New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is clearly beside herself over the possiblity the Supreme Court might strike down ObamaCare.
"This court," she wrote Wednesday, "is well on its way to becoming one of the most divisive in modern American history...It is run by hacks dressed up in black robes...[M]irrors the setup on Fox News":
All the fancy diplomas of the conservative majority cannot disguise the fact that its reasoning on the most important decisions affecting Americans seems shaped more by a political handbook than a legal brief. [...]
In 2000, the Republican majority put aside its professed disdain of judicial activism and helped to purloin the election for W., who went on to heedlessly invade Iraq and callously ignore Katrina.
As Anthony Lewis wrote in The Times back then, “Deciding a case of this magnitude with such disregard for reason invites people to treat the court’s aura of reason as an illusion.”
Ah yes, the classic liberal canard that the conservatives on the Court gave George W. Bush the presidency.
Why is it virtually every leftist media member conveniently forgets that the pivotal ruling in Bush v. Gore was that the Florida Supreme Court had overstepped its own state's election laws thereby violating the Equal Protection Clause in the fourteenth amendment with the differing ways votes were being counted from one county to the other?
And why do folks like Dowd forget that liberal justices Breyer and Souter voted with conservatives Kennedy, O'Connor, Rehnquist, Scalia, and Thomas providing a 7-2 ruling on this matter?
Is it ignorance or willful dishonesty?
Also conveniently missing from such factually-challenged screeds is the conclusion by news agencies that examined all of the Florida ballots in 2001 that Bush would have won even if the counting had continued.
But such facts are totally irrelevant to shills like Dowd and the so-called "news" agencies they work for:
The Supreme Court mirrors the setup on Fox News: There are liberals who make arguments, but they are weak foils, relegated to the background and trying to get in a few words before the commercials. [...]
Inexplicably mute 20 years after he lied his way onto the court, Clarence Thomas didn’t ask a single question during oral arguments for one of the biggest cases in the court’s history.
Inexplicably mute? Really?
Maybe Dowd should take her head out of her - ahem - copy of the "Communist Manifesto" long enough to read her own paper which reported in February 2011:
A week from Tuesday, when the Supreme Court returns from its midwinter break and hears arguments in two criminal cases, it will have been five years since Justice Clarence Thomas has spoken during a court argument. [...]
Justice Thomas’s last question from the bench, on Feb. 22, 2006, came in a death penalty case. He was not particularly loquacious before then, but he did speak a total of 11 times earlier in that term and the previous one.
So Dowd's own paper reported about fourteen months ago that Thomas rarely asks questions during oral arguments.
But now she's bashing him for being "inexplicably mute" at last week's hearing regarding ObamaCare.
It's almost like liberals are allergic to facts.