New York Times Calls Ruth Bader Ginsburg A 'Moderate'
On Fox News this weekend, Jon Stewart famously denied that the New York Times pushes a liberal agenda. Perhaps the man from Comedy Central sees the paper as "moderate." After all, the Times itself apparently doesn't believe there are any liberals on the Supreme Court. In an editorial today, the paper described Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and every other member of her wing of the Court, as "moderate."
The Times' mind-boggling notion of what constitutes a "moderate" came in its editorial blasting the Supreme Court's decision of yesterday throwing out a huge class-action sex-discrimination case against Wal-Mart.
Here's the relevant excerpt from the editorial [emphasis added]:
"Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four moderates on the court, dissented from Justice Scalia’s broader analysis and sought a much narrower holding."
So not only is Bader-Ginsburg not a liberal, neither is Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor or Elena Kagan.
Ruth Bader-Ginsburg: feminist activist. Former General Counsel of the ACLU. Pro-abortion rights crusader. Moderate.
If Bader-Ginsburg's not a liberal judge in the eyes of the New York Times, then no one is. How's this for an imaginary headline: 'Obama Nominates Moderate Michael Moore To High Court'?
- Mark Finkelstein's blog
- Login to post comments
Comments
Gee Thanks Mark
Submitted by paragrouper on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:18am.
You just had to put a full-size mug shot of Bader-Ginsburg up, didn't you?
Now that face will haunt me all day.
How can there be only a right
Submitted by Chris Norman on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:35am.
How can there be only a right and a middle if, as according to the NYT, a left doesn't exist? I know that logic doesn't always exist for liberals, but, in the absence of a left, doesn't logic demand that there have to be two extremes in order for there to be a middle? If we assume - for one second only - the NYT is correct, then, in the absence of a true left, don't the "moderates" become the defacto left?
It depends
Submitted by Bodini on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:25am.
It depends upon the angle from which you view the rest of the world The NYTs view is so far left that everything else appears to be centrist or right to them. Given their view of the world, I'm surprised that Stalin, Hitler, Chairman Mao, et. al. ... haven't been lauded by the NYTs for their ground-breaking genocidal efforts in the arena of "BIRTH CONTROL!"
Stalin @ NYT
Submitted by Agnostic on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:37am.
Don't know about birth control but the NYT has a rich history of propping up USSR dictators. In fact there was a protest every year by remaining Ukrainians that were witness to Holodomor to try to shame the NYT into admitting their part in pushing propaganda and accepting a Pulitzer for their lies and lack of balance.
NB covered this because no one reports on the protest.
Do you really expect anything different from the NYT?
Submitted by Galvanic on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:31am.
It's all part of the propaganda game. If Obama gets another Supreme Court selection, the spin from the MSM will be that a 5th "moderate" is necessary to take control back away from the Far Right justices. To many uninformed voters, that will sound reasonable.
Jill Abramson making her influence work?
Submitted by Red Jeep on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:37am.
Hopefully she will speed the bankruptcy along.
Targeting the "Idiot Demographic"
Submitted by Boil It Down on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 8:56am.
There are only a few that the NYT could possibly convince that there are no liberals, but only moderates, on the Supreme Court. The label of moderate in the editorial is just another dishonest attempt by the left to portray themselves as mainstream America. If they can skew the public perspective enough, their left wing agendas might seem more palatable to more people.
These small adjustments in perspective since the 60's are what have lead this country into the decline we are now suffering. It is far past time to reverse course on these efforts. The NYT has to get with the majority of the nation or throw in the towel because it all seems to be coming to a head against them.
It's time to throw the hippies out and fumigate. -bidn-
There are no liberals...
Submitted by motherbelt on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:21am.
There are only "moderates" and "right-wingers" (or "right-wing extremists")
If any one is interested. . .
Submitted by rickbren on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:29am.
. . .I have a bridge in San Francisco that I will let go for a song. . .
Obama nominates moderate Bill
Submitted by eaglewingz08 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:37am.
Obama nominates moderate Bill Ayers to the Supreme Court. Obama nominates moderate Joseph Stalin to Supreme Court. Obama nominates moderate Malcolm X to Supreme Court. We always hear of "arch conservatives" but never of "arch liberals" or "arch socialists". Funny how there's no bias in the lamestream media.
The NYT would call Stalin,
Submitted by Beukeboom on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 9:44am.
The NYT would call Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot and similar socialists "moderate" as well. Who can trust labels placed by the NYT? Only the stupid, naive and liberals. But I repeat myself.
NY Times
Submitted by circle8 on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:15am.
Calling Ginsburg (the former legal beagle for the American Communist Legal Unit -ACLU) a moderate can be compared to calling the New York Times a pro American newspaper. Neither statement is anywhere near true. The NYT supported the Nazi Regime of Hitler in the 1930's until it was obvious Hitler was not a Messiah. Sounds like the Times opinion of the "crook in the white house-2011" Sorry NYT the four so called moderates on the Supreme Court are not moderates but misguided believers of the American Communist Press or you may recognize it by the official name "The New York Times".
I had to look twice at her picture! LOL!
Submitted by Grumpy in Arizona on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:22am.
At first glance I thought it was a picture of Alan Colmes!
- Grump!
Now that's funny!
Submitted by C-townGiant on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:46am.
I don't care who you are...
They threw the case out?
Submitted by stunned on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:37am.
I do read and watch the news and I missed a Walmart story until I read newsbusters? So I search for the story. Oh wait Walmart won, the libs lost big, 9 circuit court reversed AGAIN, Dems loose big:
Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, also took exception to the court's composition, suggesting that the ruling shows that "an activist majority of the Supreme Court is making it more and more difficult for any American to have their day in court."
But if Walmart lost we would have heard about it non-stop on the networks for days as a victory for the little people. Notice no one is pointing out how Obama put anti-business radicals on the court.
tired of liberal lies
Of course she's a moderate.
Submitted by almostacowboy on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:48am.
All moderates support the use of international law, including Sharia, to defend the the U.S. Constitution. That is, as long as that international law does not contradict the progressive agenda.
*spit-take*
Submitted by wiwf on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 10:54am.
*spit-take*
Ginsburg is aboout as far out in freakazoid land as you can get
Submitted by Dave. on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 12:03pm.
Not only is she a flaming, as in robe-on-fire communist, she advocates sexual relationships between adults and twelve year-old children.
This woman should be in a carnival freak show, not sitting in a position of power on the highest court in the land.
-Dave
Vote for the American in November
Ginsburg
Submitted by wachunga on Tue, 06/21/2011 - 2:47pm.
Wow-I never knew Ginsburg was a "moderate." Now who qualifies as a "liberal?" Angela Davis, maybe?