CHIEF JUSTICE ROBERTS, THE MEDIA, & A WOMAN’S RIGHT TO CHOOSE

This past week was a week of major news stories; the awful events at Virginia Tech, Gonzo’s excellent adventure in the Senate, and, a ruling by our "Supreme" Court that upheld the so-called Partial Birth Abortion Ban voted into law by our recent Republican dominated Congress. For clarification purposes, let’s point out that “Partial Birth Abortion” is a perversely ingenious example of buzz-word marketing. During the rest of history, the procedure was know as “Dilation And Extraction” or a D & E. The Republikooks changed the terminology and the media eagerly followed suit. Let’s take a look at recent events and take a look at how we got to this point where D & E is now banned, even a case where the woman’s health and even life is at risk. If a pregnant woman now gets in a car accident and a D & E will save her life, "too bad." say the compassionate conservatives who slither among us. Let’s begin with the "Supreme" Court’s appointment of the smirking chimp as unacceptable and unaccepted leader of the free world. To those who felt there was no difference between Al Gore and chimpy, guess again. I feel confident that at least Al Gore, among other things, would not have nominated the likes of John Roberts and then Samuel Alito for the court. I’ll concentrate on Roberts. He was the first and he was anointed as Chief Justice.

Before being nominated, Roberts served as Deputy Solicitor General in Daddy Bush’s administration, once arguing, in 1990, before the Supreme Court that the court’s 1973 Roe v. Wade ruling which struck down state laws that criminalized abortion "was wrongly decided and should be overturned." Thirteen years later, during his confirmation to the District Of Columbia Appeals Court, he, very disingenuously, stated that he was merely acting on behalf of a client, not presenting his own position. He then went on to embellish, his transparency visible to all but senators and media hacks, that Roe v. Wade is "the settled law of the land" and that "nothing in my personal views would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." Hey, he wasn’t lying. Lying under oath in the Senate would be a crime. He was just spinning up masterful lawyerspeak to a bunch of overly martinied Senators that, for the most part, just sat back and enjoyed the hypnotic haze spun by a forked tongued devil. In another century, Roberts would have been charming the Indians into signing worthless treaties. In a few years, he was to be named Chief, Chief Justice. In an ultimate irony, some even address him as "your honor." To be fair to Roberts, there’s a little more to the story. Roberts is a smart guy. He was doing what one would expect him to do. Unfortunately, the media, our “fourth estate” (a term that implies being a “fourth branch” of government, another check in a series of checks and balances, something made even more crucial when the three branches of government, the executive, congress, and the court are controlled by one party), abdicated their responsibility to inform the country.

In declining to point out that, as an appellate court judge, Roberts was beholden to the laws of the land as directed by the Supreme Court, but, as a member of the Supreme Court could actually indulge in judicial activism and reverse existing law, our corporate Orwellian media painted a picture of Robert’s as someone far less threatening to a woman’s right to choose. They did it by presenting his 2003 statements as his approach on the matter of abortion law. That’s right, the media sold John Roberts to the American public just like they sold a war, just like they sold GWB as a regular guy, and just like they now sell John McCain as a moderate. CNN’s Brian Todd, NBC’s justice correspondent Pete Williams, FOX’s Major Garrett and Megyn Kendall, CBS’s Julie Chen and Gloria Borger, ABC’s Kate Snow ALL suggested that Robert’s 2003 testimony at his Appeals Court confirmation somehow applied to his Supreme Court confirmation hearings. Either they are part of a rightist agenda or the education standards for reporters are extremely low. How much effort does it take to do a little research? Either way, a weapon of mass deception was deployed. NBC, who the right like to smear as liberal, had one of the worst offenders in Pete Williams. Not only did his July 19, 2005 report distort the picture, but, he later did almost exactly the same thing on January 9, 2006, during the Alito hearings. Ask yourselves why.

