The Corner on National Review Online

Tuesday, September 26, 2006
The Corner on National Review Online: "Mainstream Media Biased? Noooo [John Podhoretz] Holy jamoley. Linda Greenhouse of the New York Times — the paper of record's beat reporter on the Supreme Court — just gave a talk at Harvard in which she basically said, 'Hello. My name is Linda, and I make The Nation look like the John Birch Society.' Every single time anyone tells you the New York Times isn't a left-wing organ from its news columns to its wedding pages, just send him this link."


Luther McLeod said...

"If I was the Washington bureau chief and she was my Supreme Court reporter, I might have to answer to the editors in L.A. for that," Nelson says. "But I would do my best to support her.

Asked if he would defend Greenhouse had she said something he disagreed with, however, Nelson laughed -- and said he would take issue if she had backed Bush policy."

Mind, set, game.

Well, it can't be more honest than that. I mean, yes it could be, but that is likely the closest we will see to an admission that the MSM will do anything to bring down the evil of the legally elected, by a majority of voters, representatives of this country. It may not be treason, but it would take a good lawyer to argue the difference.

It is truly their way or the highway. Individual voters are of no account, simply misguided, and not aware of the 'right'(left) way of looking at the world. What sanctimonious arrogance.

And of course, her bravery(?) in speaking 'truth to power' will win her many accolades among those who agree with her views. Those 'one worlders' who think the US is deserving of attacks on its sanctity. Who think we are no better, and actually much worse that any other government in the history of the world.


David Thomson said...

Linda Greenhouse's pro-abortion views are of secondary importance. The real problem is that she fails to understand judges should not make laws. This is the exclusive role of our elected officials. Roe vs. Wade and Griswold vs. Connecticut are horrible and irrational legal decisions even if you might agree with the results. For instance, I do agree with the substance of the latter decision---but I'm still appalled by the Supreme Court's disgraceful indifference to the wishes of the state's voters.

Seneca the Younger said...

Uh, David, it's kind of the Supreme Court's job to be indifferent to voters. We've got two branches that are necessarily sensitive to the majority --- we need one to, every so often, say "you can't vote an absurdity."

The problem is that being human, the SC is too often too sensitive to the majority, which leads to things like Dred Scott and the recent Kelo decision.