Just as the liberal media greet Antonin Scalia as some sort of Supreme Court supervillain, they lionize Ruth Bader Ginsburg as a superhero. A gushy new book spinning off of the Internet meme of the “Notorious RBG” is making a splash in the liberal media. The New York Times hailed it as “an artisanal hagiography, a frank and admiring piece of fan nonfiction.” On Monday night’s All Things Considered, NPR court reporter Nina Totenberg filed a completely one-sided promotional segment on the liberal “fan nonfiction.”
Ruth Bader Ginsburg
By Curtis Houck | March 6, 2015 | 4:41 PM EST
During his opening monologue on Thursday’s Tonight Show, host Jimmy Fallon made a few jests toward Vice President Joe Biden and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and each of their chances of winning the 2016 presidential election. Fallon began the gag by playing a clip of Clinton speaking to the abortion group EMILY’s List on Tuesday night and asking if they “someday want to see a woman president of the United States of America” to which “the crowd,” Fallon said, “went crazy.”
By Scott Whitlock | February 17, 2015 | 9:43 AM EST
The liberal journalists at MSNBC used much of an exclusive interview with Supreme Court Justice Rather Bader Ginsburg to fixate on whether the elderly judge will retire and let Barack Obama name her replacement. Anchor Rachel Maddow referred to it as the “awkward question that has lingered over the final two years” of Obama’s presidency.
By Chuck Norris | October 7, 2014 | 10:25 PM EDT
Rush Limbaugh was right in saying that Attorney General Eric Holder's resignation is not in any way a simple bon voyage. Rather, it is a deliberate ploy to maneuver him into an even greater place of influence, possibly even the Supreme Court.
By Jack Coleman | January 28, 2014 | 5:08 PM EST
How rare to hear anything rational and compassionate from the left when it comes to abortion.
A seldom-seen departure from this persistent dynamic was heard on libtalker Thom Hartmann's radio show yesterday during a discussion with one of his callers. (Audio after the jump)
Slanted ABCNews.com Marks Roe Decision by Worrying About How It Might Complicate Total 'Gay Marriage' Victory
By Tim Graham | January 22, 2013 | 7:31 PM EST
Supreme Court reporter Ariane deVogue of ABCNews.com covered the 40th anniversary of the Roe v. Wade abortion decision in a strange and very slanted way: in light of how an "abortion backlash persists" and the high court will rule on “gay marriage” in the coming months. At this point, her liberal experts are willing to admit Roe was too broadly decided – at least in terms of how it unintentionally spurred a vibrant pro-life movement and elected conservatives like Ronald Reagan to office.
All of deVogue’s quoted experts were looking for a way for the Supreme Court to give the leftist LGBT lobbyists a victory without helping conservatives in any political way:
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):
Justice Scalia 'Went Too Far' Talking Immigration, But Ginburg's Partial-Birth Abortion Rant Was Welcomed by NYTimes
By Clay Waters | June 28, 2012 | 1:43 PM EDT On the eve of the Supreme Court's monumental decision on Obama-care Thursday morning, New York Times reporter Ethan Bronner chided Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia for politicizing the bench in "A Dissent By Scalia Is Criticized As Political." But when liberal Justices get political, they are "'passionate and pointed" and finding their own voice.
By Paul Wilson | May 8, 2012 | 11:07 AM EDT
Perhaps it’s unrealistic to expect history textbooks to present and analyze events and epochs with complete objectivity. But it’s entirely reasonable to demand that they don’t actively reinforce the news media’s liberal bias when it comes to recent history and individuals who are still alive and active in shaping that history.
Yet commonly used American history textbooks have eschewed historical analysis when discussing recent Supreme Court justices, and in its place substituted partisan political commentary.
By Tom Blumer | February 4, 2012 | 10:35 AM EST
Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, on a trip underwritten by the U.S. State Department (aren't justices expected to keep their distances from the government to protect their perceived impartiality?), was in Egypt on Wednesday at a Cairo University law school seminar. While there, according to the Associated Press's Mark Sherman, she told students that (in Sherman's words) "she was inspired by last year's protests that led to the end of Hosni Mubarak's regime" and to speak to them (in her words) "during this exceptional transitional period to a real democratic state." The news that Muslim Brotherhood and Salafist parties now control about 75% of the seats in the country's parliament seems not to have registered with Ginsburg or Sherman -- or, for that matter, the State Department.
Sherman's AP story failed to note what Ms. Ginsburg said about the U.S. Constitution in an Egyptian TV interview, as did virtually all of the rest of the establishment press. ABC's Ariane de Vogue is currently the most notable exception, but as readers will see, she clearly buried the lede. Here are key paragraphs from her report (the related video is at Hot Air; the relevant portion begins at the 9:28 mark; bolds are mine):
By Mark Finkelstein | June 21, 2011 | 7:51 AM EDT
On Fox News this weekend, Jon Stewart famously denied that the New York Times pushes a liberal agenda. Perhaps the man from Comedy Central sees the paper as "moderate." After all, the Times itself apparently doesn't believe there are any liberals on the Supreme Court. In an editorial today, the paper described Ruth Bader-Ginsburg and every other member of her wing of the Court, as "moderate."
The Times' mind-boggling notion of what constitutes a "moderate" came in its editorial blasting the Supreme Court's decision of yesterday throwing out a huge class-action sex-discrimination case against Wal-Mart.
Here's the relevant excerpt from the editorial [emphasis added]:
Harvard Law Prof to Justices Ginsburg & Breyer: Retire Now Before You Drop Dead During Republican Administration
By P.J. Gladnick | April 28, 2011 | 12:36 PM EDT Didn't Harvard Law Professor Randall Kennedy get the word? Barack Obama's re-election is all but guaranteed if you believe the liberal mainstream media. Just today the CNBC head of news reported the belief that Obama's re-election would be guaranteed by the actions of the Fed. So why the concern about the health of Supreme Court Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer? Could it be that Kennedy doesn't quite (GASP!) believe in the political invincibility of the Lightworker?
Apparently such "heretical" thoughts must have occurred to Professor Kennedy judging by his New Republic article in which he urges the two aging justices to retire now because of the inference that they could die during a Republican administration elected next year and be replaced by (EEK!) conservatives. Of course, Kennedy tries, not too successfully, to be delicate in his suggestion:
Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer should soon retire. That would be the responsible thing for them to do. Both have served with distinction on the Supreme Court for a substantial period of time; Ginsburg for almost 18 years, Breyer for 17. Both are unlikely to be able to outlast a two-term Republican presidential administration, should one supersede the Obama administration following the 2012 election. What’s more, both are, well, old: Ginsburg is now 78, the senior sitting justice. Breyer is 72.