Wednesday, July 20, 2005

Scrutinizing Nonsense

I am never sure why the New York Times insists on publishing outright nonsense in its editorials. After reading the article linked in this post title I could only wonder, "They pay people to write this stuff?" I guess so, but they sure do not pay them to research it. Every time I read a New York Times editorial I am so annoyed that I do not usually finish reading it. This time I actually did finish the article. And I would like to make a few comments. First I will quote the article, then I will write my response. The colors differ, so you can figure out what's going on.

Quotation from the article:
" If [Roberts] is a mainstream conservative in the tradition of Justice O'Connor, he should be confirmed. But if on closer inspection he turns out to be an extreme ideologue with an agenda of stripping away important rights, he should not be. "

What's a an "extreme ideologue?" And what rights are they referencing? Perhaps they give us an answer . . .

"If extremists take control of the Supreme Court, we will end up with an America in which the federal government is powerless to protect against air pollution, unsafe working conditions and child labor."

The rights? Okay, child labor was outlawed in the early 1900s when we supposedly had a more "extremist" Court. Workers unions took care of unsafe working conditions. I highly doubt the court would start striking down federal laws on working conditions anyway, since it has to do with interstate commerce. And air pollution, hold on, how often does the Supreme Court make decisions about air pollution?

"He dissented in an Endangered Species Act case in a way that suggested he might hold an array of environmental laws, and other important federal protections, to be unconstitutional. "

Another right! And the Constitution has an entire section on endangered species and why they must be protected . . . or NOT. To me this just says that the man thinks for himself.

"Compared with many of the possible nominees whose names have been circulating, he has a thin record on controversial subjects. This may have helped him win the nomination because it gives the other side so little to work with. But it also puts a greater burden on the Senate to determine what kind of justice he would be."

Or it puts a greater burden on annoying, stupid reporters and editorialists with no understanding of research to make the American people uncertain about the nominee? Furthermore, Roberts has a lot of experience in law and a decent record of writings on issues of the day. His paper trail is hardly "thin."

"There are also serious questions about the attitude of Judge Roberts toward abortion rights. As a lawyer in the first President Bush's administration, he helped write a brief arguing that Roe v. Wade should be overturned."

As a pro-lifer I do not mind if he did help write such a brief. Speaking to a probably liberal NY Times writer I would point out that liberalism holds a relativistic view. That means that more than one opinion exists on most issues and more than one opinion is valid on just about every issue. Apparently not "abortion rights." And the editorialist who knows so much left out the fact that when confirmed as a circuit court judge Roberts said he would uphold Roe because it was law.

"President Bush did the country a service by making his nomination early enough for the Senate to have ample time to investigate the judge's record and hold hearings."

Translation: Isn't it exciting that those of us who know absolutely nothing about the Supreme Court or the federal government can pick this guy apart for an entire month before his hearing starts? Wouldn't you like to be the writer of the next "Bork's America?"

"It would be irresponsible to take a position on the nomination of Judge Roberts until his background is carefully reviewed, and until senators have a chance to question him at length."

Anyone but a New York Times editorialist should not make a hasty decision about this guy. Even if you do bother to go read up on him, remember that you should "carefully" research his background and make up your mind along with those who obviously did no research whatsoever!

"The nomination of a new Supreme Court justice is a great moment for the nation, providing new vigor to a great American institution. The entire country has a stake in the outcome."

And don't forget to throw some random thing in at the end to make this sound like you were trying to be inspiring.


Anonymous said...

Or you can just do what I do--only do the NY Times puzzles, and read none of the rest (except Thursday's style section). Also, before I forget, one of my fellow interns here said he debated you in highschool: Jonathan Williams. He says "hey."

Esther said...

I remember Jonathon Williams. Dude, that is so weird. Tell him I said "hi."

As for the NY Times, I only occasionally read their stuff because it makes me so angry. I had to rant about that, and now that I have I'll probably never mention it again.

HuskerFoley7 said...

Esther, you rock! I love reading your stuff. Keep me posted on stupid liiberals and I can't wait until you are appointed to our Supreme Court or sitting in the senate thumbing your nose at these losers! :) I will so vote for you if I have the opportunity. VIVA ESTHER!

MaxiSmeg said...

It's amazing how polarised American politics seems to have become. Over this side of the pond the politicians and supporters of different sides may not like or even respect each other but there is no outright hatred.

The tone in some of these articles is a bit shocking to be honest. I'm worried about the kind of world that I'm entering into.

Esther said...

I sometimes feel like I, and the rest of us young people interested in politics, have been given a hand grenade with the pin pulled out of it.

I must say the articles surprise me as well. The Supreme Court is supposed to be a reverent body, and it's proceedings are not to be sullied by petty, biting journalism like the rest of politics.