Tag Archives: kagan nomination

Bozell Denounces O’Keefe’s ‘Ugly, Dishonest and Filthy’ Stunt

The following is NewsBusters publisher and Media Research Center (MRC) founder Brent Bozell’s statement regarding news of James O’Keefe’s sting operation attempt to embarrass CNN. The MRC unequivocally denounces James O’Keefe for his attempted assault on CNN. It isn’t just childish and immature; it’s ugly, dishonest and filthy. There is no place in the conservative movement for this type of behavior and that’s exactly what I warned about in a commentary piece I submitted to CNN.com just two days ago. “Could the Citizen Journalist abuse the public trust?” I wrote in this piece that should run in the next few days. “Hypothetically, of course. Conservatives must all guard against this. Let there be scrutiny, by all means.” And I repeat: there must be scrutiny. Bottom line: We want nothing to do with O’Keefe or his dirty antics.

See more here:
Bozell Denounces O’Keefe’s ‘Ugly, Dishonest and Filthy’ Stunt

Special Report: Supremely Slanted – How the NY Times Pounds Conservatives and Coddles Liberals on the Supreme Court

As liberal Justice Elena Kagan takes her place on the Supreme Court next week, she could thank The New York Times for making her confirmation process smoother. Ever since Ronald Reagan nominated Robert Bork and he was rejected by the Senate in 1987 for his views and not his character or qualifications, confirmation battles for liberals have become less like judicial seminars and more like political campaigns. For almost 20 years, in this new era of activist groups and activist reporters, The New York Times has covered Supreme Court fights with a heavy finger on the scales of justice, tipping the balance. They have painted conservatives as highly controversial and dangerously ideological, while liberal nominees were presented as “brilliant” moderates who were only newsworthy in that they were often laudably “historic” choices, or, in Kagan’s case, she was not only “brilliant,” but “very funny, warm and witty.” For Supremely Slanted , Times Watch analyzed the arc of coverage over the last two decades and the last seven Supreme Court justices, from Clarence Thomas’s nomination in 1991 to Elena Kagan’s confirmation in 2010, and found stark differences in how the Times reported on the four Justices nominated by Democrats versus the three nominated by Republicans. Times Watch examined every substantive New York Times news story on each nomination, starting with the official presidential announcement and ending with the Senate vote confirming the nominee to the Supreme Court. Among the findings: A stark pro-Democratic double standard in labeling : The Times demonstrated a 10-1 disparity in labeling “conservative” justices nominated by Republicans compared to “liberal” ones nominated by Democrats. In all, the three Republican-nominated justices were labeled “conservative” 105 times , while the four justices nominated by Democrats were labeled liberal on just 14 occasions . Two dueling headlines demonstrate the Times’ slanted reporting in a nutshell. On June 27, 1993, The New York Times greeted Democrat Bill Clinton’s nominee, the liberal Ruth Bader Ginsburg, former chief litigator of the ACLU’s women’s rights project and a strong defender of unrestricted abortion rights, as a moderate: “Balanced Jurist at Home in the Middle.” On July 28, 2005, the Times welcomed Republican George W. Bush’s nomination of John Roberts, a former associate counsel to President Ronald Reagan, by summing up his judicial philosophy: “An Advocate for the Right.”            A vast difference in intensity of coverage: Besides the slant in labeling, there was a vast difference in the volume and intensity of coverage of conservative nominees compared to those on the left. While conservative nominations are cast as feverish battles over ideology and the future trend of the court, the Times withholds the drama and controversy when it comes to Democrats. The paper has done its best to drain the drama from Democratic nomination fights, pushing them as foregone conclusions. Republican nominees received intense coverage. Clarence Thomas was the subject of 81 stories through his initial hearings — not including the massive coverage after law professor Anita Hill made her unsubstantiated sexual harassment allegations. John Roberts was the subject of 107 stories, Samuel Alito 92. Democratic nominees received far less coverage. Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s nomination was featured in a flimsy 22 Times stories, while Clinton’s other pick Stephen Breyer was dealt with in a mere 20 stories. Obama nominee Sonia Sotomayor was a partial exception to the rule with 85 stories, but many of those keyed on the fact Sotomayor was a hometown pick. Elena Kagan also failed to excite interest, featuring in only 43 stories. Even taking into account that fewer stories for Democratic nominees should on average result in fewer ideological labels, the disparity was still sharp. While Democratic nominees were labeled liberal an average of once every 12 stories, Republican nominees were tagged conservative once every 2.66 stories . For instance, while Clarence Thomas was tagged conservative at an average rate of roughly once in every two stories (44 labels out of 81 stories), Sonia Sotomayor received a liberal label just once in every 17 stories (5 labels out of 85 stories). The study concludes that a crucial part of the “confirmation process” is the journalism that is committed (or omitted) by national newspapers like the Times . Newspaper reporters and editors aren’t writing the first draft of history. They’re trying to make history happen with a happy ending for liberals. You can begin reading the full report here , or read a formatted PDF version here .

Read more from the original source:
Special Report: Supremely Slanted – How the NY Times Pounds Conservatives and Coddles Liberals on the Supreme Court

Open Thread: Sen. Sessions’s Closing Statement on Kagan Nomination

The battle against the nomination was always a losing battle, but Sen. Jeff Sessions, R-Ala., made an impassioned defense of his position. What do you think the effect of Kagan’s nomination will be on the court? Will it change its makeup significantly? 

Originally posted here:
Open Thread: Sen. Sessions’s Closing Statement on Kagan Nomination

Bozell Column: Kagan’s Comedy Is News?

The shallow and promotional TV coverage of Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings illustrated once again how the shamelessly ABC, CBS, and NBC shape the political Play-Doh they offer to the American people as “news.” First, there was the amount of coverage.Let’s put it this way: “coverage” is the wrong word. Entire days of hearings, filled with tough exchanges with Republicans on issues like the military, “gay marriage,” and abortion were swept under the rug. Instead, the one talking point every viewer was supposed to remember was this: Kagan is funny! She is really, really funny! At one point in the hearings, they discussed the Obama administration’s very unfunny failure to stop the Christmas Day bomber from almost blowing up a plane as it landed in Detroit. That somehow turned into a joke about Kagan’s Jewishness. Sen. Lindsey Graham, who has seemed desperate to ingratiate himself with Obama’s nominees, set Kagan up to joke that she probably spent Christmas at a Chinese restaurant. If Kagan were trying out for the TV show “Last Comic Standing,” that would seem like a very stale old joke. But the networks were looking for anything in these hearings that (a) wouldn’t bore their dumbest viewer and (b) made Kagan look good. So The Joke was the top story. The fawning was out of control.The networks audaciously boasted that Kagan was so funny that “Saturday Night Live” could not do her justice. On ABC’s “Good Morning America” on June 30, news anchor Juju Chang hailed Kagan’s “lively sense of humor” and then asked co-hosts George Stephanopoulos and Elizabeth Vargas “Who is going to play her in the SNL skit?” Vargas replied: “I don’t think they could be as funny as Elena Kagan was!” On July 2, CBS’s “The Early Show” was still touting the comedy gold. Co-host Harry Smith noted “She was downright funny.” Ana Marie Cox, a former Air America radio host and writer for GQ magazine, called it “a Saturday Night Live skit made live,” whatever that means. She thought it was made more perfect that former SNL writer and Sen. Al Franken is on the Judiciary Committee. Liberal radio host Jane Pratt completed the support circle: “Her joke was good, the Chinese food joke was good.” But, they had no interest in substance that might underline just how radical Kagan’s positions might be. The networks almost completely ignored Kagan’s key role in the Clinton White House efforts to promote the monstrous act of partial-birth abortion. CNSNews.com reported that in 1996, the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists (ACOG) sent the Clinton White House a proposed draft statement on partial-birth abortion that declared a panel they convened “could identify no circumstances” under which this skull-puncturing and skull-vacuuming procedure would be “the only option” to save a woman’s life or preserve her health.” On December 13, 1996, Kagan wrote this language would be a “disaster” if released publicly, since it clearly contradicted what President Clinton had claimed. Kagan wrote to ACOG’s associate director of government relations with suggested prose the medical group could use. Partial-birth abortion, she claimed “may be the best or most appropriate procedure in a particular circumstance to save the life or preserve the health of a woman.” Weeks later, ACOG’s public statement carried those exact words from the White House. Three years later, Justice Stephen Breyer repeated those same words in declaring Nebraska’s partial-birth abortion ban unconstitutional. Douglas Johnson of the National Right to Life Committee said that armed with these documents, “it appears that Kagan was perhaps the key strategist in blocking enactment of the partial-birth abortion ban act.” He believes that Kagan had “her hands on this from the beginning to the end.”A scandal?  A controversy? A story ?Only CBS legal reporter Jan Crawford came anywhere close on the “CBS Evening News.” She played a snippet of Sen. Orrin Hatch pressing Kagan to admit the notes to ACOG were in her handwriting, but the CBS viewer saw just seconds of this exchange with zero context what these two people were discussing — other than the generic topic of abortion. The grisly specifics were omitted. This example only underlines how anyone who wants to follow weighty issues of public policy, including Supreme Court jurisprudence, should never rely on network television. These networks gave much more time and loving care to England’s Prince Harry falling off a horse on a visit to New York. That is the intellectual depth the public should expect from the airheaded TV “news” elite — at least when Democrats are the ones changing the Supreme Court for the next two or three decades.

See original here:
Bozell Column: Kagan’s Comedy Is News?

MRC-TV: Brent Bozell on Hannity’s ‘Media Mash;’ Discusses Coverage of Oil Spill, Kagan Hearings, and Obama Agenda

Appearing on FNC’s “Hannity” on Thursday, Media Research Center President and NewsBusters publisher Brent Bozell discussed the media’s left-wing slant on the latest issues during the weekly “Media Mash” segment. The first topic was NBC’s Matt Lauer fretting that Americans would not learn the “proper message” from the oil spill and curb their “appetite for oil.” Mr. Bozell pointed out that the media had learned nothing from the ClimateGate scandal and noted their determination to bring an end to offshore oil drilling. Another topic of discussion was the media’s fawning coverage of Elena Kagan, particularly by ABC’s Claire Shipman, who spoke of the Supreme Court nominee’s “personal charm” Bozell observed that he had never seen such a one-sided profile of someone in his life. The segment wrapped up with a look at NBC’s Chris Matthews and a panel of liberal pundits all describing President Obama’s left-wing policies as a “positive” in the November elections. Host Sean Hannity remarked “How about negative?” Bozell joked that the liberal panelists might be working for the RNC because of their encouragement for Obama to continue down such an unpopular road.   For the full segment, watch the video above or listen to the audio here .

Read the original post:
MRC-TV: Brent Bozell on Hannity’s ‘Media Mash;’ Discusses Coverage of Oil Spill, Kagan Hearings, and Obama Agenda

Chris Matthews Thinks Sen. Sessions’ Criticism of Kagan Was a ‘Brutal Assault’

