More Roberts Bashing

Another fine article from the Boston Globe. Please note that this is NOT an Opinion piece.

''Confirming John Roberts would endanger much of the progress made by the nation in civil rights over the past half-century," Neas said at a news conference where he announced his group's decision to oppose Roberts. ''John Roberts devoted himself to finding problems with solutions, not to finding solutions to problems."

Also yesterday, Senator Dianne Feinstein of California, a leading moderate Democrat, vowed to press Roberts on whether he believes in a constitutional right to privacy, the underpinning for the Roe v. Wade court decision that established a right to abortion in 1973.

What a shock, the People for the American Way and Feinstein have come out against Roberts. I thought they were supposed to report news. If anyone didn't believe that this was going to happen, then they are either children or mentally damaged.

But it gets better:

Roberts's record suggests that he is skeptical of the right to privacy, though he may sidestep questions in hearings so as not to be seen as prejudging cases. As the only woman on the 18-member Senate Judiciary Committee, Feinstein said she has a ''role to play in representing the views and concerns of 145 million American women during this hearing process."

Suggests? You mean, this is how you are interpreting the information put out by the groups opposing Roberts, don't you? Also note that "he may sidestep," though as a good reporter they completely fail to point out that Ginzberg refused to answer any questions in the same scheme. But when would we expect reasonable reporting from the Boston Glob.

''It would be very difficult for me to vote to confirm someone to the Supreme Court whom I know would overturn Roe v. Wade and return our country to the days of the 1950s," Feinstein said in a speech in Los Angeles.

Nice rhetoric Diane. Though the vote on the court even with Roberts would still be 5 to 4 in support of RoevWade. Let's not also mention that such a change would not send the country back to the 1950's, but would in fact leave it to the individual states to decide on those controls. From all I've read, it is highly improbable that a vast majority of states would make abortion completely illegal. There is also previously cited documents where Roberts stated that RoevWade is settled law. But, why bother stating that in this wonderful piece of propaganda.

They do sneak in a couple of pale support references, but then they jump right into the fever-swamp left jackass' remarks.

Yesterday, two other Democrats on the committee, Senators Charles E. Schumer of New York and Russell D. Feingold of Wisconsin, sent a letter to Roberts asking him to explain his participation as a judge in a case brought against the Bush administration by Salim Ahmed Hamdan, a Yemeni man who was once a driver for Osama bin Laden. The case was being argued and decided this spring and summer, at the same time Roberts was being interviewed by White House officials for the Supreme Court post.

Roberts sided with the Bush administration in the case, which involved a challenge to the administration's use of military tribunals to try terrorist suspects. He interviewed with officials including Vice President Cheney, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales, and Karl Rove, the president's deputy chief of staff, after oral arguments were held but before a decision was handed down by the US Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.

''Because of the timing of your interviews and court's consideration of the Hamdan case, several leading ethicists . . . have recently suggested that you should have recused yourself from the case," Schumer and Feingold wrote.

As soon as you see Schumer mentioned, you know it's going to be stupid. So what's wrong with their statement? Well, let's start with the interview was not an offer for the nomination. Next, I wonder why there is no mention that the Appelate court has a 3 judge panel deciding the case. And that the panel was unanimous on the decision. I'm still trying to find out who these "leading ethicists" are.

And get the balancing of the statement:

In response, Senate Judiciary Committee chairman Arlen Specter's office released two letters from law professors arguing that Roberts did nothing improper by staying on the case.

''He clearly did not violate" the law, wrote Thomas D. Morgan, a law professor at George Washington University. ''He did his job."

Just for perspective, look at the WaPo article on the topic. It's not wonderful, but it isn't quite so obviously warped. Neither is the article in the Washington Times, which is twisted conservative. You can note that the Schumer/Feinstein rant was not reported until the last paragraph and then only partially.

Shameful thing is that if you want to get an balanced view, which sadly I doubt many people really want, you have to read articles on a topic from diametrically opposed news sources.