Skip to comments.Judge Garland and the Left’s Disdain for Truth
Posted on 03/22/2016 2:09:24 AM PDT by Cincinatus' Wife
The mainstream media that is, the liberal media share all the views and characteristics of the Left. Among these is the Lefts view of truth. There are honest individuals with left-wing views and dishonest individuals on the right. But truth is not a leftist value. Everything the Left believes in is more important than truth social justice, economic equality, reducing carbon emissions, expanding the power of the state, battling sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, racism, and above all of these, destroying its conservative opposition.
The medias coverage of President Barack Obamas nomination of Judge Merrick Garland to the Supreme Court should serve as one of the most blatant examples of both the left-wing orientation of the news media and their willingness to play with truth.
On March 16, the day after Garlands nomination, every major mainstream news outlet, print and electronic, depicted the judge as a centrist.
New York Times front page, first sentence:
WASHINGTON President Obama on Wednesday nominated Merrick B. Garland to be the nations 113th Supreme Court justice, choosing a centrist appellate judge . . .
Los Angeles Times front-page headline:
Obamas choice of popular centrist Merrick Garland for Supreme Court puts GOP to the test
USA Today headline:
Who Is Merrick Garland, President Obamas Supreme Court Nominee?
The answer? By all accounts, Garland appears to be a safe (that is to say, centrist) choice by Obama.
Washington Post headline:
Merrick Garlands instinct for the middle could put him in the courts most influential spot
Garlands deep résumé and centrist reputation appear to have positioned him well to earn the presidents nod.
Two days later, the Los Angeles Times featured a news analysis on its front page, in which its reporter wrote:
Judge Merrick Garland may well be the most moderate Supreme Court nominee anyone could expect from a Democratic president . . . a superbly qualified judge with a cautious, centrist record. . . .
There is no truth to any of these reports something easily proved by both Judge Garlands decisions and, amazingly, by the newspapers reports themselves.
Take the Los Angeles Times front page news analysis, for example. After describing the judge as moderate and centrist, the Times reporter writes:
If the late Justice Antonin Scalia, a staunch conservative, is replaced by a moderate-to-liberal Justice Garland, the court would tip to the left on several key issues, like abortion, affirmative action, the death penalty, gun control, campaign spending, immigration and environmental protection.
In other words, the very same author who describes Judge Garland as centrist notes that Garland votes Left on essentially every major issue confronting the nation and the Supreme Court.
The very same day the New York Times led by calling Garland is a centrist, it published an article on the nomination in which it noted that, If Judge Garland is confirmed, he could tip the ideological balance to create the most liberal Supreme Court in 50 years.
Moreover, in reviewing Garlands decisions, the piece placed Judge Garland to the left of Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan, way to the left of Justice Stephen Breyer, and minimally to the right of Justices Sotomayor and Ginsburg.
By their own accounts, the liberal media lied in describing Garland as a centrist.
And the more research one does, the bigger this lie becomes.
In a column in the Wall Street Journal, Juanita Duggan, president and CEO of the National Federation of Independent Business, writes that Garland is so anti-small business and so pro-big labor, that, This is the first time in the NFIBs 73-year history that we will weigh in on a Supreme Court nominee.
She explains, for example, that, In 16 major labor decisions of Judge Garlands that we examined, he ruled 16-0 in favor of the NLRB [National Labor Relations Board].
Elsewhere in the Journal, the editorial board wrote of Garland:
We cant think of a single issue that has divided the Court on which Mr. Garland would reliably vote differently from the four liberal Justices already on the bench.
And this: Scotusblogs Tom Goldstein points out that Mr. Garland has strong views on agency deference and in a dozen close cases in which the court divided, he sided with the [EPA] every time.
And finally (from Scotusblog): Judge Garland would be a reliable fifth vote on all of these legal issues.
Those issues? All the fundamental issues that divide Left from Right.
So, the entire Left is lying about Judge Garland, who, for the record, seems like a truly decent man who possesses a first-class mind. They do so because getting a fifth left-wing vote and weakening the Republicans are far more important than truth.
And, believe it or not, there is an even worse lesson here, namely the medias effectiveness in saturating society with its mendacious version of reality. Unless an American makes the effort to study the issue and most do not they take the news medias version as truth. The terrible lesson affirmed time and time again since the 1960s is that a free society can experience brainwashing as effectively as a totalitarian state.
The reporting on Garland is that false.
That was a good one! TX
If you knew nothing else, the idiotic grin on the little dwatf’s face should be a give-away.
If Merrick Garland was not a pigressive tool the mongrel sleazeball would not have nominated him.
Except for being a big-government, anti-liberty, Death Eater ideologue, he's great.
I have been all over this forum, trying to get people to realize just how for the tentacles of the EPA reach into everyday life.
It is no secret my career has been in the oil industry, nor that the EPA has declared war on that industry just as it has declared war on coal, and any industry which extracts natural resources (other than the chosen 'winners' of ethanol, solar, and wind).
They started it.
Few seem to realize they have claimed dominion over everything from the air we exhale to low spots in your yard which accumulate water during a rainstorm, to which local government controls land, to stopping pipelines (and jobs), to polluting (yes, polluting!) the environment they claim to champion.
The line of defense to stop the EPA abuses of power has been the courts. You win some, you lose some, but ultimately, the last line of defense is the SCOTUS.
No Federal Agency has so damaged American Industry, nor our economy, nor provided such a vehicle for corruption as the EPA.
Having a judge on the SCOTUS who has a track record of ruling in favor of EPA is just another nail in the coffin of the American Economy.
That isn't even going into the anti-RKBA attitude of this nominse.
No one who has so egregiously ruled against the fundamental Rights of Americans should EVER be considered as a viable nominee for Supreme Court Justice.
Citizens on the political left place on the left side of the Bell Curve. That’s why they’re called THE LEFT.
Too early in the morning for me....I thought this was going to be about Judy Garland.
The EPA paid for my graduate school, through the Superfund program...
>>I thought this was going to be about Judy Garland.<<
She has been voting reliably democratic since 1969.
Actually, their being called the "left" has historical roots. Something about the British Houses of Parliament, IIRC. In any case, the association of the left with evil has roots going back thousands of years. The word for left in Latin is "sinister." The Latin word for right has more positive connotations: "dexter."
Someone noted elsewhere that Garland's on the record on Heller, since that case came up through the DC Appeals Court, and he's a 100% lead-pipe cinch to reverse, if it comes up again -- and that's why he's being nominated, that and his "agency deference" (Big Brother bellyfeeling).
THE NSF paid for mine.
Oh, that explains everything!
That, I assume was a while back. I am not saying they have never done something good, and I am sure you know that does not obligate you to find any results which are not scientifically accurate.
When the agency was created, the picture out there was different. There were serious problems with pollution, and they were comparatively widespread. Those have been dealt with, every state has regulatory agencies to deal with polluters in their jurisdiction, and the public is far more aware of potential environmental problems.
Unfortunately, along the way, we have been saddled with environmental extremism, and this is used to stymie development, even when that development is being done in such a way as to minimize any impact. (IOW, being done right).
We both know there are limits to what a human can tolerate as far as toxic agents, and lower limits below which exposure does no harm, even with a lifetime of exposure.
Extending those lower limits solely for the purpose of political and/or economic goals is an abuse of science, and an abuse of power if done to achieve political or ideological ends not supported by untainted research.
Additionally, numerous actions of the EPA which subvert normal Constitutional processes and even law have been noted.
The claim that the EPA can limit CO2 emissions, controls all water, can assign land area in an existing state to another political jurisdiction, and other egregious abuses and usurpation of power indicate an agency in search of a mission, and one which can be used to target individuals or corporations for fun and profit.
They have become a powerful and abusive agency which has morphed into an engine of economic destruction.
LOL! We used to joke “NSF=’non sufficient funds’...especially in the Carter years.
By calling Garland a moderate, the media was trying to provide a rationale by which the Republicans in the Senate could fold and confirm him. Don’t think it still won’t happen. The Republicans resolve is only for show and never endures. And they wonder why Trump is so popular.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.