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.



Since the 1980s, the well-worn liberal playbook is to claim that Republican appointees to the Supreme Court should be voted down as ideologues who are outside the judicial mainstream. The establishment media aids this tactic by often tagging GOP nominees as “conservative,” while ignoring — or even disputing — the liberal bent of Democratic nominees to the Court. True to form, ABC, CBS and NBC’s morning and evening broadcasts branded Judge Brett Kavanaugh a “conservative” a total of eleven times in the first 24 hours since his nomination by President Trump.



President Trump won’t officially announce his latest nominee to the U.S. Supreme Court until this evening, but it’s already easy to predict the liberal media’s spin. As with all recent Republican nominees, reporters will repeatedly label them as “conservative,” which will nicely reinforce the Democrats’ strategy to paint them as outside “the mainstream.” But when Democratic Presidents announce their Supreme Court nominees, those same reporters can’t find the words to call those choices “liberal.”



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.



To cap off Wednesday’s CBS Evening News, the network spotlighted a study by a pair of Northwestern University law professors who claim the United States Supreme Court is a sexist workplace based exclusively on who interrupts who. “And at the Supreme Court, women broke the glass ceiling. Now, if the men don’t mind, they’d like to have the floor,” argued Anchor Scott Pelley during the opening tease. When the segment finally rolled around at the end of the show, Pelley quipped that “The first amendment guarantees the right to free speech, but is there a constitutional right to finish a sentence?” 



With less than a week to go before the midterm elections arrive, David Firestone -- a member of the New York Times Editorial Board -- vented his anger in an attempt to diminish the influence the National Rifle Association has on the political process.

In an article entitled “The NRA's Instant Classic Attack Ads,” Firestone accused the national organization of producing false advertisements as part of its role as the “grand master” of fear, “which thrives on putting guns in nervous hands.”