Posted on 01/22/2006 9:44:15 PM PST by neverdem
It didn't matter then—it shouldn't now
Remember all those news stories in 1993 about how the nomination of former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg to replace conservative Justice Byron White on the United States Supreme Court would "tilt the balance of the court to the left?"
Of course you don't. Because there weren't any.
In the past three months, the major media have repeatedly hammered away at the theme that Judge Samuel Alito Jr. would "shift the Supreme Court to the right" if he replaced retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
According to Lexis/Nexis, major newspapers have used the phrase "shift the court" 36 times in their Alito coverage. They have referred to the "balance of the court" 32 times and "the court's balance" another 15. "Shift to the right" accounted for another 18 mentions.
Major radio and television programs indexed by Lexis/Nexis have used those phrases 63 times. CNN told viewers that Alito would "tilt the balance of the court" twice on the day President Bush nominated him. NPR's first-day story on "Morning Edition" was headlined "Alito could move court dramatically to the right."
Now maybe all this is to be expected. Alito is a conservative, he's been nominated to replace a centrist justice, and he probably will move the Supreme Court somewhat to the right—which is probably what at least some voters had in mind when they elected a Republican president and 55 Republican senators.
But note the contrast to 1993, when President Bill Clinton nominated the liberal Ginsburg to replace conservative White. White had dissented from the landmark decisions on abortion rights in Roe v. Wade and on criminal procedure in the Miranda case, and he had written the majority opinion upholding sodomy laws in Bowers v. Hardwick. Obviously his replacement by the former general counsel of the ACLU was going to "move the court dramatically to the left."
So did the media report Ginsburg's nomination that way? Not on your life.
Not a single major newspaper used the phrases "shift the court," "shift to the left," or "balance of the court" in the six weeks between Clinton's nomination and the Senate's ratification of Ginsburg. Only one story in the Cleveland Plain-Dealer mentioned the "court's balance," and that writer thought that Ginsburg would move a "far right" court "toward the center."
The only network broadcast to use any of those phrases was an NPR interview in which liberal law professor Paul Rothstein of Georgetown University said that Ginsburg might offer a "subtle change...a nuance" in "the balance of the court" because she would line up with Justice O'Connor in the center.
No one thought that some momentary balance on the Court had to be preserved when a justice retired or that it was inappropriate to shift the ideological makeup of the Court. And certainly no one had made that point during 60 years of mostly liberal appointees from Democratic presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, and Johnson—even as they replaced more conservative justices who had died or retired. ut suddenly, we are told by senators, activists, and pundits that a nominee should not change the makeup of the Court.
For another striking contrast, take a look at The Washington Post's respective headlines on the days the two judges were nominated. For Ginsburg:
"Judge Ruth Ginsburg Named to High Court; Clinton's Unexpected Choice Is Women's Rights Pioneer"
"A Mentor, Role Model and Heroine of Feminist Lawyers"
"Nominee's Philosophy Seen Strengthening the Center"
For Alito:
"Alito Nomination Sets Stage for Ideological Battle; Bush's Court Pick Is Appeals Judge with Record of Conservative Rulings"
"With a Pick from the Right, Bush Looks to Rally GOP in Tough Times"
"Comparisons to Scalia, But Also to Roberts"
"Judge Participated in 2002 Vanguard Case Despite Promise to Recuse," and "Alito Leans Right Where O'Connor Swung Left"
Despite the Post's claim that Ginsburg was a centrist, she has in fact been a consistently liberal vote on the Supreme Court. Research by Richard J. Timpone, director of the Political Research Laboratory at Ohio State, finds that she is the most liberal member of the Court on economic issues and virtually tied with Justices John Paul Stevens and Steven Breyer on civil liberties. The Institute for Justice reviewed three years of Court terms and found: "The justices least likely to constrain government power and protect individual liberties were Justices Ginsburg and Breyer." Three years later they found the same results for Ginsburg's first seven terms: she and Breyer voted against protecting civil and economic liberties more often than any other justice.
The issue is not Ginsburg's record, but the media's notion that the Supreme Court exists in some sort of delicate balance which will be upset by the introduction of a conservative justice. The Senate has every right to consider whether Judge Alito will be too conservative, too accommodating to executive power, or too dismissive of discrimination claims. But the Supreme Court's current ideological makeup is not divinely ordained, and we should stop wringing our hands over whether he will "shift the court" in some direction.
David Boaz is executive vice president of the Cato Institute and author of Libertarianism: A Primer.
This is a nice little piece. Thanks for posting.
That anyone could consider Ginsberg a centrist after working for the ACLU is just jaw-dropping. Yes, you can't always judge a person by what organizations they've been involved in, but the ACLU is a glaring exception.
I'd like to see some more of our guys bring up these same points or some other forms of more objective-type evidence of what's going on with the libs and the media. It's hard to just deny facts. Even then, I'm sure our liberal buddies will give us all the proper nuance, but at least the facts would be out there.
Why the hypocrite socialist "mainstream" media is dying BUMP!
ping
I remember when Ginsburg was picked, nobody was really happy.
Senator Hatch suggested her, and her husband had been a big campaign donor (and fundraiser) for the clintons.
Basicaly Clinton picked her as payback for her husband, Hatch wanted to make sure Clinton picked someone old, not to smart (Ginsburg is an idiot) who while holding far left positions, wouldn't be on the court for a very long time and wouldn't be writing opinions.
If Clinton hadn't hadn't been all about himself, he probably would have picked someone just as liberal, but younger, in better health and smarter (those close to him wanted a liberal version of Scalia although some wanted Lawrence Tribe).
She will probably step down (or die) in the next 5 or 6 years.
I wish. Rush said something to the effect that they won't die. They just won't have the influence that they used to have. I hope that at least also goes for all of the dems.
... in the six weeks between Clinton's nomination and the Senate's ratification of Ginsburg.
George Mitchell was Majority leader for the impeached former president clinton in 1993 when Ruth Buzzi was nominated. He managed to arrange for a six-week turn around from nomination to confirmation. Today is the 12-week aniversary of Alito's nomination. Republicans are weak.
I don't know if I believe the story that Hatch suggested her. I think that was for public consumption.
In 1993 the liberal Dems were in power. Today the big govt Republicans are in power.
As the world turns.
I agree. It is a nice piece.
I also am thankful that it was posted.
He took alot of heat for it, so he has no real reason to bite the bullet.
To his credit, he did explain why.
I can't see any logical reason for Clinton to admit to it either, since it didn't make his base happy, or other democrats.
I think Hatch told the truth with this, he has nothing to gain and caught alot of heat for it.
Tell me this, Hatch made an agreement with the Dems to rubber stamp Clinton's nominees- why didn't he make them agree to do the same. How come Republicans are so stupid?
The dems they must realize they have changed the rules.
And they must calculate that with 55 current Republicans in the Senate, they will likely stay above 40 for a very long time.
That effectively means that even with a dem President, their chance of getting a liberal justice confirmed become slim to none.
bttt
Ginsberg was, and is, the wealthiest person on the court. The media never examined the financial records of her, or her ambulance chasing husband.
How great would it be if Dubya got to choose her replacement?
Hatch, has actually talked about this, regarding the nuclear option.
In his view, and the way Reid mentions it, Hatch gave "advice and consent" (I'd call it a rubber stamp).
In his narrow and naive view, he thought the democrats would do the exact same thing as the republicans.
Its why I don't think Harch is lying, no senator would want to intentionally look that stupid on purpose....and he knows he looks dumb for it.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.