Thursday night, as my colleague Brent Baker noted, ABC and NBC fretted that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor might not adhere to a strict liberal orthodoxy on abortion. NBC reporter Pete Williams said Sotomayor’s views on abortion were a “mystery,” while ABC’s Jan Crawford Greenburg declared “both sides in the contentious debate want to know more.”
On Wednesday’s CBS Evening News, correspondent Wyatt Andrews sounded the same alarm: “Pro-abortion rights groups worried aloud today that the President — who promised an abortion rights nominee — never asked Sotomayor, who is Catholic, where she stands.”
On Thursday’s Today, co-host Matt Lauer opened the show by demanding to know “Where does she stand? Liberal activists voicing concerns over Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor and her stance on abortion. This morning, they’re demanding to know if she’s pro-choice or pro-life — and why President Obama never asked.”
But this isn’t the first time the networks have channeled the worries of liberal pro-abortion groups about a Democratic President’s Supreme Court nominee.
Sixteen years ago, President Clinton picked the solidly liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, an ardent feminist, to replace Justice Byron White. Ginsburg is probably the most liberal justice on the Court, but the networks conveyed doubts about whether she would really be a solid liberal vote on abortion.
When Ginsburg was picked on June 14, 1993, she was touted as a “moderate” even though she’d worked as a top ACLU official. Then-CBS anchor Dan Rather told viewers of a live mid-afternoon special report that: “Ginsburg is considered a moderate and a supporter of a woman's right to an abortion. Now there’ll be some argument about whether she's considered a moderate or not. That's one of the fulcrum points at which the debate about her nomination no doubt will turn, but she considers herself a moderate, and supporters of her say that she is a moderate.”
That night on the NBC Nightly News, anchor Tom Brokaw painted Ginsburg this way:“President Clinton today announced his choice for the U.S. Supreme Court: a sixty-year-old federal judge, a strong advocate of women’s rights who has become more moderate in her views over the years, Ruth Bader Ginsburg.”
Over on the CBS Evening News, correspondent Rita Braver would only call Ginsburg “moderate to liberal,” but she characterized Chief Justice William Rehnquist as an “ultraconservative.”
RITA BRAVER: Sixty-year-old Judge Ruth Bader Ginsburg has been an appeals court judge for 13 years. She's considered moderate to liberal, but today she cited this guide to judging from ultraconservative Chief Justice William Rehnquist.RUTH BADER GINSBURG: “A judge is bound to decide each case fairly, in accord with the relevant facts and the applicable law, even when the decision is not,” as he put it, “what the home crowd wants.”
On the abortion issue, ABC anchor Peter Jennings relayed doubts just a few minutes after Clinton announced his choice, telling viewers that “in terms of the Roe v. Wade decision, the National Abortion Rights Action League has weighed in fairly quickly, saying it has some concerns but intends to listen to what Judge Ginsburg has to say.”
The next morning on CBS’s This Morning program, co-host Paula Zahn hit a pro-Ginsburg guest from the left: "The National Abortion Rights Action League is not totally comfortable with this nomination of Judge Ginsburg. They do not feel that she supports Roe v. Wade fully. Are their fears justified?"
Over on NBC's Today, Katie Couric voiced similar fears to White House Chief of Staff Mack McLarty: "So you don't think she has an open mind in terms of interpreting Roe v. Wade, as some abortion rights activists are concerned about?"
And on the June 15 CBS Evening News, correspondent Susan Spencer also saw “questions.” Talking about President Clinton, Spencer relayed: “On the Hill today, his choice of Ruth Bader Ginsburg for the Supreme Court was getting good reviews. She made the rounds for what looks like an easy confirmation. But her writings on abortion have raised some questions.”
The trumped-up fears of the pro-abortion groups were baseless sixteen years ago, and may be just as baseless today. Responding to Lauer’s doubts about Sotomayor on Thursday’s Today, NBC’s Chuck Todd was the only correspondent to suggest a cynical motive: “It looks like this could be potentially just a straw man by abortion rights groups who are concerned that they're not gonna be able to have a Supreme Court nomination to raise money on.”
Of course, network coverage that indulges left-wing worries about a liberal President’s Supreme Court choice means even less time for the far more likely concerns of pro-life groups that Sotomayor will be a reliable vote to perpetuate the liberal status quo of abortion on demand.
—Rich Noyes is Research Director at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
The question needs to be
May 30, 2009 - 09:12 ET by ricklailThe question needs to be asked: Is she a practicing Catholic or just carrying the title like so many libs do? If she is practicing then she must adhere to the teachings. If she don't then I'd refuse her communion. If the priest in the church would do that I really believe that we'd see a massive change in heart over abortion.
The biggest worry I have is her stance on the Second Amendment. From what I have read she believes it to be a collective right and not an individual. Funny but the other 9 are individual not collective. I would also image she has problems with the 1st too. The falsely so called seperation of church and state is there to protect the church but liberals have meaning to protect the state.
Semper suprene nitens
Catholics and the law
May 30, 2009 - 10:04 ET by KC MulvilleI can't agree to that, ricklail, because a judge is only supposed to be guided by the law. We don't want her to go by her personal views.
However, you raise an interesting point. If her Latina experience is supposed to help her guide cases ("hey, experience is only natural!"), then doesn't that also justify her Catholicism? How convenient that only her Latin heritage is relevant, but her Catholicism (presuming she still is one - I don't know) wouldn't be.
KC
May 30, 2009 - 12:27 ET by ricklailYou are right.
Semper suprene nitens
On Thursday’s Today,
May 30, 2009 - 09:25 ET by MidAmericaOn Thursday’s Today, co-host Matt Lauer opened the show by demanding to know “Where does she stand?
I believe these 'concerns' raised by the media are nothing more than the media protecting Sotomayor by portraying her as possibly undecided on abortion in order to lessen the opposition to her and make confirmation easier. These people are shills for the government and are pro-abortion. If they had any real concerns their panties would be in such a twist they wouldn't be able to sit down. So the fact they present this calmly as 'news' means they are satisfied with this nominee.
Re Cover
May 30, 2009 - 11:35 ET by slickwillie2001Agree completely, this is just the liberal media running cover for Sotomayor. Are they to have us believe that abortion was not a part of the Bamster's vetting process, if not the first question? Could the Bamster and his staff all be that imcompetent? Not likely, at least on this issue. The Bamster's position on abortion is as extreme as it gets, bordering on homicidal. Sotomayor is likely to agree with him 100% on abortion.
To quote Hillary (urgh),
May 30, 2009 - 12:27 ET by eaglewingz08To quote Hillary (urgh), one would have to willingly suspend disbelief to accept as even plausible that the New York democrap delegation to Congress, and more especially the New York City delegation would accept as a federal judge or a circuit court judge or a Supreme Court judge any nominee who was not full throatedly pro choice. It would boggle the mind that they would not have firm proof of those convictions before nomination. Judge Sotomayor was a director of the then named Puerto Rican Legal Defensen and Education Fund in the 1980s which put in an amicus brief to the Supreme Court to overrule the limits on abortion in the Webster case. She never publicly disagreed with the tenor of the brief or objected in public or private to the arguments proposed therein.
The liberal agitprop spewers are also claiming that because Judge Sotomayor was in the minority on a Chinese immigrant asylum case, and spouted some positive language about coupledom, marriage, and the greatness of family and children, that makes her less pro abortion or more pro life. However the whole tenor of her opinion is the FORCED nature of the decisions being placed on the couple by the ChiComs. If the decision to abort were merely the one made voluntarily by the woman, we have no reason to believe that she would use the 'sanctity' of marriage, birth, child, to restrict in any meaningful way, the right to kill them in utero.
The Puerto Rican community in New York City is very liberal democratic and to believe that Judge Sotomayor rose through its ranks without being tainted in any way, would be to likewise believe that Obama rose through the corrupt ranks of Chicago Politics and through twenty years of Wright's sermonizing without being tainted as well.
The messiah has a better chance of returning to this world before I finish this post, than either of those propositions being remotely true.
Send Vitamins to Your Favourite Justice, and Pray for Them-
May 30, 2009 - 17:52 ET by Reaganite RepublicanUnless you are delusional, Sotomayer is a racist, as are all members of the treasonous La Raza -by definition- who’s motto is “For our race everything- for others, nothing”. Her record is nothing to shout about either, and frankly -if you’ve heard her speak- she’s not what you’d call a towering intellectual.
And clearly Eric Holder has some racial hangups and agenda too… as does Obama IMO, since his behavior betrays a wierd pro-Kenyan grudge against the British… and he’s the one who nominated all these kooks.
Whatever happened to the idea of a colorblind society? Team Obama define their world in racial terms all the time- and unlike any white people I know. I wouldn’t want to be judged by any of them after what I’ve heard come out of their own mouths- they sound like Jesse Jackson.
If Obama is going to go on with his “justice” agenda largely based upon race- the double standards need to stop, and NOW.
http://reaganiterepublicanresistance.blogspot.com/
To quote Daffy Duck, "it's
May 31, 2009 - 10:03 ET by Lord ElicaniTo quote Daffy Duck, "it's desthpicable!"
"And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears
fought are still at issue around the globe – the belief that the rights
of man come not from the generosity of the state but from the hand of
God."
- John F. Kennedy
What's the big deal about
May 31, 2009 - 22:52 ET by JerWhat's the big deal about Ginsburg? The fact is, aside from her pro-women's views, she was indeed considered moderate to center/left. That is precisely why the Republican Judicial Committee Chairman, Orrin Hatch, recommended her to Clinton, and Clinton went along with Hatch in order to avoid a battle with Congressional Republicans.
Ginsburg did in fact turn out to be a good deal more liberal than predicted, and I am sure Hatch now regrets the recommendation.
Jer
Yeah right Jer...and good
May 31, 2009 - 23:03 ET by bigtimerYeah right Jer...and good old Orrin made a plea for Holder to be confirmned on the Senate floor too...it made me ill.
Btw...that isn't all this RINO has said we have to support either on the Senate floor, not by a long shot.
Yeah...Hatch is the man alright...I hope Utah gets rid of him one of these days...then again these creeps that love each other on both sides stay in forever it seems.
Doubling down on stupid is not a particularly good idea. ~Andrew Breitbart
Karl Marx himself isn't liberal enough for the MSM crowd!
June 1, 2009 - 09:22 ET by Mary Louise TurnerIt's obvious that nobody is liberal enough for the MSM crowd, including Karl Marx himself. Frightening, isn't it?