The failing of the media was so bad that even the pathetic current Attorney General Alberto Gonzales showed more honesty, candor, and grasp of the facts when he said (in a July 26, 2005 interview with the AP) “If you’re asking a circuit court judge, like Judge Roberts was asked, yes, it is settled law because you’re bound by the precedent. If you’re a Supreme Court justice, that’s a different question because a Supreme Court justices is not obliged to follow precedent if you believe it’s wrong.” Yes, folks, the sleazeball who just said he “couldn’t recall” 74 times in one hearing session was more forthright than our news bozos. After that, it becomes unnecessary to even discuss the media’s coverage of Bush’s nomination of Samuel Alito. I’ll just offer one more example to couple with Pete Williams’ "storytime." Here it is, a beyond incredulous headline from the nation’s carp wrapper, USA Today (USA Toadie) on November 26, 2005: "Alito’s Abortion Stance Tough To Decipher." Yeah. Right. Real tough one. Sadly, people not only buy the paper, they buy what’s in it. Makes a great wee-wee pad, if you ask me. The most galling thing is how little respect and how much contempt for the public a news organization has to have to even come up with such a headline.


There’s a sad flaw in most of us that leads us to trust that anything on the TeeVee or believe that anything that comes from an authority figure must be true. The media’s role in the deception on the Robert’s confirmation is a good example of how these Goebbels worshippers work. It’s not unlike how, more recently, they have neglected to mention that the eight U.S. attorneys, fired by the current administration are REPUBLICAN attorneys, appointed by the same administration. By not making that clear, they have given most of the country the impression that the whole Gonzales scandal is just partisan politics as usual when, in fact, these REPUBLICAN attorneys were fired for following the law of the land and doing an honest, professional job, even if the trail led back to the White House, as appears to be the case in the Carol Lam firing. We have to watch the media like an eagle. They can be very subtle. Recently, on March 1st, the New York Times ran an article that stated that ABC News had edged out NBC News in the latest ratings book. ABC is perceived, rightly or wrongly, as being more rightwing than NBC. Personally, I just think ABC is more OVERT (that little Clinton bashing show on 9/11 comes to mind) about it, but, the report failed to mention the statistical margin of error. That margin could have just as easily placed NBC in the lead, but the so-called liberal (yeah, right) New York Times slanted the article in ABC’s favor. Why? I’ll put it in context and then it’s "you decide." Think of the paper’s lack of questioning on the matter of the 2000 "election." Think of their lies about WMDs and their promotion of the war in Iraq. It goes on and on. The media in this country is engaged in pushing this country ever rightward. They bash Pelosi for taking the same trip Republicans did. They also bash her for wearing the same head scarf that Laura Bush did. No criticism of them, though. It doesn’t fit the agenda. They parrot Senator Hatch’s lies about U.S. Attorney Carol Lam (a Republican) being a Democrat and working as a campaign chair for Bill Clinton’s campaign as the truth. There’s no end to media mass deception. The big lie.

So, this is one of the ways we got to the “Supreme” Court’s decision on D & E. The media has traditionally been a source of vital information. Thomas Jefferson, himself said given the choice between a government without the press or a press without a government, he would choose in favor of the press. Things have obviously changed. Will this be a wake up call? If the Democrats are smart (I know, a BIG leap, there) they can use the decision to really increase their margins in both houses of Congress in 2008. With everything else that happened this week, how much of the public even knows of the decision and comprehends its ramifications? I have to think that there are a lot of women out there, of ALL creeds and parties, who are fed up and disgusted and would vote against the Repugs, maybe for the first time. Then again, maybe they’ll continue to vote against their best interests, supporting candidates who don’t care if you live or die. Maybe, it’ll take a horrible incident of a high profile politician’s wife or judge’s wife or daughter being in that car accident having to die when a D & E could have saved her. This aspect of the Bush culture of death will cause more deaths than the despicable actions of a well-armed lunatic.

NOAH