Friday, October 05, 2007
The Times v. Justice Thomas
The NY Times continues their unrelenting war against Justice Thomas with another one of their just-make-up-an-excuse-to-attack-him editorials:
“If Mr. Biden, Yale Law School or the A.C.L.U.’s Southern California affiliate, which opposed Justice Thomas’s confirmation, have business before the court, it is hard to see how any of them could expect a fair hearing from Justice Thomas. But the Supreme Court allows justices to make their own recusal decisions, and no one should expect to see Justice Thomas bowing out of cases based on angry comments in his memoir.” The Angriest Justice - New York Times
Meanwhile, let’s go to the way-back machine:
“Answering questions from the audience after her remarks, Ginsburg defended her decision not to recuse herself from a case involving the National Organization of Women Legal Defense and Education Fund, a women's advocacy group with which she is associated.
“Ginsburg's involvement in a January lecture series organized by the group has been criticized because two weeks prior to the series, she took the side backed by the defense fund in a medical screening case. “ UConn Advance - March 22, 2004 - Ginsburg Gives Behind-The-Scenes Glimpse Of Supreme Court
And here’s the NY Times editorial excoriating her for that decision:
In fact, Justice Ginsburg also used to work for the ACLU but I don’t see her recusing herself from cases involving them (nor do I think she necessarily should). I’d appreciate it if someone would forward me all the NY Times editorials preemptively berating her for not doing so.
“If Mr. Biden, Yale Law School or the A.C.L.U.’s Southern California affiliate, which opposed Justice Thomas’s confirmation, have business before the court, it is hard to see how any of them could expect a fair hearing from Justice Thomas. But the Supreme Court allows justices to make their own recusal decisions, and no one should expect to see Justice Thomas bowing out of cases based on angry comments in his memoir.” The Angriest Justice - New York Times
Meanwhile, let’s go to the way-back machine:
“Answering questions from the audience after her remarks, Ginsburg defended her decision not to recuse herself from a case involving the National Organization of Women Legal Defense and Education Fund, a women's advocacy group with which she is associated.
“Ginsburg's involvement in a January lecture series organized by the group has been criticized because two weeks prior to the series, she took the side backed by the defense fund in a medical screening case. “ UConn Advance - March 22, 2004 - Ginsburg Gives Behind-The-Scenes Glimpse Of Supreme Court
And here’s the NY Times editorial excoriating her for that decision:
In fact, Justice Ginsburg also used to work for the ACLU but I don’t see her recusing herself from cases involving them (nor do I think she necessarily should). I’d appreciate it if someone would forward me all the NY Times editorials preemptively berating her for not doing so.
Comments:
<< Home
It obviously is to be expected that the Times would object to Justice Thomas' hearing cases where he might make a difference, but not to Justice Ginsburg's doing so. The Times can't stomach anybody on the right retaining their minds. The left is another story.
Post a Comment
<< Home
