Fox News Sunday
Wow, I made the mistake of watching Fox News Sunday this morning, which was an absolute tour de force of wingnut lunacy. The first fair and balanced segment of the show, dealing with the Sotomayor nomination, consisted of Chris Wallace asking ridiculously loaded questions to Republican Lindsay Graham and recent-Republican Arlen Specter. Wallace repeatedly took Sotomayor's 2001 quote completely out of context--as did Graham--and Specter made no effort to correct the record.
Later, in the panel discussion, Brit Hume led off by implying that Sotomayor was an unqualified product of affirmative action. Then Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol, and Juan Williams all criticized Sotomayor for the 2001 quote while making no attempt to put it in context. Kristol even stated that the rest of the 2001 speech was even worse than the quote everyone was discussing (which is a flat out lie). Kristol then explained that Sotomayor's biggest problem is that her record demonstrates that she has doesn't understand that the judge's role is to be impartial. The only example he cited was the Ricci case, which of course proves the exact opposite, that she's capable of applying the law despite the existence of sympathetic plaintiffs.
As bad as Fox News has always been, it has really fallen off a cliff since the beginning of the Obama presidency. There is really very little daylight at this point between the kind of stuff you get from Rush Limbaugh and the kind of stuff you get on Fox News. And I'm not just talking about the Beck and Hannity clown shows. I'm talking about the shows like Fox News Sunday that, once upon a time, at least pretended to be straight news shows.
Later, in the panel discussion, Brit Hume led off by implying that Sotomayor was an unqualified product of affirmative action. Then Hume, Mara Liasson, Bill Kristol, and Juan Williams all criticized Sotomayor for the 2001 quote while making no attempt to put it in context. Kristol even stated that the rest of the 2001 speech was even worse than the quote everyone was discussing (which is a flat out lie). Kristol then explained that Sotomayor's biggest problem is that her record demonstrates that she has doesn't understand that the judge's role is to be impartial. The only example he cited was the Ricci case, which of course proves the exact opposite, that she's capable of applying the law despite the existence of sympathetic plaintiffs.
As bad as Fox News has always been, it has really fallen off a cliff since the beginning of the Obama presidency. There is really very little daylight at this point between the kind of stuff you get from Rush Limbaugh and the kind of stuff you get on Fox News. And I'm not just talking about the Beck and Hannity clown shows. I'm talking about the shows like Fox News Sunday that, once upon a time, at least pretended to be straight news shows.
posted by A.L. at 9:48 AM
24 Comments:
I actually thought that Fox went around the bend in the weeks leading up to the 2008 election, when it was obviously nothing more than a 24-hour campaign commercial for the Republicans. The only time Obama was mentioned was in the context of scrolls that asked things like "Is Obama a Communist, or just a Socialist"?
Jon
The irony is that, quotes taken out seriously of context and their meanings wildly misconstrued aside, Sotomayor really isn't very liberal. Her very few rulings that even indirectly touch on abortion imply that her Catholicism is a greater impact than any so-called Liberalism. She's supported the white bigot as often as not. The Right should be wildly relieved Obama's pick isn't further to the left!
The only reason they are frothing at the mouth at almost entirely made-up crap is because that's just what they do. And they rarely - never these days - have anything constructive to say and need to fill the void with *something*.
Most of this has little to do with Sotomayor -- they would be doing something similar to any of Obama's nominees. It has more to do with hurting Obama and the democrats by portraying them as people who appoint bad judges -- an important campaign plank for their party. But first you have to paint the judge as bad. It is crass, personal politics as the Repubs have been practicing since Nixon. The personal harm to Sotomayor or harm to the truth, or damage to respect for the justice system irrelevant.
money, thats what this thing is about. kittens and carwashes dont sell soap, so old rupert and company have to keep ginning up the fear to make more money, just like the rightys using this to make pac money. it would be funny if it wasnt to so awful and divisive.
-proud liberal
The only example he [Kristol] cited was the Ricci case, which of course proves the exact opposite, that she's capable of applying the law despite the existence of sympathetic plaintiffs.
Applying a law that enforces discrimination, a violation of the equal protection clause, somehow shows she's impartial? According to whom? A colleague, Judge Carbanes, chastised Sotomayor and those others on the 2nd Circuit panel that ruled against Ricci for attempting to summarily dismiss the case, which will be heard by the Supreme Court during this session; Cabranes correctly viewed that Sotomayor and the others weren't doing their jobs.
Luke:
Her very few rulings that even indirectly touch on abortion imply that her Catholicism is a greater impact than any so-called Liberalism.
