“A More or Less Perfect Union” is a three-part series, produced by Free to Choose Network, that will air on various PBS stations across the nation starting in February. The documentary is a personal exploration of the U.S. Constitution by Justice Douglas Ginsburg, who served on the U.S. Court of Appeals D.C. Circuit and is now a senior justice on the court.



Appearing on CBS This Morning on Monday to tout his new book on Sandra Day O’Connor, author Evan Thomas hailed the former Supreme Court justice as a “conservative Republican” because she voted in favor of abortion and affirmative action. Talking to co-host Norah O’Donnell, the former Newsweek editor hyped, “She preserved affirmative action and abortion for 25 years. That is no small thing. You know? Conservatives thought when she got on the Court, those things are gone. Those are the bete noire of the right wing.” 



Evan Thomas was on MSNBC's Morning Joe on Monday to talk about his latest book, First: Sandra Day O'Connor: An Intimate Portrait of the First Woman Supreme Court Justice. In particular, the former Newsweek editor was enthralled with O'Connor's liberal views on affirmative action and abortion.



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)



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:



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.



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."



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.: