While discussing the appointment of Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court on MSNBC Monday, guest Eliot Spitzer made a startling observation: "Democratic presidents nominate very centrist justices to the Supreme Court. The Republican presidents over the past 10-15 years have nominated very extremely conservative justices and that’s why the court has eschewed to the right."[audio available here]
Spitzer, the former Governor of New York who resigned from office in 2008 amid a sex scandal with a prostitute, went on to lament the unwillingness of Democratic presidents to appoint more liberal justices: "And the role of the Democratic judges – justices – has been to play the middle... And that is, I think, at a larger ideological point, a discussion we should have, because Democratic presidents have been hesitant to put really liberal justices on the court."
MSNBC anchor Dylan Ratigan, who was premiering his new show "The Morning Meeting," did not challenge Spitzer’s absurd assertions, but rather turned to Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart and asked: "Yeah, Jonathan what do you think about that? That the Republicans have papered it with very conservative judges and that Democrats have tried to go more middle or slightly left of center, as opposed to way left judges?" Capehart agreed with Spitzer: "Well look, I respect everything my – Governor Spitzer says."
The discussion of Sotomayor’s nomination, in the 9AM ET hour, preceded a 10AM ET announcement of the Supreme Court’s ruling that overturned a decision by Sotomayor regarding racial discrimination toward white firefighters in Connecticut. Spitzer’s comments were prompted by fellow guest, Maria Teresa Kumar, founder of the Hispanic advocacy group Voto Latino, declaring: "In this particular case, what you have is that you have Ken Starr, a strict conservative – constructionist – actually saying ‘I actually endorse her, I believe in her.’ You have George Bush doing the same thing and you also have Laura Bush, so the fact that you have 56% of the Republicans – moderate Republicans – endorsing her, speaks volumes."
Spitzer’s appearance on MSNBC is only the latest attempt by NBC News to rehabilitate disgraced liberal figures. Last Thursday, NBC’s Today got reaction to the Mark Sanford sex scandal from former New Jersey Governor Jim McGreevey, who had resigned amid his own sex scandal involving another man. In addition, former CBS Evening News anchor Dan Rather has recently become a regular analyst on MSNBC. Rather resigned after airing a story in 2004 about President Bush’s National Guard service that turned out to be based on fraudulent documents.
—Kyle Drennen is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Too bad that Mr. Spitzer
June 29, 2009 - 11:49 ET by FranksamToo bad that Mr. Spitzer doesn't know the meaning of the word 'eschewed', but that't the ignorance that passes for wisdom these days. Other than that, he's wrong anyway.
I hope Elliot drowns, too.
SPITZER!
June 29, 2009 - 12:04 ET by blazermaniacIsn't Elliot Spitzer, client nmumber nine! He shouldn't talk about anything. Just another reason why New York State is in the mess that it's in now.
This is perfectly
June 29, 2009 - 11:51 ET by mattmThis is perfectly logical. The Statist-leftist, neo-fascists believe their viewpoint is simply what is, therefore, any fellow believer is a moderate; right down the middle on every issue. Nonbelievers are scary, evil "extremists."
Eschewed to the right?
June 29, 2009 - 11:54 ET by slickwillie2001"The Republican presidents over the past 10-15 years have nominated very extremely conservative justices and that’s why the court
has eschewed to the right."
What the heck does that mean?
It means the guy's an
June 29, 2009 - 12:02 ET by mattmIt means the guy's an idiot.
In the last 10-15 years there has only been one republican president - George W. Bush.
"Eschewed" means shunned. I think he meant "skewed"...
What he meant to say was "gobbledygook jibber jabber, nonsense, blah blah blah."
I was thinking the same
June 29, 2009 - 12:30 ET by fitzfongI was thinking the same thing, mattm. He's wrong on the facts, no matter which way you go with this. There's only been one Republican President in the last 10-15 years. But if you allow for his failure at grasping simple math (and judging by New York's current budget, many have), George H.W. Bush nominated Souter, Ronald Reagan nominated O'Connor and Kennedy, Ford stuck us with Stevens, Nixon gave us Powell and Blackmun and Ike rubbed salt in the wound with Earl Warren and William Brennan. Meanwhile, Clinton shoved Breyer and Ginsburg down our throats (not to mention the theatrics LBJ pulled to get Thurgood Marshall on the Court). But cut Spitzer some slack...after the haul of money he funnelled to that call girl, it's safe to say that math isn't his strong suit.
(and if you go back even further, was it not "I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
that is the progression of
June 29, 2009 - 12:11 ET by pcantidotethat is the progression of syphilis to the brain....
Enforce Term Limits if They Won't: Vote Against ALL Incumbents in 2010.
Nunh Unh
June 29, 2009 - 11:52 ET by V the KName one "swing vote" on the Supreme Court that was appointed by a Democrat.
Yeah, didn't think so.
This is perfectly
June 29, 2009 - 11:52 ET by mattmThis is perfectly logical. The Statist-leftist, neo-fascists believe their viewpoint is simply what is, therefore, any fellow believer is a moderate; right down the middle on every issue. Nonbelievers are scary, evil "extremists."
Enough with the "McGreevey had sex with another man" already!
