In the MSM world of NBC, the only "rights" groups are liberal ones. And Supreme Court justices, at least women ones, are there to serve as advocates for their sex.
That was evident from the segment "Today" ran this morning, focusing on Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. The gist was that with Sandra Day O'Connor gone, it's a lonely struggle for Ginsburg as the high court's sole woman. "Today" portrayed that struggle not between liberals and conservatives, but between conservatives and various "rights" groups.
Campbell Brown introduced the segment.
'TODAY' WEEKEND TODAY CO-HOST CAMPELL BROWN: One thing as clear as the Court moves into its final weeks of the current session, it is much different place with just one female place among nine high court justices."
Why? If O'Connor had been replaced with a male who voted just like O'Connor, how would the Court be any different? Are justices there to represent their sex or race, or to apply the Constitution?
Pete Williams then took over.
NBC JUSTICE CORRESPONDENT PETE WILLIAMS: For the first time in thirty years, the Supreme Court has upheld a ban on a specific abortion procedure even though it made no exception for a women's health. And just this week the Court made it harder for Americans to claim that discrimination on the job is affecting their pay, ruling against an Alabama woman who claimed Goodyear paid her far less than her male colleagues.
Williams didn't mention that the "specific abortion procedure" in question was the horrific partial birth abortion, which even the late liberal Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan described as "infanticide." Nor did Williams point out that so-called "health" exceptions have created a huge loophole rendering all such previous laws meaningless.
WILLIAMS: It's already clear this is a very different court, with Sandra Day O'Connor replaced by the more conservative Samuel Alito. . . As the only woman remaining on a more conservative court, Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has turned up the voltage in her dissents, twice this term taking the unusual step of announcing them from the bench. . . She offered a . . . biting dissent in the abortion case, suggesting the court's changes contributed to the outcome of the case, a point women's groups agree with.
We then heard from Eve Gartner, described as an "abortion rights lawyer." A quick Googling indicates she represents the Planned Parenthood Federation of America.
EVE GARTNER: Justice Ginsburg points that out very directly in her dissent. The change in the court's composition has led the court to undermine legal protections for women's health.
Wait a second. Is Williams right in making the flat, unqualified statement that "women's groups" agree with Ginsburg? The only group we heard from was one in the business of providing abortions. Did Williams bother to check with Concerned Women for America, or the Indepedent Women's Forum? Or don't they qualify as "women's groups" in Williams' book because they're not liberal?
WILLIAMS: Civil rights groups are sorry to see the court change, with Justice O'Connor gone, but conservatives couldn't wait for her to leave.
Nice, the way Williams pits "conservatives" against "civil rights groups." Question for Pete: why don't groups, like the Center for Individual Rights, that fight against the racial discrimination of college admission quotas, or groups that fight against restraints on free speech under the guise of "campaign finance," qualify as "civil rights groups" in your estimation?
Williams threw it back to Brown, but not before lamenting that "there's no reason to think that any of the current justices will soon retire, meaning the court will continue with just a single woman justice."
Brown then brought in Joan Biskupic, who covers the Supreme Court for USA Today.
USA TODAY CORRESPONDENT JOAN BISKUPIC: [Ginsburg] really feels that her role has changed. I've talked to her about now being the only woman on the court, and she's taking that pretty seriously. . . She was a women's right advocate in the '70s and really came up in a different way than Justice O'Connor herself. Very much in favor of women's rights and abortion rights.
She's taking being the only woman "pretty seriously"? Do we want Supreme Court justices to see themselves as representatives or advocates for their sex, race or religious group? Try substituting "Jew," "Mormon" or "white evangelical male" for "woman" and see how it sounds. Note also how Biskupic, like Williams, equates "women's rights" with liberal positions.
BROWN: Joan, when you spoke to her about that, about being the sole woman now, and the responsibility that goes along with that, what did she tell you specifically?
Campbell, there is no "responsibility" that goes along with being the sole woman. Justices take an oath to uphold the Constitution, not the perceived interests of their sex.
BISKUPIC: She was surprised at how different it felt. Removing just one single woman from the bench. Just how lonely, that was her word, lonely. And she also said, in this day and age would you ever have thought that America would be moving backward to a point where there would be only one woman among the nine-member bench . . . Justice O'Connor came up through the Republican party in Arizona, she was not active in the women's rights movement the way Justice Ginsburg was, but together they had a real solidarity.
Don't feel lonely, Justice Ginsburg. You'll always have David Souter. In any case, would Justice Ginsburg feel less lonely if Justice O'Connor had been replaced by a woman with the jurisprudential orientation of, say, Justice Clarence Thomas? Isn't this really about ideology, not sex?
Perhaps realizing that she had pushed the gender politics a bit too far, Brown did add: "We should point though I think that Justice Ginsburg's minority positions in many of these decisions isn't just because she's a woman. It isn't a male-female thing necessarily, but demonstrates the real conservative shift in this court."
So Ginsburg doesn't always vote "just" on the basis of her sex. Reassuring.
Three times Williams and Brown used the term "conservative" in referring to the court and its members, and when we briefly heard from Michael Carvin, NBC was careful to label him in the screen graphic as a "conservative lawyer." But never did the word "liberal" cross Williams' or Brown's lips in describing Ginsburg, the former chief litigator of the ACLU's "women's rights" division [see podium in screencap: looks like she's still a friend of the group], or the various liberal groups involved. They were just "women's" or "civil rights" groups.
Just another fair 'n balanced report, NBC-style.
Contact Mark at mark@gunhill.net
—Mark Finkelstein is a NewsBusters contributing editor and host of Right Angle. Contact him at mark@gunhill.net.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Mark,I love the photo of Just
June 2, 2007 - 08:27 ET by msh1973Mark,
I love the photo of Justice Ginsburg behind the ACLU logo, just shows the truth about her. As far as Williams and Brown are concerned...well they would never admit that they are liberals or that they are biased in any manner.
Thanks for watching, so I don't have to.
No shame for Ginsburg
June 2, 2007 - 09:30 ET by goldenthroatMsh1973,
You have got that one right. We need to keep in the forefront that this left-coast, bleeding-heart, 'do as I say, not as I do' Supreme Court liberal was a Clinton appointee. Why should we be surprised that she steps away from her judicial duties to speak at an Anti Christian Litigation Unit meeting?
I agree, too, that these judges are supposed to be non-biased and interpret the law, not make it. If there is any organization on the planet that supports this woman's views, it's the ACLU.
This sorry excuse for a Supreme Court judge has shown her true colors again - of course, considering how she got to the nation's highest court speaks volumes!
Never dance on an empty stomach unless it's a liberal.
"... between conservat
June 2, 2007 - 08:33 ET by MilesD"... between conservatives and various "rights" groups"
???
Conservatives don't advocate people's rights???
Under socialist governments, people don't have any rights
Mr. Finkelstein, is that a ph
June 2, 2007 - 08:46 ET by Roger the ShrubberMr. Finkelstein, is that a photo of Michael Bolton in your article, mistakenly labelled as Eve Gartner, Abortion Right Lawyer?
Hey, that sounds like a cool new comic book title, doesn't it?
Oh, and you sure that was Ms.
June 2, 2007 - 08:48 ET by Roger the ShrubberOh, and you sure that was Ms. Ginsberg in that other photo, and not this fabulous Match Gamer?
leftist gender cult
June 2, 2007 - 08:47 ET by bulbasaurIn the interest of clarity, it should be pointed out that leftists don't want women on the Supreme Court. They want radical-leftist women.
The distinction is important.
These people pretend to want gender diversity, when in fact what they want is a monopoly of neo-marxist philosopher-kings to replace the free-market democratic-republic that is (barely, still) America today. They merely hide behind the skirts of "women," feigning a sort of mystical reverence for the vocation of womanhood. It isn't reverence, though, because these people will destroy any real woman who gets in their way. The gender cult is a marketing ploy. The goal is collectivism. Don't let them kid you.
Great Post Mark! To side st
June 2, 2007 - 09:07 ET by rimskyGreat Post Mark! To side step around PBA as if it weren't the horrible procedure that it is, IMO, is, pure and simple, lying.
Do you think you’re biased?
June 2, 2007 - 09:40 ET by KC MulvilleDo you think you’re biased? You’re an idiot if you aren’t. Why? Because the world is complicated, and if you had to re-think and re-evaluate every feature of every issue, you wouldn’t have any time left over to consider matters at hand. Life is just too complicated to start from scratch every time. So, as we go along, we form convictions. “Convictions” and “biases” are philosophically the same thing. They’re shortcuts that (hopefully) collapse years of study and experience into handy packages. There’s nothing wrong with that, and we couldn’t get along without our biases. The only requirement is that we keep our biases open to review, but unless you’re a complete pighead, that isn’t so hard.
We all know that, but this story displays one huge danger. Once biases become handy packages, they become portable. You can pass them around, and others can adopt them … without having gone through the years of study and experience that created them in the first place. They’re pre-packaged conclusions, and let’s skip the details. The purpose of segments like this is not to inform the public from an objective point of view. These segments are merely the distribution system of liberal bias packages.
This story only works if you assume what the reporters assume. Only someone who hasn’t studied the case would broadly describe the Ledbetter decision as making it “… harder for Americans to claim that discrimination on the job is affecting their pay.” It goes good with Kool-Aid. Liberals will agree with this report, and see it as obvious. The reporters don’t perceive why anyone would argue these “facts.”
great insight
June 2, 2007 - 10:26 ET by bulbasaurI really like your post, it's thought provoking.
What I take from it is, despite how libs congratulate themselves for being the thoughtful ones, the fact is, we see very little self-reflection on that side of the spectrum, just a disturbing self-replicating surface narrative; the guiding principles, if there are any, are rarely acknowledged let alone questioned.
A lib might argue that "both sides are guilty of this." However, the events of the last week reveal that the conservative side is, and has been, engaged in extensive self-reflection about core principles. This week saw prominent conservatives taking on the establishment package, about illegal immigration. And we saw the President chastising his own for giving him flack. Side with whom you will, you must admire the open, unabashed display of critical reflection.
Since the Reagan Revolution of 1980, conservatives on the whole have shown an aptitude for self-reflection, for internal criticism. Liberalism, in contrast, has hardened into a hideous caricature of what it considers its glory days of the 1960s. I dare say self-reflection no longer seems possible there, because status is awarded on the left precisely to those who are most completely unhinged, or, as you say quite accurately, pigheaded.
Thank you, but your own point
June 2, 2007 - 10:48 ET by KC MulvilleThank you, but your own points are just as thought-provoking. It reflects the absolute refusal of Democrats or liberals from hearing any other point of view, or accepting a smattering of self-reflection. That's why conservatives make such a big deal about the late Robert Casey of PA being barred from speaking at the Democrat convention. Or the unwillingess to go on Fox News. Or the Dan Rather bunker mentality. Or the conservative blacklist in Hollywood. Or nearly every single posting on NewsBusters ...
bulb--KC--I grew up in--
June 2, 2007 - 11:45 ET by misterbillbulb--KC--I grew up in--Massachusetts, I know, I know thank you for your condolences. As you know MA is heavily populated with liberals. I held my counsel and did not get involved with any discourses with friends of coworkers. The only person I debated with was my Dad. He was a dyed-in-the-wool Democrat, but surprisingly, he was a conservative. So, actually, we saw eye to eye on a lot of issues. By just listening and not contributing, I learned that the blind loyalty of these people had them continually re-electing the Chappaquiddick champion. Further, they actively sought candidates that were "different" (read Stokes and Frank). At one point in my life I actually had co-workers encouraging me to experiment with homosexual acts. Assumedly, all of their spoutings were dealing with the "freedom" of the individual to make his.her own choices. I failed to see how I would exercise my freedom by following their advice. I do not consider someone to be "unbiased" if they feel compelled to vote for or commit acts that demonstrates their open-mindedness. I simply consider them fools and not the kind of people I want to be with. I left in '86 and never looked back.
In their "openmindedness" they did not allow any room to be a different "different', i.e. a conservative.
Seperated @ birth: Eve Gartner & Bill Maher
June 2, 2007 - 10:54 ET by Dave RIt isn't a male-female thing necessarily, but demonstrates the real conservative shift in this court."
Conservative shift, my eye. This so-called "conservative" Supreme Court upheld McCain-Feingold, one of the more heinous government assaults on our right to express our political views in the arena of public discourse that has come along since the days of the "Fairness Doctrine."
Speaking of which, I wouldn't at all be surprised if George W. Bush, in an in your face gesture aimed squarely at us "stupid" conservatives, were to sign this hideous bill into law. I would even be less surprised if this "conservative" court actually upheld the thing.
BTW-Does not Eve Gartner strongly resemble Bill Maher in that photo?
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
dave r George w who??
