For anyone who closely follows the behavior of various news outlets or is a serious student of the tricks of bias that media uses to propagandize the public, this one is downright laughable.
From the liberal news outlet, the Wall Street Journal, Friday:
GINSBURG REGRETS HER CRITICISM OF TRUMP
This is a fairly long “news analysis” of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s embarrassing and wholly improper remarks, criticizing the Donald Trump candidacy…calling him a “faker”, among other things all of which has been widely reported in recent days.
The Journal dutifully reports that Justice Ginsburg (who, in our opinion, has been ‘phoning in” for years her deep thinking, always reflecting her strongly biased liberal ideology, on every issue before the Court) had “walked back her criticism …” of Trump.
Whenever anyone “walks back” their public remarks these days, the unwary news consumer needs to avoid confusing that with the term, “apologizes”.
Ginsburg’s regretful statement is just that…”regretful”, as in “damn, I should have been more subtle in trying to help the Democratic party and the national news media destroy the GOP”.
At any rate the Journal story is trying to pick Ruthie up by the usual media diversionary tactics.
In this case the reporters chose to refer to the incident as a “trading of potshots” between the the judiciary and the presidential candidate.
To further attempt to dilute the extremely damaging implications of Ginsburg’s behavior, the story included recollections of previous “attacks” by Trump on Chief Justice Roberts for his decisions on Obamacare and Trump’s criticism of the judge in the Trump university case.
Quoting the president of a “network of liberal lawyers and law students” the article offered this insight:
“It seems like a proper moment to think of what are appropriate guidelines for all the justices, rather than getting engaged in a very partisan effort at criticism”. In other words, this is no time to focus on the implications regarding Justice Ginsburg’s role in future cases before the Supreme Court which may have a relationship to a potential President Trump or disputes over electoral procedures or executive branch decisions.
Then the article attempts to associate the Ginsburg dustup with the GOP’s refusal to confirm Obama’s current nominee to replace the late Antonin Scalia (something Ginsburg also weighed in on, suggesting the Senate should have a confirmation vote, “that’s their job”).
The story even went back to the Court’s 2000 election decision which it called “an extraordinary ruling” which put Bush in the White House. We believe there is way more than enough evidence to suggest that that “ruling” did not put Bush in office. Every followup study has shown that under no reasonable scenario did Gore win that election!
But that’s OK. It still helps the Journal’s reporters deflect from the Ginsburg debacle.
To us, the most telling thing about this story is the way it attempts to portray Ginsburg’s conduct as just another instance of the squabbling between the Court and Congress and between liberals and conservatives.
It is notable that in recounting various examples, the story does not mention President Obama’s “extraordinary” assertion before the nation in a State of the Union address that the Supreme Court was wrong in its decision on “Citizens United”.
I suppose the nation is fortunate that Obama did not use his favorite characterization of anyone who disagrees with him…that the justices “acted stupidly”.
DLH
