The Washington Post and The New York Times published similar Supreme Court "analysis" pieces on their front pages Wednesday offering the theme that the court under Chief Justice John Roberts is moving boldly to the right, and the confirmation of Sonia Sotomayor will have no effect on this bold shift. It sounded like two newspapers trying to cool down the controversy over judicial liberalism as the Sotomayor hearings approach.
The Post headline was "Term Saw High Court Move to the Right: Roberts-Led March Likely to Continue." Reporter Robert Barnes argued:
The court's term avoided the blockbuster decisions that at one point seemed inevitable. But its path was clear: a patient and steady move to the right led by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., one that is likely to continue even if President Obama is successful in adding Judge Sonia Sotomayor to the high court -- and perhaps two others like her.
While conservatives were unhappy with the incrementalism of some Roberts opinions, Barnes wrote:
And others see the court's conservatives as merely patient. Roberts is 54, Alito 59, Thomas 61, Kennedy 72, Scalia 73. Stevens, however, will turn 90 during the court's next term; Ginsburg is 76. "The jurisprudence of actuarialism," [liberal blogger Tom] Goldstein calls it. Even if Obama serves two terms, he may not be able to replace one of the conservative justices with a liberal, the move that would really change the court's dynamic.
"This court can afford to be quite patient," Goldstein said. "It will get there eventually."
The Times headline was "The Roberts Court, Tipped by Kennedy." Reporter Adam Liptak insisted Roberts "emerged as a canny strategist at the Supreme Court this term, laying the groundwork for bold changes that could take the court to the right even as the recent elections moved the nation to the left."
Liptak described departing Justice David Souter as "liberal," and suggested the same would apply to Sotomayor: "Her record on the federal appeals court in New York suggests that her views are largely in sync with those of Justice Souter, though there is some evidence that she will turn out to be more conservative in criminal cases."
But "The arrival of a neophyte justice coupled with Chief Justice Roberts’s increasing mastery of the judicial machinery foreshadow a widening gap between the Democratic-led political branches and the Supreme Court. Indeed, the court appears poised to move to the right in the Obama era."
—Tim Graham is Director of Media Analysis at the Media Research Center.




















Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Sotomayor cheated a man of 6 years
July 1, 2009 - 15:57 ET by sevenON WND a man was innocent and she denied him a fair trial. Eventially he got out after the real criminal confessed. She is a bad judge.
http://worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102710
Thomas Turns Left
July 1, 2009 - 16:11 ET by allanfWhat imbecility. What balthering boobs. Further to the right? They must be joking.
I could well have written a story, "Is Thomas turning left?" These journalists must have missed Arizona v Gant 07-542, which greatly restricts the ability of police officers to search cars without a warrant. In that opinion, authored by Stevens, Ginsberg Souter and Thomas and Scalia concurred.
Thomas also authored Atlantic Sounding v Townsend which Stevens, Souter, Ginsberg and Breyer joined. It allows "punitive damages" to be sought by seamen under common law.
So where are the stories about Thomas turning left?
In Ricci v DeStafano the Court unamimously supported overturning Sotemeyer's decision. The question was whether there sould be a trial or an immediate ruling that the City of New Haven's actions violated Title VII
Personal freedom is a conservative value
July 1, 2009 - 16:14 ET by Ten7sPersonal freedom is a conservative value. Reagan said it best,
I agree
July 1, 2009 - 16:16 ET by allanfSAFFORD UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT #1 ET AL. v. REDDING was annother decision where the Court came down 8-1 that a body search of a Middle School student violated the Fourth Amendment. (Thomas dissenting).
To say this Court is right wing is not true. It is "consvative" in that the justices are trying to conserve the constitution. Scali and Ginsburg often concur.
The sad part is that journalists distort these opinions in an attempt to gin up controversy.
Inevitable?
July 1, 2009 - 16:08 ET by slickwillie2001Sotomayor may be inevitable unless something big comes out of the last 300 pages dumped on the Senate this week. Conservatives could do worse. Judges do two things, they cast their own vote, and they influence the other judges to see things their way through their questions, interactions, and written opinions. She will be a reliable liberal vote on the court, but given what we have learned about her she does not have the personality, intelligence, charisma, or gravitas to influence anyone else on the court. That's good for us. In that way she's much like Souter.
Our nightmare on the court would be a liberal version of Roberts or Scalia, and she is miles away from being that. She's more like the Bamster's Harriet Miers.
By "going to the right",
July 1, 2009 - 16:09 ET by robert108By "going to the right", they mean doing the right thing according to the Constitution, then they are correct. We need a lot more of that, in order to undo the damage done to this country by SCOTUS decisions that are actually legislating from the bench.