'Writing for the four moderates on the Court'

This may be a better topic for the Journalism board, but I put it here because it's a news event, as well.

The line in the subject came from an editorial in the New York Times, and I could barely believe my eyes when I read across it. I had to read the sentence about three times to believe they actually wrote it about Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the four dissenters in Wal-Mart v. Dukes.

I tried to find the link through Google News this morning, but instead found that at least one conservative blogger had already jumped on it:

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/mark-finkelstein/2011/06/21/new-york-times-calls-ruth-bader-ginsburg-moderate
I'm sure more will follow.

I defend the New York Times all the time against the "librhrul!!!111! bias" charge. But I'll say this: The paper does itself no favors with a line calling Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, and Bryer "the four moderates." I can't imagine Adam Liptak, for one, is thrilled. I hate the way the Times analyzes every Supreme Court decision through a simplistic left-right, politicized, policy prism anyway. But if you're going to go that route, at least be intellectually honest about it.

 

Here's a link to editorial:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/06/21/opinion/21tue1.html?_r=1&ref=opinion

It's just dumb, but it kind of gets to the heart of the matter, doesn't it?

The Times editorial board considers the political dividing line much further to the left than any fair observer. And that skews their opinions.

If anyone on the Court could even be considered a moderate, wouldn't it be Kennedy? He's the unpredictable one.

 

Here's the Times news side on the ruling.

Looks like a big blow to trial lawyers.

 

Of course, the four Supreme Court "liberals" are liberals only when viewed in the center-right context that frames the American liberal/conservative debate.

 

Does the phrase "pro-abortion rights crusader" fall under the protective umbrella of "intellectual honesty?"

 

If I had photo shop skills I would totally put RBG in a caped super hero costume.

But, I think it's expected for Newsbusters to view her in those terms.

I expect more from the Times. She's a liberal. I don't say that as a perforative, but she is.

 

Women's rights, baby.

Get used to it, Finkelstein, you luddite.

 

Compared to what? Compared to whom?

Warren? O'Connor? Stevens? These labels are all relative.

 

My point exactly.

Compared to people who think that women should know their place, I guess.

 

Compared to the American political center.

C'mon, is this really that hard? Sure, she's probably not liberal compared the average shopper at Zabars, but that's not the standard.

 

I got all fired up when I first read this because I thought Toobin wrote, "ultra conservative-liberal split."

It's still worth reading.

 

I'm not taking up for the conservative blogger. I'm saying that The Times gives them ammunition when it pokes them with a stick like that. For the most part, I don't think the Court members are as ideologically predictable as the 5-4 decisions that get all the attention would lead one to believe. However, I say with some confidence that the Times was being passive-aggressive with its language choice, and it should be above that kind of move.