Hundred years hence, liberals will still be whining about Bush v. Gore.
In a television appearance as inexplicable as first lady Michelle Obama announcing the Oscar for best picture, former Supreme Court justice Sandra Day O'Connor was among Rachel Maddow's guests last night, plugging her new book, "Out of Order: Stories from the History of the Supreme Court." (video clip after page break)
Sandra Day O'Connor
By Jack Coleman | March 5, 2013 | 7:40 PM EST
By Matthew Balan | March 4, 2013 | 3:41 PM EST
On Monday, CBS This Morning launched a week-long set of interviews for Women's History Month, but the majority of the women they picked for their list of "Eye Opening Women" are dedicated liberals, particularly on social issues. The morning newscast first conducted a fawning interview of former Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, who was part of the Supreme Court plurality that upheld the Roe v. Wade decision in 1992's Planned Parenthood v. Casey.
Five out of the eight remaining women featured for the series of interviews are all notables on the left side of the political spectrum. On Tuesday, anchors Charlie Rose and Norah O'Donnell will interview The Daily Beast's Tina Brown and Arianna Huffington, founder of far-left website The Huffington Post. Brown has a history of attacking conservatives. During a 2011 appearance on MSNBC's Morning Joe program, she likened tax hike opponents to terrorists:
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 Scott Whitlock | May 27, 2010 | 12:40 PM EDT
Good Morning America's George Stephanopoulos on Thursday touted Supreme Court collegiality from Justice Antonin Scalia as a real victory in the battle over Elena Kagan's nomination. Stephanopoulos enthused, "Justice Scalia, who is likely to be a conservative adversary if Kagan gets confirmed, pointed out that everybody on the bench now is a judge."
(Kagan is likely to be a conservative adversary? The ABC host appeared to be continuing the liberal talking point that the mind of Obama's nominee is somehow unknowable.)
Stephanopoulos eagerly quoted, "So, he went on to say, 'I'm happy to see that the latest nominee is not a federal judge and not a judge at all.' Of course, Kagan has gotten some criticism from some senators because she's not a judge."
By Warner Todd Huston | November 23, 2007 | 10:20 AM EST
I have to say, this little L.A.Times editorial really takes the cake for insensitivity. It should receive some sort of award for being one of the most gauche pieces I've seen from the extreme leftists masquerading as "journalists" for a long, long time. Yes, the Times deserves condemnation for exploiting someone's tragedy to make a mere political point.
In "Sandra Day O'Connor's loss, and ours," the Times laments that because of the former Justice's husband's Alzheimer's disease, Sandra Day quit the bench so we lost her to the court and that loss has resulted in the court being "radically tilted to the right." Imagine exploiting John O'Connor's disease like this? If a Republican had written this editorial, imagine the hate that would be spewed against him?
This is really a shocking editorial.: