NPR's Nina Totenberg Pretends John Roberts Is 'Consistently Conservative'

October 6th, 2015 10:54 AM

As the Supreme Court term begins, NPR court correspondent Nina Totenberg played dumb on Monday’s Morning Edition, much like Adam Liptak at The New York Times. Why would conservatives dislike “consistently conservative” chief justice John Roberts?

Desperately employing rickety rationales twice to uphold Obamacare somehow doesn’t undermine “consistency.” Totenberg forgot Roberts being hailed by Time magazine in 2012 as similar to  Beethoven, Willie Mays, and King Solomon: “Not since King Solomon offered to split the baby has a judge engineered a slicker solution to a bitterly divisive dispute.”

This is how memory-challenged NPR began on Monday:

RENEE MONTAGNE: It would not have seemed possible when John Roberts ascended to the chief justice of the Supreme Court. But as the high court's new term begins today, the chief justice, despite his overall conservative record on the bench, has become a punching bag for candidates vying for the Republican presidential nomination. NPR's legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg reports.

NINA TOTENBERG: Presidential candidates have often criticized the court, pledging that they would appoint a different kind of justice. It's been a half-century, though, since politicians have put a chief justice by name in the crosshairs of criticism. And what is puzzling about the Roberts's critique is that this George W. Bush appointee was hailed by the right when he was appointed 10 years ago. And he has a consistently conservative record on most issues.

Totenberg seems to be referring to “Impeach Earl Warren” cries in the 1960s. But can she seriously claim that Chief Justice Rehnquist wasn’t “in the crosshairs of criticism” after Bush v. Gore?

She claimed “On only one flashpoint subject has he parted ways with some or all of the court's most conservative members -- Obamacare.” As if that one was insignificant. Mark Levin declared "Our constitutional process is dead."

Imagine a liberal Chief Justice who voted to repeal Roe v. Wade or voted against a mandate for gay marriage. Would Democrats (and their media allies) still call them “consistently liberal”?

Liberals may have been delighted by the end of the last term in June, but Totenberg insisted there were conservative horrors to come:

TOTENBERG: Most experts see those liberal victories, however, as a product of an idiosyncratic mix of cases. And this term, the issues play much more to the strength of the court's conservatives. There are cases that could further cut back affirmative action in higher education, hobble or destroy public employee unions and make it easier to limit voter participation in elections.

Typically, the NPR reporter didn't interview any conseratives for analysis, just her former intern Tom Goldstein of the liberal SCOTUSBlog. (She doesn't usually disclose their tight relationship. Now a leading Supreme Court lawyer, Totenberg helped him get a clerkship with liberal Judge Patricia Wald, a one-time favorite on Democratic wish lists for the high court. Goldstein and his wife Amy Howe named their baby Nina after her.)