June 29, 2009 - 12:10 ET by SickofLibsOK, I know this is nitpicky, but this McGreevey's "sex scandal involving another man" wording that is always repeated drives me nuts.
McGreevey was married to a W-O-M-A-N. He had very young kids. His wife was not a man, so there was no 'other man.'
That phrase was from the scumball's own mea culpa statement, which was his lame attempt to normalize and sanitize the situation as if he were just another errant husband.
It did involve another
June 29, 2009 - 12:38 ET by fitzfongIt did involve another man. McGreevey was one man, his boyfried was the other. But I've always found that McGreevey's scandal was covered poorly. The story should not have been that he was gay or that he cheated on his wife. The real story was that he hired a totally unqualified individual (his boyfriend) to head his state's Homeland Security Department...all to cover up the affair in the first place. But McGreevey established the goal posts for media coverage at the press conference ("my truth is...") and the media (and, unforgivably, conservative talk radio) largely followed suit.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Not to quibble, but the
June 29, 2009 - 12:50 ET by SickofLibsNot to quibble, but the "another ________" always refers to the gender of the marital partner, not the cheating spouse.
His wife turned out to be a nutjob, too. It's always the kids who suffer most.
Really? I wasn't aware of
June 29, 2009 - 13:30 ET by fitzfongReally? I wasn't aware of that rule. Perhaps you should consult Kyle to find out what his intention was.
"I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered." -George Best
Really Elliott?
June 29, 2009 - 12:32 ET by east tennessee johnFormal general counsel for the ACLU isn't left enough? What exactly are Spitzer criteria? I'd say standards, but he doesn't have any.
The "journalist"
June 29, 2009 - 12:48 ET by iveseenitallI can picture the "journalist", Ratigan, bobbing his head up and down in agreement as Spitzer spoke. Typical ignorant "liberals".
BTW, Isn't Spitzer from an Ivy League school? I guess they don't teach the proper use of the English language in those universities anymore. He and his Ivy League pal Barry need a few more classes.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Little Jonathan Capon is
June 29, 2009 - 12:52 ET by SickofLibsLittle Jonathan Capon is also well versed in head-bobbing, if you get my drift.
There is no such thing as an
June 29, 2009 - 12:42 ET by robert108There is no such thing as an "extreme conservative"; following the Constitution and our founding principles isn't "extreme". In fact, it's the job of the Supreme Court to do just that.
"Very extremely conservative"
June 29, 2009 - 12:55 ET by iveseenitallHe said "very extremely conservative". What the hell does that mean, Elliot?..... you genius. Go back to English 101. Reminds me of the time Barry said he was appointing "a" economic advisor. He, too, is "a" ass.
NEVER,NEVER trust a "liberal"
Spitzer puts his money where his hooker's mouth is...
June 29, 2009 - 13:23 ET by Jack BauerIf only Spitzer's knowledge of dates was as extensive as his knowledge of hookers.
Over the past 10 to 15 years there has been ONE Republican President. And even he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to appoint someone other than Harriet Myers.
The oath of office that
June 29, 2009 - 14:47 ET by MikeBThe oath of office that the President takes states in part: "and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. "
Which means, Spitvalve, the Presidents are duty bound to appoint conservatives, i.e. strict constructionists, to the Supreme Court.
While there is no oath specific to the Supreme Court, Article 6 of the Constitution says, "The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or Affirmation, to support this Constitution ... "
At the very least, a Supreme Court Justice should know enough about the Constitution to know that there is a method to amend the Constitution, and that method does not include capricious judicial rulings by the Supremes.
Spitoon also needs to realize that "moderate" does not mean marxist or national socialist. Of course, to Idiot Spitbucket and other Democrats, Karl Marx would qualify as "extreme right". Just goes to show where they stand in the political spectrum.
"A communist is someone who reads Marx. An anti-communist is someone who understands Marx." Ronald Reagan
Um....
June 29, 2009 - 20:18 ET by BondPlainBondWhy are we seeing Eliot Spitzer on television? Why is this man, publicly ridiculed for outrageously bad judgment, giving his opinion on a national/worldwide cable "news" show? We already know he makes singularly bad choices - what makes his opinion valuable?
Ohhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh! It's MSNBC! Now I get it. Those lacking morals, values, character, and judgment are to be celebrated and held up as examples of those that are "clear thinking", "reasonable", and "rational", people that add "worth" to the on-going political debates.
What? What's that? It was only his sexual proclivities that were errant, deviant, cowardly, and showed a complete lack of respect and responsibility to those around him? Uh huh. I see. His "bad" judgment only comes to light when sex is involved?
And people let MSNBC get away with that?
Only the left.
BPB... Exactly dead
June 29, 2009 - 20:28 ET by bigtimerBPB...
Exactly dead on.....I wasn't out of bed quite yet when the decision came down this morning, I flipped it to msnbc after the Journal, and there was this creep along with Ratigan, the decision came down and he has the nerve to be sitting there doing his leftist spin...let alone have the nerve at all to show his ugly mug....
Needless to say, I jumped out of bed and started coffee...turned it to FOX.
Like you say....leave it to the sewer of television...and that is msnbc.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart