Tag Archives: supreme-court

Thanks, Obama: Justice Kennedy’s Replacement to Loom Large in 2012 Presidential Election

I don’t recall another Supreme Court justice announcing that the timing of her or his retirement hinged on who was president, even though we all know this is the undercurrent, barring mitigating circumstances. But Justice Anthony Kennedy has said it out loud, telling his inner circle he doesn’t want President Barack Obama to be The One. Thanks surely in part to Obama’s big mouth, as explained below, Kennedy’s replacement will loom large as a rallying cry for both parties in the 2012 presidential election. It appears the next president will choose the next SC vote that could either overturn or continue to uphold Roe v. Wade . And not withstanding the 2008 election, it is the Republican Party that usually gathers more steam/$$ from such a prospect/threat. As an aside, Senate Republicans should take this development into consideration and show themselves worthy of voter support for what will be the mother of all SC nomination battles. It is not too late to pick themselves up off the floor, where they have been New York Daily News , July 6… … Kennedy, who turns 74 this month, has told relatives and friends he plans to stay on the high court for at least 3 more years – through the end of Obama’s 1st term, sources said…. That means Kennedy will be around to provide a 5th vote for the court’s conservative bloc through the 2012 presidential election. If Obama loses, Kennedy could retire and expect a Republican President to choose a conservative justice. Kennedy, appointed by President Ronald Reagan , has been on the court 22 years. He has become a bit of a political nemesis at the White House for his increasing tendency to side with the court’s 4 rock-ribbed conservative justices . Without naming Kennedy, Obama was unusually critical of his majority opinion in the Citizens United case, handed down last January. That 5-4 decision struck down limits on contributions to political campaigns as an abridgement of free speech. Obama… was so angry that he took the unusual step of blasting the decision in his Jan. 27 State of the Union address, with Kennedy and five other justices looking on…. With the retirement of fellow Stanford graduate Sandra Day O’Connor in 2006, Kennedy has inherited O’Connor’s mantle as the court’s swing vote. His voting pattern suggests he’s actually become a far more reliable vote for the conservatives.  In a piece entitled, “The fury of an idiot scorned,” Red State Insider at

Follow this link:
Thanks, Obama: Justice Kennedy’s Replacement to Loom Large in 2012 Presidential Election

CBS Legal Correspondent: Senate Democrats Can Blame Themselves for Kagan Confirmation Difficulties

There have been a lot of complaints from the left over the opposition Supreme Court Justice nominee Elena Kagan has faced from Senate Republicans in her battle to win confirmation. But Kagan proponents should have seen this day coming when Democrats in the Senate did the same things to try to slow the confirmations of Justices John Roberts and Samuel Alito. On CBS’s July 4 “Face the Nation,” CBS legal correspondent Jan Crawford explained why. Previously throughout these types of confirmation processes, the Senate would approve a President’s nominee, assuming the candidate was qualified. But President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden and Senate Judiciary Chairman Sen. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt. all set a new precedence when George W. Bush was president. “Historically, [Kagan] would have been confirmed like Justice Ginsburg was, 96-3, or Justice Breyer, 87-9, but things changed. I mean, things changed 10 years ago, when Democrats started filibustering President Bush’s qualified nominees,” Crawford said. “I had a talk about all this — I guess, what, five or six years ago with Mitch McConnell. You know, he said memories are long in the U.S. Senate. People remember what the Democrats — including President Obama, Vice President Biden, Judiciary Committee Chairman Patrick Leahy — did. ” According to Crawford, this will ultimately change the public’s perception of the Supreme Court. “They not only voted against Sam Alito, who is just as qualified as Elena Kagan in really every way, had liberal support. They voted to block his nomination. So in some ways, what goes around comes around. She’s going to get confirmed, but there’s also a little bit of payback here, and she’s not going to get 96 votes like Justice Ginsburg. And the – – the — the problem with that is that it damages — ultimately, the loser, it’s not Elena Kagan. She’s going to get confirmed. It’s the courts. I mean, it makes the Supreme Court look in the people’s mind politicized. When you have these bipartisan votes on qualified nominees, the danger is the court itself looks political. And I think that’s a real problem long term.” And Crawford said she thinks this partisan gridlock needs to stop, regardless who is to blame. “But, you know, I mean, listen, I mean, in some ways, it’s like, you know, my 9-year-old will say, ‘You know, she started it,’ referring to my 6-year-old,” Crawford said. “At some point, somebody has got to be a grown- up and say, ‘Listen, I don’t care who started it. We’re going to stop it, and let’s realize what the stakes are here.'”

Here is the original post:
CBS Legal Correspondent: Senate Democrats Can Blame Themselves for Kagan Confirmation Difficulties

Led By Leahy And DeFazio, 56 Members Of House And Senate Ask USDA To Keep Rules On Genetically Engineered Alfalfa

Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vt.) and Rep. Peter DeFazio (D-Ore.), joined by 49 other representatives and five other senators, are asking U.S. Department of Agriculture Secretary Tom Vilsack to retain the regulated status of genetically engineered (GE) alfalfa. Their letter comes in response to a USDA Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS) finding “no significant impact” from the use of genetically modified versions of the crop. Leahy and DeFazio co-authored legislation to create the national organic standards and labeling program. Genetically modified crops are subject to the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), which requires federal agencies to review the environmental impacts of proposed actions, such as USDA’s proposed deregulation of a genetically modified seed. In their letter, the lawmakers assert that the draft USDA findings about genetically engineered alfalfa cannot be justified. They warn that GE alfalfa would contaminate the crops of both conventional and organic alfalfa farmers, resulting in significant economic harm to alfalfa seed producers and to the organic dairy industry. The fast growing organic dairy sector currently generates about $1.4 billion in sales. “Consumers today respect and rely on what the USDA certified organic seal represents, which includes no GE contamination,” says the letter headed by Leahy and DeFazio. “If the USDA organic seal no longer represents a GE-free product, the integrity of the entire organic industry in this country will be compromised and consumers may no longer choose organic products.” This week (on June 21) the U.S. Supreme Court announced its 7 to 1 decision in a case related to the USDA’s potential deregulation of GE alfalfa. In the Monsanto Co. v Geerston Seed Farms decision, the court ordered the lifting of a nationwide permanent injunction on GE alfalfa. The case is widely viewed as having broad implications beyond alfalfa crops, potentially affecting the hundreds of GE food applications that have been submitted to USDA to determine environmental threats and seeking approval for use. cont. added by: JanforGore

The Last Airbender

Read the original here:
The Last Airbender

Ben Hoffman Hates Soccer: Here’s Why

Continued here:
Ben Hoffman Hates Soccer: Here’s Why

Kagan, BET Awards and Bong-Smoking Babies

From Supreme Court hearings to the BET Awards to allegedly high babies, Conor Knighton keeps us up to date on what the media’s been throwing at us this week.

Read this article:
Kagan, BET Awards and Bong-Smoking Babies

Essay: WaPo Needs ‘Conservative Beat’ Reporter, Not ‘Beat Conservatives’ Reporter

