The Supreme Court made two important political rulings this week -- on “gerrymandering” and a proposed citizenship question for the U.S. Census, and the New York Times gave them lead story status Friday under the banner headline, “Court, Ruling 5-4, Gives Green Light To Gerrymander.” Reporters Michael Wines portrayed Democrats as victims of Republican perfidy: "...the Republicans’ flouting of the rule book is already prompting Democratic talk of similarly tough tactics like packing the Supreme Court."
As Democrats make hay out of the potential “obstruction of justice” details in the Mueller report and ponder impeachment proceedings, the New York Times is taking a much more enthusiastic line on impeaching a president than it did the last time it was done, to Democrat Bill Clinton, in 1999. Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Nicholas Fandos reported on Thursday’s front page under a headline suggesting Democrats would only be upholding their sacred duty by impeaching Trump: “Impeachment Divides a Party Balancing Duty With Danger.”
There is a pernicious media trend to treat ordinary partisan things as out of the ordinary and a danger when conservatives do them. One offender is New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak. Recently he worried about the Supreme Court’s legitimacy, now that it was finally leaning somewhat rightward. He exhibited a sudden concern about the ordinary partisan phenomenon of “judge shopping,” which liberal lawyers have been doing for years (as Liptak himself admits). But now it’s a “problem” in “How Judge Shopping in Texas Led to Ruling Against Health Law.”
New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak sent up a warning flare for Chief Justice John Roberts from the front page of Monday’s New York Times: It would be “dangerous” for the Supreme Court to be seen as conservative. The headline: “As Supreme Court Tips Right, Chief Justice Steers to Center." patting Roberts on the back for his perceived shunning of his more right-leaning Justice colleagues. The Court’s “legitimacy” is a new concern for the media, which for decades was used to it making “progressive” rulings that furthered the liberal agenda without Democrats having to mess with passing actual legislation.
Brett Kavanaugh may have won his Supreme Court nomination, but New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak tried to defuse the excitement on the front page of Sunday’s paper: “Confirmation Battle May Have Eroded the Public Trust.” Now that conservatives have an apparent majority, the Supreme Court is now suddenly “injured and diminished.” Liptak also warned with this liberal talking point: "It cannot help the court’s reputation that a third of its male justices have been questioned about sexual misconduct."
Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak was brazen in advancing a particularly audacious partisan argument -- that getting angry at being called a rapist by millions of people means you lack judicial temperament – on the front of Saturday’s New York Times: “Nominee’s Diatribe Poses Threat To Court’s Neutrality, Some Fear.” The online headline added an adjective: “A Bitter Nominee, Questions of Neutrality, and a Damaged Supreme Court.” Occasional columnist Roger Cohen advanced a similar phony argument in more virulent, racial terms.
New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak was harsh on Trump’s Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh, suggesting his testimony before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week had no redeeming interest. Sunday’s front-page analysis by Liptak appeared under the harsh headline “A Simple Script: Saying Nothing, Over and Over.” The Times was far more accepting and excusing of evasive testimony from Obama's nominees.
New York Times reporters Michael Shear and Adam Liptak’s review of Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh and his involvement in Ken Starr’s independent counsel investigation of President Bill Clinton, made the front page of Sunday’s edition. It conveniently served as a defense of the Clintons against the “puritanical” “hatred” of Republicans: “Court Pick, Soldier in the Battle to Impeach Clinton, Has Regrets.” The reporters's opening and closing quotes are from former Clinton adviser current Chicago mayor Rahm Emanuel, surely a nonpartisan source of objective wisdom on the matter at hand.
The front page of Sunday’s New York Times brought the expected comprehensive dissection of President Trump’s second Supreme Court justice nominee, Judge Brett Kavanaugh, in 4,500 words: “Trump’s Choice: Beltway Insider Born And Bred – Father Was A Lobbyist – Supreme Court Nominee Is Being Promoted as Business Friendly.” A photo caption online made the ideological toneclear: “The Supreme Court nomination of Judge Brett M. Kavanaugh, center with Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell and Vice President Mike Pence, is the culmination of a 30-year conservative movement to shift the judiciary to the right.”
A few Supreme Court cases just failed to go the left’s way, and now they are trashing the First Amendment they once revered in such morally preening fashion. New York Times Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak gave the reversal his seal of approval in a long lead story for Sunday’s front page: “How Free Speech Was Weaponized By Conservatives.” What began in a free-speech backlash by the paper against the Citizens United decision, which lifted the ban on independent political expenditures by corporations and unions, is even more robust now that some influential First Amendment rulings are going the "wrong" way.
Underlining how the liberal worldview has soaked through every section of the newspaper, reporter Melanie Ryzik has a full-page spread in Sunday’s New York Times, “The Supreme Court’s Ninja Warrior – Ruth Bader Ginsburg uses her popularity for fun and progress.” The paper has carefully nurtured the liberal meme of Justice Ginsburg as superheroine. It already covered this silliness in February, when the paper’s Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak descended into the pop-culture hagiography.
Supreme Court reporter Adam Liptak was quite aggrieved in his "Sidebar" column about a decision involving allegations of excessive force against an Arizona cop. Liptak couldn’t have made it more clear whose side he was on, and focused almost solely on the two liberal dissents, in “Supreme Court Sides With Police Officer Accused of Using Excessive Force.” Liptak devoted 10 paragraphs of the 20-paragraph story to Sotomayor’s dissent, heavy on impassioned quotes, compared to a single paragraph, without quotations, summing up the majority.