MSNBC’s Chris Matthews framed Sen. Jeff Sessions’ criticism of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan as a “brutal assault,” during MSNBC’s live coverage of the Senate hearing Monday afternoon. “It’s a brutal assault on this nomination,” Matthews complained about the Alabama Republican’s remarks. Matthews also seemed to cast Sessions as an unsophisticated country bumpkin challenging Kagan’s prestigious Ivy League background. “It’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law,” Matthews crooned. “It’s hard to get above that, to a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents. That is probably a pretty rich target.” He accused Sessions of describing Kagan as pro-terrorist and tried to get liberal Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.) to say that Sessions’ “assault” would whip up a storm. “You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings,” Matthews insisted. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here, just bashing her?” “Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke?” Matthews later asked. Durbin tempered the debate by saying that, although he might not agree with Sessions, his colleague was doing his job in raising issues with Kagan. “I think it’s fine,” Durbin replied. “Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash.” The transcript of the two segments, which aired at 12:53 p.m. and 1:07 p.m. EDT, respectively, are as follows: MSNBC June 28, 2010 12:53 p.m. EDT CHRIS MATTHEWS: Andrea Mitchell, I’ve got to get your reaction. Very tough opening statement by Jeff Sessions. ANDREA MITCHELL: Well, he has laid out the Republican line against her. And it was tough, and he is the ranking Republican. He said earlier today that he would not even rule out a filibuster, which has never happened, as Ron Brownstein pointed out earlier, when the same party controlled the Senate in a Supreme Court case. So this is a very tough – particularly on the issue of the military, on the terror law – he went through all of the top talking points from the Republicans. And she’s going to have a tough time defending that. MATTHEWS: (Garbled) …she’s anti-military, pro-terrorist, pro-illegal immigrant, and a socialist. It’s pretty tough. And by the way, I’ll go back to it – maybe an infelicitous reference, but it is a voodoo doll – she is being used as Barack Obama in that chair- EUGENE ROBINSON, Washington POst: This is throwing stuff against the wall, seeing – (Crosstalk) – trying to create an atmosphere and an image that goes beyond her that also envelops the President and the whole administration. She’s trying to say this is an elite, Ivy League, out-of-touch – MATTHEWS: Well, it’s a strong cultural shot at her, and she does represent, if you will, academic excellence of the highest degree, coming from the best schools, dean of Harvard Law, it’s hard to get above that. To a person out in the country, from Alabama, like Jeff Sessions represents, that is probably a pretty rich target. # # # MSNBC ANDREA MITCHELL REPORTS June 28, 2010 1:07 p.m. EDT CHRIS MATTHEWS: Now take a look at, what I think so far has been the toughest attack on this nomination. This is Sen. Jeff Sessions, the ranking Republican. He is from Alabama. He was especially tough, as I said, in his opening statements. Let’s look at a montage of his toughest shots at the nominee. (Clip) Sen. JEFF SESSIONS (R-Ala.): Ms. Kagan has less real legal experience of any nominee in at least 50 years, and it’s not just that the nominee has not been a judge. She has barely practiced law, and not with the intensity and duration from which I think a real legal understanding occurs. Her actions punished the military, and demeaned our soldiers as they were courageously fighting for our country in two wars overseas. Ms. Kagan has associated herself with well-known activist judges who have used their power to re-define the meaning of words of our Constitution and laws in ways that, not surprisingly, have the result of advancing that judge’s preferred social policies and agendas. (End Clip) MATTHEWS: Joining us right now is Sen. Dick Durbin, Democrat of Illinois. He’s the Senate Majority Whip. Senator Durbin, if you listen to Jeff Sessions, your colleague, it’s a brutal assault on this nomination. She’s pro-terrorist in a sense, she’s anti-military, she’s a socialist, she’s for expansion of the government. He just about hit her on every cultural, political, ideological issue you can, and basically said he is definitely voting against her. He may lead a filibuster, based on his tone. Sen. DICK DURBIN (D-Ill.): I can just tell you, my Alabama colleague did not surprise me. He dismissed Elena Kagan out of hand and didn’t really get into the whole question of her role in Supreme Court. And then came the bill of particulars for the election in November. This was the Republican National committee bill of particulars, all of the things they want to accuse the Obama administration of. Socialism, secular humanism, you name it, went through the long litany. You get an idea of what this hearing is going to be all about. MATTHEWS: Well, do you think it’s really a hearing or is it something else? Is this going to be like a political convention on the right? Sen. DURBIN: Well I’m afraid it looks, from Senator Session’s statement, that there are going to be political overtones. And it’s not surprising, Chris, let’s be honest. If the shoe were on the other foot, and a nominee came along, we would be making points on our side of the aisle, too. But in fairness to Elena Kagan, At the end of the day, you have to look at what she has done, how she’s been cleared by this committee to be Solicitor General of the United States, her own achievements, and where she stands.  MATTHEWS: You know, back not too many years ago, some Republicans paid a heavy price for being tough with Anita Hill when she came to testify in the Clarence Thomas hearings. Have we gotten past that era of sensitivity about a bunch of guys going after a single woman here just bashing her? Sen. DURBIN: Well I think so. But I tell you, the record shows – MATTHEWS: Wait a minute. You think we have gotten past we’re that insensitive? Can these guys like Jeff Sessions just go at her like this without any fear of rebuke? Sem. DURBIN: I think it’s fine. Jeff has raised issues, and that’s important. I may disagree with the issues. But it is not personal. I don’t see it reaching the level that would cause that kind of a backlash. And I think we’re learning. Just remember, this is our fourth time in history to entertain a woman as a Supreme Court justice – four times, out of 111, this is the fourth. And I think there were lessons learned in the past. We do know that women nominees tend to get tougher questions. Think of what Sonia Sotomayor went through over one phrase, “Wise Latina.” You would think that the woman had declared that she was a traitor, treason on the United States. And instead they made that one phrase the focal point, they just went overboard on it.

Go here to see the original:
Chris Matthews Thinks Sen. Sessions’ Criticism of Kagan Was a ‘Brutal Assault’

AP for Apple Polishers : Elena Kagan ‘Excelled by Dint of Hard Work, Smarts…and Good Situation Sense’

Are the Elena Kagan confirmation hearings an occasion for media explanation…or celebration? The Washington Post Express tabloid ran this headline Monday: “Kagan’s Big Day Finally Arrives.” The copy underneath by AP reporter Nancy Benac sounds like a proud mother more than an objective journalist. She suggested “it may be her own words that best explain her success at charting an undeviating course to the front steps of the high court.” She elaborated about Kagan’s career, in sympathetic tones:  She’s excelled by dint of hard work, smarts and what she describes as good “situation sense” – the ability to size up her surroundings and figure out what truly matters, as she put it during confirmation hearings for her last job, as President Barack Obama’s solicitor general, the government’s top lawyer. It’s what allowed Kagan to channel the thinking of legal giant Thurgood Marshall when she was a “27-year-old pipsqueak” clerk to the justice. It’s what allowed Kagan to navigate through the land mines of government policy on abortion, tobacco and other contentious issues as an adviser to President Bill Clinton. It’s what allowed Kagan to thrive as the first female dean of Harvard Law School and even foster detente within its famously fractious faculty. Now, 50-year-old Elena Kagan stands before the Senate, confident she will be judged ready to join the justices whom she’s calls “fabulously smart, fabulously interesting people.” Only in the last paragraph of the seven-paragraph Express item is there an admission that “Republicans have done plenty of grumbling about her liberal views,” but “all sides anticipate she will be confirmed.” Earlier: AP’s Nancy Benac Excited ‘Bold Colors’ and ‘Squiggly Lines Have Arrived’ on Obama White House Walls

Here is the original post:
AP for Apple Polishers : Elena Kagan ‘Excelled by Dint of Hard Work, Smarts…and Good Situation Sense’

WaPo Devotes 60-Paragraph Front Page Story to Workaholic Kagan, Pays Little Attention to Her Philosophy

Borrowing a line from one of her Harvard colleagues, the Washington Post entitled its June 10 front-page profile of Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan, “Her work is her life is her work.”* But the 60-paragraph story by staff writers Ann Gerhart and Philip Rucker shed barely any light on the judicial philosophy that Kagan’s life work demonstrates. Instead, Gerhart and Rucker presented a gauzy profile that rehashed the usual trivia — Kagan loves poker and the opera — while painting Kagan as a workaholic who still has time to lend an ear or a shoulder to cry on to friends in distress: She has arrived at the age of 50 in a blaze of accomplishment. But her achievements can obscure how relatively narrow her world has been.  She made her life the law and became consumed by it — and happily so, by all accounts. Her parents are no longer living, and she sees her brothers, Marc and Irving, Yale University graduates who teach public school in New York City, usually at holidays. Most of the people in Kagan’s life are important people, bound to her in tightly drawn concentric circles. Her friends are elite lawyers of a certain set or Democratic operatives with staying power. She cultivates their company, holds their confidences, gives them the best presents and solicits their ideas, said several friends among the four dozen people interviewed for this article. Many high-energy super-achievers strive for a sanctuary of home or hobby or nature away from the relentless pressures of the workplace, even as they bang away on their BlackBerry and brag how little sleep they require. Kagan seems to be the rare person who has moved fluidly up and through the corridors of power with no apparent need for this separate sphere. “Her work is her life is her work,” says Charles Fried, a Harvard Law professor. He credits her with grafting a sense of community onto the school’s prickly and insular culture in her six years as dean.  “To call her a bloodless organization person running her organization would be a terrible mistake,” Fried says of Kagan’s ceaseless entertaining, dinner-going and speech-giving while dean. “She did those things with real affection, not just for the institution but for the people.” Yet the friendship her intimates describe seems curiously one-sided; it is one in which Kagan gives freely of her support but seeks none in return. “I went through a very contentious divorce,” says Laurence Tribe, another Harvard Law professor who has known Kagan for more than 20 years, “and she was one of the very few people I could talk to about it. It’s because you could trust her. She made me feel that I would get through it. “She’s a great listener, and I think that will endear her to her fellow justices,” says Tribe, who is on leave from Harvard while working at the Justice Department. “She’s likely to make them feel that she cares what they think.” That’s great, but Kagan is not up for a marriage counselor gig, she’s nominated to the highest court of law in the land. It’s not wholly illegitimate for the media to devote some resources to exploring the personal and social dimensions of a Supreme Court nominee’s life, but ultimately these details are of little or no consequence to the job itself. Yet today, Post editors gave their front-page readers what essentially amounts to a Style section profile in lieu of a meatier profile that might examine the liberal leanings discernible in Kagan’s work product. *the headline for the online version reads, “Kagan has many achievements, but her world has been relatively narrow.”

Originally posted here:
WaPo Devotes 60-Paragraph Front Page Story to Workaholic Kagan, Pays Little Attention to Her Philosophy