June 2, 2007 - 11:49 ET by misterbilldave r George w who?? He has finally (except for Iraq) totally pushed me away.
I feel so sorry for me that "I just don't get it.".
PS
June 2, 2007 - 11:54 ET by misterbillPS - I emailed both Georgia Senators today. Told them that if they voted FOR the compromise that I would never vote for them again. Complimented Isakson on his trigger points, then told him that if they were on a separate bill they would be great but in the compromise bill they are very easy to bypass. Then I referenced Chappaquiddick Ted and said that when I was younger and my Mom was trying to guide me in my selection of companions she would say, when she disapproved of someone , "Sleep with dogs, you wake up with fleas". I closed by telling them they both had fleas by working with Kennedy.
misterbill, George W. Who indeed........
June 2, 2007 - 12:32 ET by Dave Rmisterbill,
I'll have to be totally honest here, but after reading Peggy Noonan's excellent column yesterday, I began to feel way behind the curve on this thing. For me, that was a truly unsettling feeling, as I am usually ahead of the curve on things like this-way ahead. Maybe I'm starting to slip. :-O
It seems that every comment I have posted here questioning this man's judgment (and there have been many) gets a reply along the lines of "Someday you'll be glad he put Alito and Roberts on the Supreme Court." Will I? I'm not so sure about that. Perhaps if this court were to reverse itself on McCain-Feingold and that equally hideous ruling dealing with imminent domain, I might change my mind, but not before.
As for our CIC's "leadership" in Iraq, I have been questioning that for nearly three years now. He seems to lack the will to prosecute this thing in a manner that would get it over with and get our guys out of there. It looks to me that PC considerations have overshadowed nearly every decision he as made in the last three years or so.
It pains me to say this, but Vietnam taught us that PC tactics do not win wars. You win them by employing swift and over-whelming force, and you keep it up until the other side either quits or is dead and no-longer able to fight. He appears to be piddling around way too much, here. What he should have done three years ago was order the reporters out, lock down the place and get really, really serious. I'm talking George S. Patton, Jr. serious. IMHO, a real leader would have done that, even without the advice of his advisors. Now it appears the only answer our CIC has is to negotiate with Iran, a rogue nation and then some, to reach a solution of some kind. This is a very disturbing sign of weakness to me.
I am also rather distraught over what appears to me to be a ridicuously high rate of court-marshall proceedings against our soldiers being brought by people who have never experienced actuall combat conditions. As I said somewhere in here yesterday, I have probably read more military history than 98% of the population, and the number of our soldiers being brought up on charges appears to be inordinately high, historically speaking. I know for a fact that US personel in Germany following the surrender had standing orders to shoot known Nazis on site. We are sending many of our best and bravest up the river for simply returning fire when fired upon.
I cannot imagine anything more demoralizing to our soldiers serving over there.
Then their is the Bush "Justice" Department and the Border Patrol guys and...well, I think you get the picture.
I'm disgusted beyond words at this point.
BTW-I saw the WT article yesterday about the RNC receipts being down 40%. I think we should shoot for 80%. Maybe then they will realize the error of their ways and repent, while there is still time to fix it. A good start would be firing the current leadership, from the chairman on down, and starting over. Failing that, HRC will be our next president.
OMG!
This republic will not survive the continued neglect of its people.-Neal Boortz
Great post, Mark.If Condaleez
June 2, 2007 - 14:48 ET by dahliatraversGreat post, Mark.
If Condaleeza Rice were the only woman on the Supreme Court, would NBC have a story?
I've talked to her about no
June 2, 2007 - 19:45 ET byI've talked to her about now being the only woman on the court, and she's taking that pretty seriously. . . She was a women's right advocate in the '70s
Which is exactly the bias and the problem. The SCOTUS justices should be ruling on the law. Not what they think should be but what is. Not making the law but judging the law. The Congress writes the law not the justices, this is the separation of powers. This is another example of what is so important about the upcoming election. Do we want Eve Gartner on the SCOTUS?
Supreme Court, National Security, Borders, Fiscal Restraint, my litmus test for President.
health issues
June 2, 2007 - 22:19 ET by LionKing"For the first time in thirty years, the Supreme Court has upheld a ban
on a specific abortion procedure even though it made no exception for a
women's health."
I know this deviates slightly from this thread, but it really irks me...exactly what health issues does a woman face late term that REQUIRES an abortion to save her life?