On Saturday's NBC Nightly News, correspondent Pete Williams presented a one-sided look at the Supreme Court's "shift to the right," conveying complaints by liberals over recent court rulings, but without showing any conservatives who supported some of the court's recent right-leaning decisions. Williams began his piece by quoting liberal Justice Stephen Breyer's complaint that "It's not often in the law that so few have so quickly changed so much," before playing a soundbite of the ACLU's Steven Shapiro: "Civil liberties and civil rights took a beating virtually across the board from race to religion to abortion to speech to the basic right to come into court and sue when you've been a victim of discrimination." Williams also found that Chief Justice John Roberts "has turned out to be more conservative than even some of the court's liberals thought he would be." (Transcript follows)
In spite of the absence of conservative voices in the piece, anchor Lester Holt introduced the report by referring to "both liberals and conservatives agreeing the court has moved to the right." Williams then began by highlighting liberal critics.
PETE WILLIAMS: When the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional public school programs that enroll students based on their race, Justice Stephen Breyer spoke a line in dissent that could have summed up this entire term. "It's not often in the law," he said, "that so few have so quickly changed so much."
STEVEN SHAPIRO, American Civil Liberties Union: Civil liberties and civil rights took a beating virtually across the board from race to religion to abortion to speech to the basic right to come into court and sue when you've been a victim of discrimination.
After mentioning the significance of Sandra Day O'Connor's replacement with Samuel Alito, Williams listed some of the "big legal victories" for conservatives. When referring to the ruling that upheld the federal ban on partial-birth abortion, Williams merely referred to the practice as "a specific abortion procedure," and incorrectly stated that the procedure had been "declared unconstitutional" by the Supreme Court. Willams: "Besides the landmark school race case decided the last day of the term, the court declared unconstitutional a specific abortion procedure, made it harder to sue for pay discrimination, imposed a limit on free speech rights of students, and loosened a federal restriction on campaign issue ads that run before elections."
Williams sooned relayed that Chief Justice John Roberts "has turned out to be more conservative than even some of the court's liberals thought he would be," although the NBC correspondent probably meant to say that Roberts "has turned out to be even more conservative than some of the court's liberals thought he would be." Professor Daniel Marcus of American University then relayed the "disappointment" of the court's liberals.
WILLIAMS: And legal scholars say the court's new chief justice, John Roberts, has turned out to be more conservative than even some of the court's liberals thought he would be based on his past legal work and confirmation hearing.
Professor DANIEL MARCUS, American University: I don't think they expected to have him on their side as a regular matter, but I think the consistency of his conservative voting on the court has been a disappointment to them.
Below is a complete transcript of the story from the Saturday June 30 NBC Nightly News:
LESTER HOLT: NBC News "In Depth" now. Tonight, the Supreme Court's shift to the right. The court wrapped up its term this week with a blockbuster decision on school desegregation, and by agreeing to hear an appeal from Guantanamo Bay detainees. And while nearly all of this term's major rulings were split decisions, both liberals and conservatives agree the court has moved to the right. NBC's justice correspondent, Pete Williams, reports now "In Depth."
PETE WILLIAMS: When the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional public school programs that enroll students based on their race, Justice Stephen Breyer spoke a line in dissent that could have summed up this entire term. "It's not often in the law," he said, "that so few have so quickly changed so much."
STEVEN SHAPIRO, American Civil Liberties Union: Civil liberties and civil rights took a beating virtually across the board from race to religion to abortion to speech to the basic right to come into court and sue when you've been a victim of discrimination.
WILLIAMS: With Sandra Day O'Connor replaced by Samuel Alito, who has now completed his first full term, the court gave conservatives some big legal victories. Besides the landmark school race case decided the last day of the term, the court declared unconstitutional a specific abortion procedure, made it harder to sue for pay discrimination, imposed a limit on free speech rights of students, and loosened a federal restriction on campaign issue ads that run before elections. All those decisions were 5-4 votes, and the court's fault line now seems clearly set.
Professor ROY SCHOTLAND, Georgetown University: The splits are sharper, and I'm afraid we'd all have to say more bitter than they've been for quite a while.
WILLIAMS: In fact, a third of this term's cases were decided 5-4, the highest share in a decade. And in every one of those split decisions, Anthony Kennedy was the only justice to vote in the majority every time. The court leans more to the right now partly because he tends to vote more often with the conservatives than Sandra Day O'Connor did when she was the swing vote. And legal scholars say the court's new chief justice, John Roberts, has turned out to be more conservative than even some of the court's liberals thought he would be based on his past legal work and confirmation hearing.
Professor DANIEL MARCUS, American University: I don't think they expected to have him on their side as a regular matter, but I think the consistency of his conservative voting on the court has been a disappointment to them.
WILLIAMS: With a presidential campaign coming up, it's unlikely any justice would choose to retire in an election year. So this divided court will not soon change. Pete Williams, NBC News, at the Supreme Court.
—Brad Wilmouth is a news analyst at the Media Research Center.




PETE WILLIAMS: When the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional public school programs that enroll students based on their race, Justice Stephen Breyer spoke a line in dissent that could have summed up this entire term. "It's not often in the law," he said, "that so few have so quickly changed so much."














Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Who cares how conservative a
July 1, 2007 - 17:35 ET by Atomic CrusaderWho cares how conservative a liberal thinks you are? And vice versa. So much meaningliess mush from the MSM, thanks again Pete. No agenda. Right.
Halleluyah!
July 1, 2007 - 17:36 ET by c5thenI pray for the day when we can read a headline and listen to an indignant reporter tell the world that the horrible act of abortion has been decared unconstitutional.
Thank you, Mr. Roberts and Mr. Alito
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic
Roberts
July 1, 2007 - 17:48 ET by allanfIt is nice to have four justices who don't care what the New York Times editorial board says. Souter and Stevens both appointed by Republican's have turned out to be two of the most liberal.
I suppose NBC "News" :pieces such as this one would be exempt from the new "Fairness Doctrine"
It's nice to have judges who
July 1, 2007 - 17:50 ET byIt's nice to have judges who believe that the Constitution has meaning.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
SC: Best one liner in decades
July 2, 2007 - 08:03 ET by reelman46By Bill Mears, (biased) CNN Washington Bureau
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A bitterly divided
U.S. Supreme Court on Thursday issued what is likely to be a landmark
opinion — ruling that race cannot be a factor in the assignment of
children to public schools.
The court struck down public school choice plans in Seattle,
Washington, and Louisville, Kentucky, concluding they relied on an
unconstitutional use of racial criteria, with the 5-4 vote reflecting
the deep legal and social divide over the issue of race and education.
Similar plans already in place or being proposed across the country
could be in danger as a result of the ruling, which would sharply limit
the power of local governments to achieve diversity using race-based
criteria.
A conservative majority led by Chief Justice John Roberts said other
means besides race considerations should be used to achieve diversity
in schools.
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race,” Roberts wrote.
But supporters of the school choice plans found some hope in Justice Anthony Kennedy’s concurring opinion.
While finding the two particular plans were unconstitutional, Kennedy
said race could still be used in narrow circumstances to ensure
integrated schools.
“A district may consider it a compelling interest to achieve a diverse student population,” he said.
More than a half-century after the high court outlawed segregation in
public schools, the justices were deeply divided over one controversial
outgrowth of that decision: What role race should play, if any, in
assigning students to competitive spots in elementary and secondary
schools. (Watch how the ruling may indicate the court is at war with itself)
CRAWFISH NOTE: See the usual CNN bias in this report?
Was the court “bitter” when 5 men voted for abortion (based upon the
lie she was raped)? Was it “at war with itself”? Was any hope found in
the dissenting opinions? Did I mention sports like basketball are never
the subject of liberal race-tinkering these days? Guess not. Is there
any aspect of the culture liberals don’t want to micromanage? Gee, I
think the one sentence by CJ Roberts simply blows away all the liberal
baloney. What an irrefutable line!
Doug Schexnayder, Ph.D.
(theconservativecrawfish)
}}----> allanf
July 1, 2007 - 20:22 ET by Cool ArrowLet's play a variation of our favorite game.
What if a Democrat President had been so regularly and often mocked by his SCOTUS appointees?
A whole nuther method of choosing Justices would have been Amended to the Constitution by now, complete with sworn "for instances" binding the prospective Justice to future decisions.
It's amazing how you can go f
July 1, 2007 - 17:51 ET by Mica the MagnificentIt's amazing how you can go from a Bush '41' pentagon spokesman to jerk in 16 years. Thanks, Pete.
Dr. King said we must judge people by the content of their character and not the color of their skin. We will march if there is any discrimination based on skin color. However, enrolling students based on their skin color is o-k and should continue forever - - Liberal logic at its best
I don't know what happened to
July 1, 2007 - 20:06 ET by Gat New YorkI don't know what happened to him? It is one thing to be fair and present both sides, but for a conservative (or former) to present the opposing side and never mention the one you are (were) on is ridiculous.
WILLIAMS: So this divided cou
July 1, 2007 - 17:52 ET by general companyWILLIAMS: So this divided court will not soon change.
Since when has the court NOT been divided? Isn't that the whole point of having it? Also when the ACLU gets involved it is rarely to protect anyone's civil liberties. Usually just the opposite. Both ruling are good for civil liberties, no wonder they are against it!
Since when has the court NO
July 1, 2007 - 22:16 ET by motherbeltSince when has the court NOT been divided? Isn't that the whole point of having it?
Well, having a divided court was fine when they had Sandra Day O'Connor, the "swing vote", who, more often than not, would swing to the left. And although it handed down divided decisions, it was not usually described as a "divided" court when the fifth vote went the liberals' way.
}}----> I remember motherbelt
July 1, 2007 - 22:20 ET by Cool ArrowWhen O'onnor was on the bench it was a resounding defeat for Republicans especially stinging as the swing vote was a Reagan appointee.
It all comes crashing back.
On Chris Wallace's program
July 1, 2007 - 17:58 ET by BondPlainBondOn Chris Wallace's program this morning, the panel of Brit, Mara, Bill, and Juan were discussing, in what I found to be a very illuminating way, the very narrow scope of these rulings by the Supreme Court. The Conservatives on the panel "got it", the Left? Not so much. The "meat of the matters" were not affected.
But, what struck me most was a closing comment by Juan Williams regarding, specifically, the ruling about late-term abortion. The ruling did not, sadly, make abortion illegal. But the Left would have you believe it damn near did! He said with a heavy and sad sigh, while shaking his head in complete and utter disbelief, something very close to the effect of, "Many women are going to be very angry over this one."
Many women, Juan?
It has always been my understanding that late-term abortion was only performed when the mother's health/life was in serious danger. Do headaches and feigned temporary mental illnesses equal health/life threatening situations? Do many women have abortions late-term as a regular practice? Is that why many of them will be angry? I do not understand how Williams could say "many women will be angry about this one," and illustrated to me how hard the Left is pushing their agenda on America.
Everything the Left "reports" is out-of-context. Everything. The deliberate deletion of the nuance and the finesse of any newsworthy story is pervasive throughout their ranks. They know the whole truth is not being reported and they do it anyway.
}}----> bond
July 1, 2007 - 19:05 ET by Cool ArrowJuan is a soul in flux. He's recently discovered the Hooded Democrats' plan to keep African Americans in bondage. He's really wrestling with that one.
His next epiphany will be discovering the genocide known as abortion on demand. I don't think he's yet aware the Hooded Democrats view it as a solution to African American pregnancies.
BondPlainBond: Everything the
July 1, 2007 - 19:38 ET by general companyBondPlainBond: Everything the Left "reports" is out-of-context. Everything.
That's why we must expose and fight it. The more they say it the more folks believe it.Cool Arrow : Juan is a soul in flux.
I used to think he had some content, but lately he has proven to be another dog chasing tail liberal
Just once I would like to s
July 2, 2007 - 06:58 ET by motherbeltJust once I would like to see someone ask one of these pro-partial-birth-abortion liberals: What condition in a mother cannot be remedied by means other than a partial-birth abortion?
The answer has to be: the condition that the mother simply does not want the baby.
I'd love to see a an honest liberal admit that.
an honest liberal There's
July 2, 2007 - 07:01 ET by Free Stinkeran honest liberal
There's an oxymoron. ;-)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Fred Thompson and Ann Coulter walk into a bar. The bar is instantly destroyed because that much awesome cannot be contained in one building.
Wah!
July 1, 2007 - 18:54 ET by nkviking75How are 5-4 decisions sharper now than 5-4 rulings were before Roberts and Alito were on the court? Oh, yeah, the libs are whining more dramatically now.
When you put the clowns in charge, don't be surprised when a circus breaks out.
and the liberals considered
July 2, 2007 - 06:59 ET by motherbeltand the liberals considered 5-4 a "consensus" back then. LOL
What about the court's revers
July 1, 2007 - 19:19 ET by rbosqueWhat about the court's reversal to pro-abortion & civil rights in the 70's? Wasn't the court reversing THEN?
Idiot left.
The Warren court was just fol
July 1, 2007 - 19:27 ET byThe Warren court was just following precedent
“The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.” -Chief Justice John Roberts
Oh but it is okay to discrimi
July 2, 2007 - 03:27 ET by mostlymoderateOh but it is okay to discriminate on the basis of race, so long as you are a minority. It all goes back to the "N" word argument. Some people can say it, others cannot. That simple.
I don't even consider myself
July 2, 2007 - 03:24 ET by mostlymoderateI don't even consider myself "conservative" or "liberal". However, I DO see the US Supreme Court doing things they should have done a LONG time ago. Abortion is the killing of a human being, pure and simple. Sending a white kid 45 minutes away on a bus to a distant grade-school in order to fill a racial quota is WRONG. I think I like this court. The only problems I have with it is the eminent-domain decision a few years back...NOBODY should be able to take your land unless there is an EXTREMELY important reason for doing so. my two cents... :-)
Pete has a nice combover.
July 2, 2007 - 07:45 ET by Dave659Pete has a nice combover.
Supreme Court Shift to the Right
July 2, 2007 - 11:46 ET by merlin61They just can't stand that the Supreme Court is now making decisions that are not "liberal" and make common sense. Go conservatives!!!!!
And legal scholars say the co
July 2, 2007 - 11:52 ET by Jack BauerThat's kinda funny, because Sandra Day O'Connor and Anthony Kennedy turned out to be more liberal that even some of the court's conservatives thought they would be based on their past legal work and confirmation hearing.
I guess it true -- what goes around comes around.
Right, Jack....payback's a
July 2, 2007 - 12:33 ET by motherbeltRight, Jack....payback's a bi*ch. LOL