The ” recent unpleasantness ” at the Washington Post was, to conservatives at least, entirely predictable. What decent left-leaning journalist could live among the remote, primitive tribes known as conservatives and not be driven just a little bit mad? (If the Post’s editors were embarrassed, they could at least take comfort that their man hadn’t “gone native.”) Predictable, but no less unfortunate. The Washington Post dearly needs someone to explain conservatism to its editors and staff. Why? A look through the June 30 edition of the Washington Post gives a pretty good indication. No, not the puff piece on Obama Transportation Secretary Ray LaHood. (Apparently a photo of the grown man in charge of a vast federal agency wearing a bike helmet is supposed convey competence. The caption reads – really – “Ray LaHood has worked to expand transportation safety, including emphasizing the rights of cyclists in federal transportation policy.) No, a few columns should suffice. Courtland Milloy began a piece on Justice Clarence Thomas’ recent opinion defending the Second Amendment on a promising note. Thomas, Milloy wrote approvingly, “roared to life” in the opinion, citing the legal disarming of blacks in the post-reconstruction south, which left them vulnerable to the KKK and other white supremacists. So far, so good. In fact, too good to be true, because Milloy suggested that “Thomas’s references to historical threats posed by white militias might have been dismissed,” except that those groups are at it again, inflamed by “Barack Obama’s election as the nation’s first black president.” Although he didn’t elaborate, Millow seems to have been referring to a recent report stating that the number of militia groups in the country has nearly tripled to about 500 since Obama was sworn in. Of course, that number comes from the Southern Poverty Law Center , a left-wing 60s hold-over whose very existence depends on seeing more men in sheets than a prison production of “Julius Caesar.” Milloy worried that these groups’ actions could become as “violent as their racist rhetoric often threatens.” Again, Milloy didn’t elaborate, but since the SPLC could find violent, racist rhetoric on a cereal box , readers can be forgiven for not sharing his sense of dread. Over on the editorial page, Ruth Marcus had the goods on those dangerous right-wingers, pointing to a ridiculous campaign ad from an Alabama Tea Party candidate for the GOP nomination to congress. In the ad, Rick Barber talks to the shades of the Founding Fathers, shows images from the Holocaust and suggests that “We are all becoming slaves to our government.” “To hijack the horrors of the Holocaust and slavery in the service of a political campaign demeans the candidate and, worse, dishonors the victims,” Marcus wrote. “Decency demands that some comparisons be off-limits.” Indeed it does. Just ask George W. BusHitler, as many of Marcus’ ideological pals liked to call the last president. Marcus’ larger point is that many on the right have become “unhinged,” exhibiting “white hot vehemence.” “The concern and disagreement – over health-care legislation, over bank bailouts, over debt – are understandable,” she graciously allowed. “The slippery slope fears of decent into socialism/totalitarianism are incomprehensible.” Here’s where it might be helpful to the Post to have an honest broker on the conservative beat. That reporter could explain to Marcus, Milloy and the rest of the gang that these simple conservatives lack the grasp of nuance and the exquisite post-modern sense of irony that’s pumped into the Post’s newsroom by the HVAC system. Conservatives, he might tell them, actually took Obama at his word. They really believed he’d try to “fundamentally change” this nation, just like he promised to. They were listening when his wife admitted she’d never been proud of her country. They made the assumption, silly as it might seem, that when you associate for years with domestic terrorists and outspoken America-haters, you may be of like mind. Then, government suddenly was taking over banks and carmakers, health insurance and tuition lending. Government spent vast amounts of taxpayer money to get … more government. Only unions seemed immune to the pain the rest of the nation suffered. All that sure does look like change we can believe in – and don’t want. But Marcus, like Milloy, is concerned about just how much we don’t want it. “It does not take much to imagine the leap from bellicose talk to action,” for the “delusional but passionate” mouth-breathers. Conservative politicians and radio hosts don’t help. Marcus pointed to Sarah Palin’s “‘don’t retreat – reload’ approach” and John Boehner – John Boehner ! – talking up a “political rebellion.” So those on the right who fear the massive expansion of government and the corresponding proscribing of personal liberties are delusional, but those on the left who fear phantom acts of right-wing violence are not? War metaphors and “white-hot” rhetoric about rebellion and are irresponsible and scary. (Except when the left uses them. On that same editorial page, an op-ed from Stephanie J. Jones asserted that late Supreme Court Justice Thurgood Marshall “saved this nation from a second civil war.”) If the Post wants credibility with the majority of the electorate that consider themselves conservative, it really does need someone to play anthropologist and report back to the Post’s staffers from darkest Dixie. It’s dangerous work. Whoever they hire should wear a bike helmet.

Visit link:
Essay: WaPo Needs ‘Conservative Beat’ Reporter, Not ‘Beat Conservatives’ Reporter

CNN and MSNBC Applaud Elena Kagan’s Capitol Hill Comedy Hour

In covering Elena Kagan’s confirmation hearings, CNN and MSNBC have repeatedly lauded the Supreme Court nominee for her “flashes of humor” and “disarming ease.” In tune with the reverberations of the network morning shows’ echo chamber , correspondents like CNN’s Dana Bash and anchors like MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow on Tuesday praised Kagan for her ability to inject humor into otherwise “hollow and vapid” hearings and charm hostile Republican senators into docility. “But just on a color note, what struck me, Candy, has been the way Elena Kagan has tried to use a sense of humor to really disarm the senators, particularly Republicans,” noted Bash. Maddow’s guest, Dahlia Lithwick of the liberal Slate magazine, gushed over Kagan’s “gut-wrenching” sense of humor, her masterful ability to balance “seriousness and levity and humor,” and her “disarming and charming and kind of likeable” personality. “A likeable liberal. Dear me, I know,” quipped Maddow. Anchoring the live coverage of the hearings, MSNBC’s Chris Matthews turned to Susan Page, USA Today Washington bureau chief, who applauded Kagan’s performance: You know, it’s interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the senator and the nominee there then we’ve seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings “vapid and hollow” in the past but we’ve seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. On her eponymous program, CNN’s Campbell Brown aired Kagan’s playful banter with Sen. Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) before querying CNN legal analyst Jeffrey Toobin: “So, apart from the fact that she has got a sense of humor, what did we really learn today about Elena Kagan?” Over on MSNBC’s “The Ed Show,” substitute host Christopher Hayes, editor of the left-wing magazine The Nation and husband of a White House counselor, reckoned that the most newsworthy part of the hearings so far has been Kagan’s charm: Perhaps the most notable thing to report from today’s hearing is that Kagan is, as advertised, really a charmer. The nominee who once derided this process as, quote, “vapid and hollow” was no doubt probably and possibly justifiably in for a cold reception. But today, Kagan displayed the disarming ease, wit and knack for a well-timed joke that have made her so uniformly well-liked by her colleagues in other endeavors. On Wednesday’s “American Morning,” Bash continued to push the humor narrative, noting, “Throughout the day, Kagan tried to disarm senators by interjecting with humor…and Kagan really made a point early on, on setting that light-hearted tone, interjecting all the time with quick whips and — quips, I should say, and then witty comments.” MSNBC “The Daily Rundown” co-hosts Savannah Guthrie and Chuck Todd wrapped up the Wednesday program with a recap of the hearing’s most “humorous” moments, including Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) discussing the latest installment of the Twighlight saga. (H/T MRC intern Matt Hadro ) There’s nothing wrong with color commentary, but the media’s emphasis on humanizing Kagan is coming at the expense of critical reporting on her nomination hearings and what little she’s willing to shed in the hearings about how she’ll approach constitutional issues on the bench. Transcripts of the relevant portions of the cited programs can be found below: MSNBC NewsLive 6/29/10 10:54 a.m. CHRIS MATTHEWS: And this came out in the president’s State of the Union where he took a swipe at the Supreme Court with Samuel Alito and other justices there and they didn’t like it. SUSAN PAGE, USA Today Washington bureau chief: They didn’t. You know, it’s interesting since Kagan argued this case she feels pretty comfortable with it and you see, I think, a more free-flowing exchange between the Senator and the nominee there then we’ve seen on some others. Kagan famously called these hearings “vapid and hollow” in the past but we’ve seen some flashes of humor here this morning. And interestingly, Kagan said that she thought it would be a terrific idea to have TV cameras in the Supreme Court. If she gets confirmed that’s an issue where she’ll have some real issues with her colleagues. CNN Newsroom 6/29/10 12:24 p.m. DANA BASH, CNN correspondent: Well, first, just on substance, I want to point out what John did just at the beginning of this conversation, that what Elena Kagan revealed or maybe more to the point, clarified, was in the memo that she had scribbled notes, “KKK, NRA,” as a bad organization. That has been flying around conservative circles as an ah-ha moment. And when they saw these documents I think about a week or two weeks ago when they were released by the Clinton library as proof that she is just a liberal, what she told us just now, what she told Senator Kyl, is that she was taking notes on somebody else’s conversation. So if that’s the case, that certainly appears to deflate that particular argument that conservatives have been making. But just on a color note, what struck me, Candy, has been the way