New York Times Supreme Court correspondent Adam Liptak filed a liberal pleasing analysis Tuesday, fervently insisting Chief Justice John Roberts is a staunch conservative, despite what ridiculous right-wingers may think. His reported opinion piece, based on voting analysis by law professors, strained to show Roberts as a loyal conservative Justice, but the evidence is hardly as cut and dried as Liptak's charged tone would suggest. Liptak has always trended left, as when he faulted the "terse" old U.S. Constitution as outdated for failing to guarantee entitlements like health care.
Roberts Nomination
By Jack Coleman | September 15, 2015 | 11:21 AM EDT
Imagine if the presidents Bush had refrained from appointing David Souter and John Roberts to the Supreme Court, GOP presidential candidate Ted Cruz said before the Eagles Forum conference in St. Louis over the weekend. If the Bushes went with "rock-ribbed conservatives" instead, Cruz suggested, the high court would have rejected Obamacare and same-sex marriage.
Meet the Press moderator Chuck Todd took exception to Cruz's claim with a "fact check" that was lacking in a sorely needed element -- Todd citing where Cruz was wrong.
Veteran NYT Supreme Court Reporter Hits Its 'Steady Regression on Race,' 'Hijacking of the First Amendment'
By Clay Waters | October 3, 2014 | 8:32 AM EDT New York Times former Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse held a dubious celebration of Chief Justice John Roberts Jr. in her nytimes.com column, while attacking the Court’s "steady regression on race and its deregulatory hijacking of the First Amendment" and Justice Clarence Thomas's "full-steam-back-to-the-18th-century" approach to constitutional interpretation.
By Tim Graham | October 5, 2013 | 6:55 AM EDT
Richard Wolf of USA Today can’t use the word “left” to describe recent Supreme Court rulings, only “right.” It came in a story headlined “Supreme Court poised to tilt further to the right.”
When the Court tacks left, it’s a “blockbuster” term of “landmark" decisions. Wolf began: “After two blockbuster terms in which it saved President Obama's health care law and advanced the cause of same-sex marriage, the Supreme Court appears poised to tack to the right in its upcoming term on a range of social issues, from abortion and contraception to race and prayer.”
NBC's Pete Williams: Democrat 'More Likely to Appoint' 'Less Ideological' Judge - 'Somebody Near the Middle'
By Noel Sheppard | July 1, 2012 | 3:00 PM EDT Readers are advised to remove all food, fluids, and flammables from proximity to their computers before proceeding. You've been warned.
NBC News justice correspondent Pete Williams on this weekend's syndicated Chris Matthews Show actually said that when it comes to nominating judges, "A Democratic president is more likely to appoint somebody near the middle who is less ideological" (video follows with transcript and commentary):
By Jeffrey Meyer | June 29, 2012 | 3:44 PM EDT
Now that the Supreme Court has ruled ObamaCare constitutional, MSNBC has redoubled its efforts at promoting the president's signature legislative accomplishment to its audience. On Friday’s 2 p.m. Eastern NewsNation program, guest-host Thomas Roberts brought on a cancer survivor to fawn over Obama.
Natoma Canfield, who thankfully is cancer-free, was prompted by Roberts from every angle to praise Obama and go on at length about how much credit she gives to Obama for saving her life. Thomas then followed this up by telling his audience how Canfield is "one of the millions of Americans who have already benefitted from this law." [Video coming soon. MP3 audio here.]
By Mike Bates | March 17, 2011 | 6:43 PM EDT
The New York Times's Web site on Tuesday reported, "Former City Council Leader Avoids Prison for Tax Evasion." Andrew J. Stein didn't pay taxes on $1 million in income in 2008. His punishment: Three years' probation and 500 hours of community service.
Possibly Stein's cause was helped by Geraldo Rivera asking the judge for leniency. Or maybe the judge was impressed by Stein's cooperation; the story notes that he "also agreed to pay taxes for the years 2003 to 2008." Whatta guy!
The New York Times did omit at least one salient fact: Stein is a Democrat.
By Matthew Balan | January 3, 2011 | 6:44 PM EST
On Monday, TVNewser reported that John Roberts, who anchored CNN's American Morning from April 2007 until the end of 2010, will be joining Fox News as a national correspondent. Roberts, who joined CNN in 2006 after a 14-year career at CBS, had a reputation for liberal bias at both networks, particularly in his harsh labeling for Republicans/conservatives and his fawning over liberals.
Here are some examples of Roberts's most egregious bias compiled from the Media Research Center's archives, focusing primarily on his career on American Morning:
Cheerleading for Liberals
"Yeah, it is going to be a transformational primary here on the Democratic side of things. Do you get a sense that people are recognizing this idea of the grandeur of history involved here?"
-Roberts gushing over the "historic" nature of the race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination, February 1, 2008 edition of American Morning.
"I want to just stipulate at the beginning of this interview, we are declaring a Reverend Wright-free zone today. So, no questions about Reverend Wright. Our viewers want us to move on, so this morning we're going to move on. Is that okay with you?"
-Opening statement from May 5, 2008 interview of then-presidential candidate Barack Obama.
By Brent Bozell | October 27, 2010 | 12:28 PM EDT
National Public Radio’s firing of Juan Williams tells you all you need to know about the radical, and thoroughly intolerant, Left. Juan Williams is a liberal, but still, he isn’t liberal enough. The idea that he would acknowledge a mere thought of discomfort at the idea of people in “Muslim garb” on airplanes in a post-9/11 world became a firing offense. It didn’t matter that he prefaced it with all the perfunctory and politically correct disclaimers about not being a bigot and we shouldn’t blame all Muslims for terrorism.
Fired.
Today’s Left is void of any principles whatsoever. They can be as astonishingly offensive and insulting as they want toward Christians, and no one gets punished. The indefatigable Catholic League provides the documentation.
By Scott Whitlock | October 7, 2010 | 5:26 PM EDT
According to ABC's Juju Chang, "wedge issues" like gay marriage can be linked to the bullying of homosexual teens. On Thursday's Good Morning America, the news anchor connected the subject in a piece on why a "seemingly accepting society" would allow harassment.
The reporter complained, "But despite the progress, gay issues are wedge issues in this country. 29 states effectively ban gay marriage." Effectively banned? Without explaining the connection, she added, "And there's Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
In a follow-up segment, co-host Robin Roberts interviewed Harvard professor William Pollack and Jesse Tyler Ferguson, star of ABC's Modern Family, to talk about gay bullying. (It's interesting that the network chose a gay actor from ABC to talk about this issue and not one from NBC or CBS. Was this a discussion of a serious topic or promotion of a network sitcom?)
By Clay Waters | October 4, 2010 | 5:34 PM EDT 
Times Watch's new study "Supremely Slanted -- How the New York Times Pounds Conservatives and Coddles Liberals When Nominated for the Supreme Court," was discussed by Fox News contributor Liz Trotta on "America's News Headquarters" just before the one o'clock hour on Saturday afternoon.
After some discussion of a Gallup poll showing Americans have little trust in the mainstream media, host Uma Pemmaraju shifted the discussion to the new Supreme Court study from Times Watch. (Watch the video here.)
Times Watch's new study "Supremely Slanted -- How the New York Times Pounds Conservatives and Coddles Liberals When Nominated for the Supreme Court," was discussed by Fox News contributor Liz Trotta on "America's News Headquarters" just before the one o'clock hour on Saturday afternoon.After some discussion of a Gallup poll showing Americans have little trust in the mainstream media, host Uma Pemmaraju shifted the discussion to the new Supreme Court study from Times Watch. (Watch the video here.)
Fox News Host Uma Pemmaraju: "But there's another poll, out right now that looks at media behavior as well and specifically how the media handles the Supreme Court nominees, how are those related?"
Special Report: Supremely Slanted - How the NY Times Pounds Conservatives and Coddles Liberals on the Supreme Court
By Clay Waters | September 29, 2010 | 3:40 PM EDT 
As liberal Justice Elena Kagan takes her place on the Supreme Court next week, she could thank The New York Times for making her confirmation process smoother. Ever since Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork and he was rejected by the Senate in 1987 for his views and not his character or qualifications, confirmation battles for liberals have become less like judicial seminars and more like political campaigns. For almost 20 years, in this new era of activist groups and activist reporters, The New York Times has covered Supreme Court fights with a heavy finger on the scales of justice, tipping the balance. They have painted conservatives as highly controversial and dangerously ideological, while liberal nominees were presented as "brilliant" moderates who were only newsworthy in that they were often laudably "historic" choices, or, in Kagan's case, she was not only "brilliant," but "very funny, warm and witty."
For Supremely Slanted, Times Watch analyzed the arc of coverage over the last two decades and the last seven Supreme Court justices, from Clarence Thomas's nomination in 1991 to Elena Kagan's confirmation in 2010, and found stark differences in how the Times reported on the four Justices nominated by Democrats versus the three nominated by Republicans.
Times Watch examined every substantive New York Times news story on each nomination, starting with the official presidential announcement and ending with the Senate vote confirming the nominee to the Supreme Court. Among the findings:
A stark pro-Democratic double standard in labeling:
- The Times demonstrated a 10-1 disparity in labeling "conservative" justices nominated by Republicans compared to "liberal" ones nominated by Democrats.
- In all, the three Republican-nominated justices were labeled "conservative" 105 times, while the four justices nominated by Democrats were labeled liberal on just 14 occasions.