Did you actually read her ruling in regards to the case you seem to cite? In this instance, Sotomayor actually followed case law, statutory law, and the Constitution in her ruling. The key section that proves her Catholic faith had nothing to do with this ruling says that foreign pro-abortion groups are free to use private money for their work, but that the U.S. government not supplying pro-abortion groups with taxpayer dollars is not a violation of the First Amendment, and that the U.S. government has every right to deny these groups this public money. She heavily cites Supreme Court case Planned Parenthood Federation of America, Inc. v. Agency for International Development in her ruling. She never denied any group the right to advocate their pro-abortion position, just that the federal government, via our tax money, didn't have to fund it.
And did you catch Brit Hume's almost-mistake, where he almost broke the rules of the right wing alternate reality:
"HUME: No, and that's -- apart from the fact that it's not quite what she said, it's also this, Juan. What judges, and especially appellate and Supreme Court judges, are assigned to do is not to concern themselves with the plight of the parties on either side.
What they're deciding is not so much cases, although cases are obviously involved. They're deciding... issues, legal issues. And what you want is someone with a very keen legal mind and the kind of professional temperament, often gained from years of being a lawyer and then later a judge, where you screen out all those things and take a totally professional and neutral view of what the law is, and I don't think that has a lot to do with sensibilities that you carry with you from your life - - at least it's not supposed to."
I swear, when I was watching it, there was about a two or three heart beat moment between They're deciding and issues, legal issues, where I had enough time to think to myself "what has he walked into - how is he going to get himself out of this?" after it, you could almost hear his inner monologue, a la Homer Simpson, thinking "Bravo!", with the sound of one person clapping.* Brit Hume almost acknowledged the policy role judges play, and unwittingly entered "the real world", but luckily, pulled himself back from the edge, and stayed in the warm comforts of right wing delusion-land.
Close One!!
* in an episode of the Simpsons, where Homer becomes tempted by another woman named Mindy, he starts manhandling the song "Mandy" by Barry Manilow, switching in "Mindy" and "Andy" into the lyrics. When he's caught by his daughter Lisa, the following ensues:
Lisa : Dad, why are you singing?
Homer’s Brain : Tell a lie, tell a lie.
Homer : Because I have a small role in a Broadway musical. It’s not much, but it’s a start.
Homer’s Brain : Bravo!
SteveAR,
So we are to believe that Sotomayor is impartial in one case but not in the other, depending on whether you like the result?
Oh Kay.
C20H50H:
So we are to believe that Sotomayor is impartial in one case but not in the other, depending on whether you like the result?
You are free to attempt to rewrite what I was arguing, but then you aren't making an argument based on merit.
I was also amazed by one of Chris Wallace's questions to Bill Kristol. I dont recall the exact quote, but it was something along the lines of "There's the accusation that Sotomayor is too liberal, that she's too much of an activist judge, and that she's a racist. Which of these accusations is the most damaging?"
It was a preposterous question. Why not talk about which accusations are most accurate rather than which (false) accusation is most damaging?
Chris Wallace sounded like he was moderating a focus group for a smear campaign, not a discussion with any journalistic merit.
By the way, I hear Chris Wallace is an anti-Semite, that he's a pedophile, and that he runs a dog fighting ring. Which of these accusations is most damaging?
OK SteveAR, surprise us all:
1. Do you oppose judicial activism?
2. What should the Court have done in Ricci?
Bill Keane:
1. Do you oppose judicial activism?
2. What should the Court have done in Ricci?
1. Yes.
2. The case should be sent back to the District Court for a retrial.
Here is the 2nd Circuit's 7-6 denial of rehearing the case en banc. It contains the majority opinion, a concurring opinion, and two dissenting opinions. Appendix A contains the one-paragraph summary judgement from the panel (which included Sotomayor), and Apendix B contains the District Court ruling.
The first dissenting opinion, from Judge Cabranes, lays out what this case is about in the section marked "DISCUSSION":
The core issue presented by this case--the scope of a municipal employer's authority to disregard examination results based solely on the race of the successful applicants--is not addressed by any precedent of the Supreme Court or our Circuit. Plaintiffs alleged that the City's actions violated, inter alia, their rights under the Equal Protection Clause and Title VII. The District Court disagreed, but did so without the benefit of pertinent guidance from a higher court. The questions raised by the instant appeal clearly merit further review.
I read the District Court ruling. What Cabranes is saying is that further guidance from the Supreme Court is needed since (now that the 2nd Circuit will not rehear the case), whether the District Court judge knew it or not, this case was going to set a precedent. The District Court ruling ignored the equal protection considerations, just as New Haven did in throwing out the results of a test that appeared to be fairly well job-related and unbiased.
Judge Cabranes also chastises the panel (the one Sotomayor was on) or their brief and unsubstantive summary order and per curiam opinion when it is apparent to him further review was vital:
This per cuiiam opinion adopted in loco the reasoning of the District Court, without further elaboration or substantive comment, and thereby converted a lengthy, unpublished district court opinion, grappling with significant constitutional and statutory claims of first impression, into the law of this Circuit. It did so, moreover, in an opinion that lacks a clear statement of either the claims raised by the plaintiffs or the issues on appeal. Indeed, the opinion contains no reference whatsoever to the constitutional claims at the core of this case, and a casual reader of the opinion could be excused for wondering whether a learning disability played at least as much a role in this case as the alleged racial discrimination. This perfunctory disposition rests uneasily with the weighty issues presented by this appeal.
Potential violations of the Equal Protection clause are not something that should be casually dismissed, as Judge Cabranes believed the panel did (along with the 2nd Circuit in dismissing a rehearing of the case).
I believe those who should have been promoted have a legitimate claim that they were discriminated against when all they did was follow the rules and pass a test they needed to take in order to get promoted. New Haven changed the rules in the middle of the process because the result didn't fit their race-based political goals. That is a violation of the Equal Protection clause. The District and Appellate rulings allowing the violation is judicial activism.
@Steve
We have a different definition of judicial activism. How can a summary decision affirming a lower court be activist?
Bill Keane:
We have a different definition of judicial activism.
We do. My definition of judicial activism is a ruling that either enforces a violation of the U.S. Constitution (Kelo, Ricci as it stands now), or creates a right and/or a law outside of the U.S. Constitution (Roe v. Wade; Roper v. Simmons; In re: Marriage Cases in California and all other gay marriage rulings in Massachusetts, Iowa, and elsewhere; Boumediene). In all these cases, the U.S. Constitution was ignored. It doesn't matter if the ruling is a summary decision or not; if the ruling doesn't follow the Constitution, it's due to judicial activism. This is the correct definition, in my opinion.
Summarily dismissing (as the Supreme Court did in ACLU v. NSA) or upholding a lower court ruling (Ricci) in and of itself is not activism.
@AL
Did you see the recently released cable news ratings for May 2009? The scary thing is FNC has topped in every category and every demographic group. What is more, the 3 clowns in prime time, O'Reilly, Beck and Hannity have posted incredibl YOY growth in viewership while Olbermann's actually _declined_ in the same period!
What can explain this?
SteveAR-
I see you left out Bush v. Gore on your list of "activist" decisions. Surely an oversight, right?
nerpzillicus, Bush v. Gore was activist in part, but not in whole, in my opinion. Therefore, an oversight, in part, on my part.
As much as I didn't like it, I would also say that another case that wouldn't be considered activist was when the Supreme Court refused to hear any appeal in the Terri Schiavo case.
Please don't ask SteveAR to explain how a decision can be activist "in part, but not in whole". Maybe he could then explain how a woman can be "a little bit pregnant."
How magnanimous of him to agree that the unanimous conclusion of what, 14 cases, heaven knows how many appeals, motions, and petitions, in state and federal courts, when upheld, finally, by the SCOTUS, wasn't judicial activism.
Yes sir, that was keeping me awake.
In other news, religious authorities have finally agreed, by a 5 to 4 margin, that the Pope is Catholic.
SteveAR,
In effect, your definition of judicial activism uses, as its touchstone, your own view of whether a decision is constitutional. This will have the convenient result that when Roberts and Alito go out of their way to state new interpretations/applications in support of a conservative position, they are not being activist. However, when a "liberal" judge agrees with six of her colleagues and affirms a lower court decision (without stating any new principle or legal interpretation) you say that's activism. Your reasoning is so transparent that I doubt you really believe it. I think it is now clear you are a dishonest commenter. Others will call me out for taking so long to conclude this. Fair enough, but I gave you the benefit of the doubt. Not any more. Goodbye.
Dilip wrote:
"Did you see the recently released cable news ratings for May 2009? "
I can't explain the success of FNC and Hannity etc .... but look at the case of Sonia Sottomayor. According to the latest polls, only 28% of American oppose her nomination. Yet, Lumbaugh and the rest of the motley crew have been lambasting her as a "racist" ever since her nomination. They have gained absolutely no traction with public opinion.
Perhaps people think of Rush and the 3 clowns as a sort of horror show or gawk fest, like watching Mike Tyson box to see him bite someone's ear off. As influencers of public opinion, the days of the shock jocks and culture warriors are probably numbered.
C2H50H:
Please don't ask SteveAR to explain how a decision can be activist "in part, but not in whole". Maybe he could then explain how a woman can be "a little bit pregnant."
Have you actually read Bush v. Gore? It was a multi-part ruling: 7 - 2 ruled that the Florida Supreme Court violated the Equal Protection Clause. Where things got dicey in that decision had to do with the remedy, where Breyer and Souter joined with the majority on the Equal Protection violation, but dissented (along with Stevens and Ginsburg) on the remedy. Not only that, the ruling in essence ended the election, but didn't do so definitively; Gore could have refiled with the Florida Supreme Court, but chose not to. As this was a split decision on a variety of issues, the idea that it was part constitutional and part activist can be considered accurate.
SteveAR,
Since you didn't make it clear, we can take it that the part that you regard as "activism" is the part you didn't agree with.
SteveAR-
I'm having trouble with your analysis. You said (half) of your definition of activism was when a court
“creates a right and/or a law outside of the U.S. Constitution (Roe v. Wade; Roper v. Simmons; In re: Marriage Cases in California and all other gay marriage rulings in Massachusetts, Iowa, and elsewhere; Boumediene)”
First, the marriage cases, I'm sure you know, have nothing to do with the Federal Constitution, so I am not sure how you can classify them as activist by creating a right outside of the US Constitution. Boumediene is perhaps the best decision the Court has made since Brown v. Board. But you said Bush v Gore was only half activist. I would hope you mean the remedy part, since, without the equal protection part, the remedy would be baseless. So, if I am correct, and you do not think the equal protection holding was activist, I am curious why Roe v. Wade was activist (creating a right that supposedly never existed), but the equal protection half of Bush v. Gore (creating a right of equal counting that has never existed in the US, applies to one and only one case, and if it were extended would nullify just about every statewide election in modern US history) is not activist. What's the distinction?
nerpzillicus:
First, the marriage cases, I'm sure you know, have nothing to do with the Federal Constitution, so I am not sure how you can classify them as activist by creating a right outside of the US Constitution.
Are judges in any state or federal court allowed to create legislation? They aren't as far as I'm concerned. Nor are they allowed in any state constitution, or the U.S. Constitution. But I'll amend that the marriage cases were outside of the state constitutions as well. The Iowa ruling, in a ham-handed manner, attempted to tie gay marriage with the civil rights of African-Americans. Puh-lease.
Boumediene is perhaps the best decision the Court has made since Brown v. Board.
Had Boumediene been decided during WWII, uniformed German, Italian, and Japanese POWs, already under protection of the Geneva Conventions, would have had the right to habeas hearings to challenge their detentions. You may think that ridiculous, but where in Kennedy's and Souter's opinions do they actually even mention there might be a difference? Scalia's dissent is spot on in this regard. Add that none of the Gitmo prisoners were ever protected by the Geneva Conventions being that they were unlawful enemy combatants as opposed to being uniformed soldiers. Boumediene is a ridiculous travesty.
So, if I am correct, and you do not think the equal protection holding was activist, I am curious why Roe v. Wade was activist (creating a right that supposedly never existed),...
The Justices in Roe created a right to kill a human fetus for convenience. I can understand laws being created to allow abortion-on-demand, but not as a right that is anywhere within the Constitution. Killing a human (which is the only entity a human fetus will become) for convenience has never been a right in this country.
...but the equal protection half of Bush v. Gore (creating a right of equal counting that has never existed in the US, applies to one and only one case, and if it were extended would nullify just about every statewide election in modern US history) is not activist.
There wasn't a right of "equal counting" created. The Florida Supreme Court was allowing recounts with the recounts taking place under a variety set of standards, with individual county canvassing boards changing the standards in the middle of the recount. From the per curiam decision:
"The record provides some examples. A monitor in Miami-Dade County testified at trial that he observed that three members of the county canvassing board applied different standards in defining a legal vote. 3 Tr. 497, 499 (Dec. 3, 2000). And testimony at trial also revealed that at least one county changed its evaluative standards during the counting process. Palm Beach County, for example, began the process with a 1990 guideline which precluded counting completely attached chads, switched to a rule that considered a vote to be legal if any light could be seen through a chad, changed back to the 1990 rule, and then abandoned any pretense of a per se rule, only to have a court order that the county consider dimpled chads legal. This is not a process with sufficient guarantees of equal treatment."
This is almost akin to stuffing ballots or having election officials telling citizens who to vote for. Changing counting standards in the middle of counting votes isn't somehow an Equal Protection violation? Tell me how that is the case. Then tell me how the equal protection part of Gore v. Bush was an activist ruling, because I don't see it.
Anonymous, you are an idiot. What do you have to say about ABC's broadcast from the White House coming up this week. Duh, do you even know anything about it
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Create a Link
<< Home