Elena Kagan has tried to use a sense of humor to really disarm the senators, particularly Republicans. And Jeff knows her, so this may not seem a surprise to him. But just for example, when John Kyl came out after the break, there nobody was in the room and he said “I guess nobody wants to hear my questions” and without missing a beat, she said “maybe nobody wants to hear my answers.” And another time, Senator Hatch was talking about the fact that he and Senator Leahy were having a little disagreement. They’re kind of like an old married couple, and I say this respectfully and they would probably agree, and Elena Kagan again without missing a beat saying, “don’t worry go ahead, it takes the spotlight off of me.” I don’t remember seeing that certainly from recent confirmation hearings at this level, not from Sonia Sotomayor, and at least at the beginning, you know, as these nominees are getting comfortable. But it just seems to me the kind of charm she has. MSNBC The Ed Show 6/29/10 6:17 p.m.      HAYES: Perhaps the most notable thing to report from today’s hearing is that Kagan is, as advertised, really a charmer. The nominee who once derided this process as, quote, “vapid and hollow” was no doubt probably and possibly justifiably in for a cold reception. But today, Kagan displayed the disarming ease, wit and knack for a well-timed joke that have made her so uniformly well-liked by her colleagues in other endeavors. Of course, beyond that, we still didn’t get that much of an indication of what kind of justice she’d make, although she does support letting cameras into the Supreme Court. CNN Campbell Brown 6/29/10 8:24 p.m. BROWN: It was a long day on Capitol Hill for Elena Kagan. It was day two of her confirmation hearing. It just wrapped up a little while ago. She faced some tough questions on everything from the War on Terror to her politics. Listen to this exchange with Arizona Senator Jon Kyl. Sen. JON KYL (R-Ariz.): Do you agree with the characterization by some of my colleagues that the current Court is too activist in supporting the position of corporations and Big Business? ELENA KAGAN, Supreme Court nominee: Senator Kyl, I would not want to characterize the current court in any way. I hope one day to join it. KYL: And they said you are not political, right?                      BROWN: So, apart from the fact that she has got a sense of humor, what did we really learn today about Elena Kagan? MSNBC Rachel Maddow 6/29/10 9:30 p.m. RACHEL MADDOW: And how do you think that Kagan is doing, thus far, as a nominee? Obviously, today was the first day she took questions. It’s clear that just from what I saw of the hearings today, that she seems very relaxed. DAHLIA LITHWICK, Slate senior editor: Relaxed, funny. You know, she brought the room to a standstill, just gut-wrenching laughter. At some point, Lindsey Graham asked her, what were you doing when the Christmas Day bomber was caught on Christmas Day? And she said, like pretty much all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. I mean, you know, people were applauding. She`s very funny, Rachel. She`s very disarming. But at the same time, I think she does a good job of saying, look, I take the law very seriously. At one point, she was questioned about her passions and she couldn’t get passionate about anything but the law. So, she’s doing a good job of balancing seriousness and levity and humor, and I think real charm. The thing I really am enjoying this time around is it sometimes feels like these hearings shrink the nominee down to a smaller version of who they are. This is actually letting someone who looks good on paper but is hard to love in paper become quite human and warm and big luminous smile. And so I don’t know if that’s working for everyone, but it’s quite clear that the senators are finding her disarming and charming and kind of likeable. MADDOW: A likeable liberal. Dear me, I know. She won`t call herself liberal but the press is going to have a hard time understanding how to report on this. Dahlia Lithwick, senior editor and legal correspondent for Slate magazine, I always really appreciate your insight on days like this. Thanks a lot, Dahlia. CNN American Morning 6/30/10 7:17 a.m. BASH: Throughout the day, Kagan tried to disarm senators by interjecting with humor. Sen. TOM COBURN (R-Okla.): This is softball. KAGAN: You promise? COBURN: I promise. Sen. LINDSEY GRAHAM (R-S.C.) I just ask you where you’re at on Christmas. KAGAN: You know, like all Jews, I was probably at a Chinese restaurant. BASH: And Kagan really made a point early on, on setting that light-hearted tone, interjecting all the time with quick whips and — quips, I should say, and then witty comments. And you know, it really did change the tenor of things, for example, when one of her starkest opponents, Senator Tom Coburn, who sits here was trying to ask her some questions she wouldn’t answer it. Instead of really going after her, he made a joke. He followed her lead and said “maybe you’re dancing so much, maybe you should be on ‘Dancing with the Stars.'” John and Kiran. –Alex Fitzsimmons is a News Analysis intern at the Media Research Center. Click here to follow him on Twitter.

Read this article:
CNN and MSNBC Applaud Elena Kagan’s Capitol Hill Comedy Hour

Elena Kagan — Death Sentence for ‘Twilight’ Joke

Filed under: Elena Kagan Apparently, Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan isn’t a fan of ” Twilight ” — or fun — because at today’s Senate confirmation hearing, the gun critic shot down a joke question about “Twilight” like she was Annie frickin’ Oakley . The super uncomfortable… Read more

See original here:
Elena Kagan — Death Sentence for ‘Twilight’ Joke

Larry King Wasn’t Opinionated on CNN? Remembering His Shots at the ‘Far-Right Wacko Element’

Larry King’s announcement that he’s stepping down from his perch at CNN has been declared an end to a cable news era. On The Early Show on CBS Wednesday morning, Washington Post media reporter Howard Kurtz wondered “Is there still room in an increasingly partisan cable television universe for this kind of variety show, where you talk to a president one day and Lady Gaga the next? I mean, Larry losing the ratings to Sean Hannity at Fox, Rachel Maddow at MSNBC, it’s a lot more opinionated out there than Larry ever allowed himself to be.” Signaling the end of King’s long reign last month, New York Times TV writer Brian Stelter sounded a similar note: “Larry King Live is the last trace of an earlier age of cable TV, one that had little interest in the opinions of its hosts.” King’s show is definitely not in the Hannity or Olbermann molds, but to suggest he didn’t venture an opinion would not match the record. Conservatives remember his occasional shot at “wackos” on the “far right,” especially in the Clinton years. Here’s a short listing of a few King items we published in our Notable Quotables newsletter:  Dan Rather: “I don’t do editorials. And about that perhaps you and I will just — I hope in good humor — agree to disagree that we don’t do editorializing. And I’m either famous or infamous, depending on your point of view, saying we don’t editorialize; we don’t want to editorialize, in no way, shape, or form….” King: “Over all these fifteen years, how do you react to the constant, especially, far right-wing criticism that the news on CBS is mainstream biased?” Rather: “Well, I don’t quite know what mainstream is.” King: “I don’t know what it means either, but they say it. I’m just quoting ’em.” Rather: “Oh, no. I understand. Well, my answer to that is basically a good Texas phrase, which is bullfeathers.” – Exchange on Larry King Live, March 11, 1996. “When I heard the quote it sounded to me like it was Limbaugh or Liddy or Ollie North. It was like wacko talk radio . It didn’t sound like Brinkley. In other words, Brinkley’s always been irreverent, but always kind of classy.” — CNN’s Larry King on David Brinkley’s election night comments that Clinton is a “bore” and his speech delivered “more goddamn nonsense,” November 7, 1996 Larry King Live. “All right. So what if we made this case — OK, he’s pretty tough with fundraising. But there’s no proof that the Chinese had any in, except they gave money. He did a bad deal for you. And he has turned on his friends maybe a little. But nobody made big money in Whitewater. It was years ago. He was in Arkansas. He’s a good President. I am happy. No boy is dying overseas. Country seems to be coming around. Supreme Court is pretty good. Are you better off than you were four years ago? Yes. What I if I made that case?” — Larry King to Whitewater scandal figure Jim McDougal, April 21, 1997 CNN Larry King Live. “Let’s run some things down: the travel office, was that an example of your saying ‘I’m unhappy,’ and then people taking it further than that? Was that an example of what you spoke about earlier, you have to think of everything you say. What did happen?…Have you felt, like with grand juries and the like, beleaguered, put upon?…You may be too close to the forest for the trees, but with all the attacks that have occurred, how do you explain the popularity of Bill Clinton?….Mr. [Webster] Hubbell, were you just being a friend?” — Some of King’s probing questions to Hillary Clinton, April 29, 1997. Whitewater scandal figure Susan McDougal: “What kind of country has a mother go in and testify against her daughter?” Larry King: “But that they could always do, right?” Mark Geragos, McDougal’s attorney: “They can always do that, but…” King: “Germany did it, too.” — Exchange on CNN’s Larry King Live, February 24, 1998. “You’re also talking to people who are not popular because they closed the government; they’re not popular because they never came up with campaign finance reform, which they promised — that could be a moral issue, too, taking money from people to vote. So morality covers a lot of areas and some of the people you’re talking to have the questionable morals themselves.” — CNN’s Larry King to Focus on the Family head James Dobson, May 6, 1998 Larry King Live. Greta Van Susteren: “If the Southern Baptists want to do this, they have an absolute right to do it, and especially when you examine the history and see how many wars are fought in the name of religion, how many people are critical of other religions – you’ll see how dangerous it is.” Larry King: “Greta, the Ku Klux Klan said it was religious . Would it have been rude to criticize them?” Van Susteren: “Well, they also violated the law. They started killing people.” King: “When they violated the law. But on their edict it was wrong to criticize them that whites were superior…” — Exchange on Southern Baptist statement that a wife should “submit graciously” to her husband, who is to “love his wife as Christ loved the Church,” CNN’s Larry King Live, June 12, 1998. “Why, Lesley, do you think he’s so hated [Clinton]? He’s a moderate to a conservative right, basically?” — CNN’s Larry King to CBS reporter Lesley Stahl, February 2, 1999. “So it was not the, as has been termed, the wacko element? The far right or those who are conspicuously anti-Clinton who were pressuring her?” — CNN’s Larry King to the son of Clinton sexual-assault accuser Juanita Broaddrick after he said she only came forward to correct misleading stories, March 8, 1999. “Tipper, one of the things that Elian Gonzalez’s father said that I guess would be hard to argue with, that his boy’s safer in a school in Havana than in a school in Miami. He would not be shot in a school in Havana. Good point?” –­ CNN’s Larry King to Tipper Gore, April 20, 2000. That [Democratic congressional victory] may be the first defeat for the far right tonight….Since the far right did get into that race in upstate New York, is this a legitimate defeat for them tonight?…Do you see the far right as evidenced by — we all know who they are — as a threat to your party?” — CNN’s Larry King to various guests during his network’s election night coverage just after midnight, November 4, 2009.

More here:
Larry King Wasn’t Opinionated on CNN? Remembering His Shots at the ‘Far-Right Wacko Element’