We've seen some major cases of left leaning bias in the media, especially during the late presidential campaign. Many of these cases have been blatant and over-the-top in style but, while covering the brazen cases of such bias, it is easy to forget that there are every day cases of the more subtle bias to the left in the media. Today, we have a perfect example of a more subtle left leaning bias in the media with a Reuters story headlined "Obama likely to push courts away from right." In it there are lies, distortions and tricky wording all used to pat Barack Obama on the back for his assumed sharp turn to the left he'll take as he appoints judges during his forthcoming presidency. The same tricks of the trade are used to attack George Bush and conservatives for their judicial turn to the right these last eight years.
The headline, of course, is a classic example of leftist bias. Just take a look at the language: "Obama likely to push courts away from right." More properly this headline should read: "Obama likely to push courts to the left." But, notice that instead of saying "push to the left," they say "push away from the right." This gives Obama cover for what he's really doing and takes the emotional impact away from the fact that Obama is, indeed, going to veer to the left by placing the negative connotation on the right. Reuters is assuring people that Obama ISN'T going left, no, no, no, he's only going "away" from the right!
The first paragraph continues to use words that soften Obama's shift to the left while highlighting Bush's actions in harsher terms.
President-elect Barack Obama will have a chance to appoint dozens of sympathetic judges to U.S. federal courts over the next four years, reversing the judiciary's shift to the right under President George W. Bush.
So, leftist jurists are "sympathetic" while Bush more harshly made a "shift to the right," that needs "reversing" eh? The emotional language used is soft for the left and harsh for the right.
Next up, Reuters promulgates an outright lie to legitimize Obama's sharp left turn.
Aided by a Democrat-controlled Senate, the former constitutional law professor will appoint judges who could rule on issues raised by Bush's prosecution of wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as divisive social issues like gay marriage, the death penalty and abortion.
Sorry, Reuters, but Obama was never a "constitutional law professor." He was merely an instructor. Obama never became a full fledged professor and when urged to do so, refused the offer. To claim that he was a professor, however, is meant to cajole the reader into imagining that Obama has the correct view of what the law "should be" because, we see, he was a professor. Also notice that as far as Reuters is concerned Bush's appointees seem mainly to have been involved in wars and "divisive social issues." Why isn't the left's ideas on social issues "divisive"?
Then Reuters gives us some Obama quotes on how he and his pals on the left are more "optimistic" because they want judges to have "heart" and the "empathy" so that they can "recognize what it's like to be a young teenage mom," as if it is just a truism that knowing what it is like to "be a teenaged mom" somehow is a must for a good judge.
Next we get a childishly simplified example of what conservatives believe, so childish it amounts to another lie by Reuters.
But those appointments will be a setback for conservatives who have worked for decades to establish a majority of "strict constructionists" who interpret the Constitution literally.
I love this one..."'strict constructionists' who "interpret the Constitution literally." The language here is meant to evoke the disgust that leftists have for Christians who liberals harangue as interpreting the Bible "literally." As if it is wrong, or mean to do so. But, the fact is, strict constructionists do not "interpret the Constitution literally" at all. The philosophy behind strict constructionism is that the ideas of the original framers should be the touchstone that informs judicial interpretation. Find out what the framers meant and use that as a guide to adjudicate a case. It is not so simplistically childish as "interpreting the Constitution literally."
There's more subtle left leaning bias in this story, of course. I urge you to go read it and take it all in. But, there was one funny bit at the end.
Vice President-elect Joe Biden's long tenure on the Senate Judiciary Committee will also help, experts said.
Here we go with the media's "experts" again. There is no one with any sense of how things work that could honestly say that a Joe Biden will be a major asset in picking judges in an Obama administration.
If history be our judge, Joe Biden will have no role in helping Obama get his judges. Further, a vice president is to have no such role. So, long tenure or not, Biden's so-called experience will be meaningless in this case.
To illustrate, we can look to the case of Kennedy and Johnson. Johnson was the lion of the Senate as majority leader and "experts" then claimed that he would be an invaluable aide to the Kennedy administration as a liaison to the Senate once he became VP. The reality was, though, that the minute LBJ stopped being the majority leader of the Senate and took his seat as VP, his influence instantly evaporated. His colleagues had no further reason to listen to him because his role as VP gave him no influence and no power over them.
We should also remember that Johnson had real power as Senate majority leader then but still had no such power in the Kennedy White House or the Senate after becoming VP. Biden has zip for power right now -- nor has he ever had any. He is not a leader on any issue in the Senate and he is not looked to by his colleagues for such, nor has he ever been. His reputed Secret Service code name, Foghorn, is a perfect pejorative for what he meant to his colleagues in the Senate. Biden is viewed as a loud, insistent, and boorish talker from a tiny state, but little else.
If Lyndon Johnson, the lion of the Senate, was reduced to powerless navel gazing upon taking his seat as VP, what is a back-bencher like Biden bound for? One can only laugh at the claim that a Joe Biden will "also help" Barack Obama get his judges.
These "experts" that the media finds seem to be universally uninformed.
