's no need to go any farther with this particular line of examination.

And finally, a swipe at the remaining conservative judge: Judge Roberts.

"So I'd like to know, Judge Roberts, if confirmed, whether you will use your power as chief justice to set a high ethical tone," Senator Russell Feingold, D-Wis., asked.

In reply, Roberts said, "Well, I don't think special interests should be allowed to lobby federal judges. Stated that way, I think the answer is clear."

Message: Roberts is a hypocrite.

The mainstream media crown of emperor-without-clothes remains safe.

Clicky Web Analytics