BCT Editorial – 3/19/06

This page was last updated on March 19, 2006.

Siamese twins; Editorial; Beaver County Times; March 19, 2006.

If you accept this editorial at face value, the judiciary cannot be criticized, if you are a Republican. If you are a Democrat, you can refer to “conservative” justices as “embarrassments,” “incompetents,” “Nazis,” and “Neanderthals” and that appears to be OK to the editorial author.

The editorial also tries to conflate criticism with threatening violence in an attempt to squash criticism of liberal justices.

I believe threatening violence against anyone cannot be tolerated. The editorial author, however, appears to believe it’s a problem only when wackos threaten liberal Supreme Court justices.

Finally, you’ll note this editorial provides an example of media bias by omission. It omits any mention of liberals as critics or conservatives as targets. The intent is to lead readers to believe the only criticism of the judiciary is from the right and all targets are liberals and so-called “moderates.”

Below is a detailed critique of the subject editorial.

“Violent language and violent behavior go hand in hand

“Words matter.

“The Associated Press reports Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg said she and former Justice Sandra Day O’Connor have been the targets of death threats from the ‘irrational fringe’ of society, people apparently spurred by Republican criticism of the high court.”

[RWC] Democrats don’t criticize the Supreme Court? Lest we forget, liberals talk a lot of trash.

Liberal Harvard Law professor Alan Dershowitz said, “[Supreme Court Justice] Clarence Thomas is the most incompetent, unqualified justice who ever served in my lifetime.”

On “Meet the Press,” Senate Minority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said of Justice Thomas, “I think that he has been an embarrassment to the Supreme Court. I think that his opinions are poorly written. I just don’t think that he’s done a good job as a Supreme Court justice.”

Senators Durbin (D-IL) and Kennedy (D-MA) referred to court nominees as “Nazis” and “Neanderthals.”

“Ginsburg revealed in a speech in South Africa last month that she and O’Connor were threatened a year ago by someone who called on the Internet for the immediate ‘patriotic’ killing of the justices.

“O’Connor hasn’t been silent either. The AP reports she has complained over the past few months that criticism, mainly by Republicans, is threatening judicial independence to deal with difficult issues.”

[RWC] The editorial author is attempting to conflate two entirely different subjects. What Justice Ginsburg referred to was definitely wrong and it was correct to be investigated. No one, including Supreme Court justices, should be threatened with violence.

What Justice O’Connor referred to was old-fashioned criticism. Folks, this is the United States of America. Perhaps Justice O’Connor forgot that. In what reality does anyone believe any branch of government should be above legitimate criticism? While there’s no question Republicans tend be against reading things into the Constitution and other laws that aren’t there, Republicans are not alone when it comes to criticizing the courts.

“According to Ginsburg, someone in a Web site chat room wrote: ‘Okay commandoes, here is your first patriotic assignment ... an easy one. Supreme Court Justices Ginsburg and O’Connor have publicly stated that they use (foreign) laws and rulings to decide how to rule on American cases. This is a huge threat to our Republic and Constitutional freedom. ... If you are what you say you are, and NOT armchair patriots, then those two justices will not live another week.’

“Why pay attention to some nutso who goes off the deep end over a 5-4 decision that barred the execution of juvenile killers?”

[RWC] Perhaps this is only a small point, but it appears Justice Ginsburg never said or implied in her speech that the chat room posting was in response to “a 5-4 decision that barred the execution of juvenile killers.” This has no impact on the wrongness of the chat room posting, but it appears to be a factual discrepancy.

“Because language such as this reflects an environment in which the center cannot hold. Attitudes like the one above leave no room for reasonable people to disagree reasonably. Extremism is a vice because it drives out reason.”

[RWC] When it comes to the Constitution, what is the “center?” I like Justice Scalia’s take in a 2005 speech. He said, “Now the Senate is looking for ‘moderate’ judges, ‘mainstream’ judges. What in the world is a moderate interpretation of a constitutional text? Halfway between what it says and what we’d like it to say?”

“This type of violent language is creeping into our national conversation. Conservative commentator Ann Coulter said earlier this year that Justice John Paul Stevens should be poisoned. She claimed she was joking, but some wacko out there might not share her finely honed sense of humor.”

[RWC] Nothing like taking comments out of context, is there? Reading the above paragraph, you would think Ms. Coulter just blurted out that Justice Stevens should poisoned and sometime later “claimed she was joking.” That was not the case.

During a speech she gave at Philander Smith College in January, Coulter opined that we need more conservative justices on the Supreme Court. She followed that up in her speech by saying, “We need somebody to put rat poisoning in Justice Stevens’ creme brulee. That’s just a joke, for you in the media.” While this doesn’t excuse Coulter’s poor (my personal opinion) use of “humor,” I believe the editorial intentionally misrepresented the circumstances of the comment.

Apparently the editorial author had no problem with the following statement by liberal USA Today columnist and talk show host Julianne Malveaux in reference to Justice Clarence Thomas. “You know, I hope his wife feeds him lots of eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart disease. Well, that’s how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible person.” Ms. Malveaux made this comment on the November 4, 1994, edition of the PBS show “To the Contrary.” You’ll also note Ms. Malveaux – unlike Ms. Coulter – wasn’t joking because she said, “that’s how I feel.”

“The nation’s judges certainly have taken notice of the danger they face. Attorney General Alberto Gonzales told The AP that three-fourths of the nation’s 2,200 federal judges have requested government-paid home security systems.

“Violent language and violent behavior are Siamese twins that can’t be separated. If we don’t learn to keep a civil tongue, we won’t have a civil society.”

[RWC] Maybe I missed them, but I don’t recall any editorials decrying violent speech by liberals against President Bush. Here’s an excerpt from a skit by host Randi Rhodes on liberal Air America last April. “A spoiled child is telling us our Social Security isn’t safe anymore, so he is going to fix it for us. Well, here’s your answer, you ungrateful whelp: [audio sound of four gunshots being fired.] Just try it, you little bastard. [audio of gun being cocked].”

And let’s not forget the books and plays talking about assassinating President Bush and/or VP Cheney, or the t-shirts that show Bush and Cheney in a gunsight.