Powerline has a link to this article in the New York Times about John Roberts' nomination progress. He has answered some of the questions asked of him by Senators.
Here are the links to the text of Roberts' answers (pdf format): Part I, Part II.
For the most part, the article looks like straight reporting, with little overt bias. One statement can be seen as slanted: "In [his response], the nominee seeks to cast himself as a proponent of judicial restraint, a quality prized by senators at a time when conservative critics of the judiciary are bemoaning activist judges."
Powerline takes issue with this NY Times mention of judicial restraint coupled with their neglect of "the second, longer part of Roberts' answer where he defended judicial action that "check[s] the Legislature or Executive" against the "judicial activism" charge."
Another interesting point about the NY Times coverage of the Roberts response is that the article points out--twice--what Roberts' financial status is, going into detail about his stock and mutual fund holdings, as well as his home's mortgage and property value. It seems to scream, "This guy is rich, and his stocks make him an evil tool of corporate America!"
Get a grip, NY Times. It didn't bother you that John Kerry and John Edwards were rich. If his wealth and support of judicial restraint are all you can find against Roberts, then there's really no problem, is there?
No comments:
Post a Comment