The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘The Problem … Is That Thomas Doesn’t Care What the New York Times Thinks’

Posted on | June 20, 2011 | 10 Comments

Those are some of Professor Glenn Reynolds’ thoughts on exactly why the editors of the New York Times would assign a reporter to do a 2,700-word hit piece on Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

Twenty-seven-hundred words.

That’s four times the length of a typical news story, and the piece essentially re-hashes a Democratic Party talking point about Thomas’s alleged “conflict of interest” which Democrats say should force Thomas to recuse himself from the upcoming case on the constitutionality of ObamaCare.

Is there any chance — any chance at all — that the editors of the Times would ever consider themselves obliged to devote such resources to advancing a Republican talking point?

And they wonder why they’re losing influence . . .

Bookmark and Share
Category: Instapundit, New York Times, Supreme Court

Comments

  • http://2011.ak4mc.us/ McGehee

    And they wonder why they’re losing influence . . .

    I think you’ve made an error of tense in that sentence.

  • http://thepagantemple.blogspot.com/ ThePaganTemple

    Kagan should be the one to have to recuse herself, she actually worked on the damn bill as a member of Obummer’s adnministration. If the Times had the slightest inch of integrity they’d call for her to step aside too. Thomas has no reason to step aside. He cant tell his wife who to work for or what causes to support or oppose. More progressive, liberal hypocrisy.

  • http://thatmrgguy.wordpress.com/ Mike

    Stacy, your “share” button is screwed up, at least for me, anyway.

    So Thomas helped an old friend out on saving an historic piece of property…so what. I read the hit piece and that’s exactly what it was, a hit piece with a bunch of assumptions and wacked out premises.

  • http://twitter.com/DaTechGuyblog Peter Ingemi

    the Times is not a newspaper, it is a support group for the like minded

  • Joe

    That is the part I do not get.  Even if what Thomas did was wrong (and it was not, because Justices can assist on charitable projects and not violate their ethics)–how does this have any connection whatsoever to Obamacare review by SCOTUS? 

  • http://pointofagun.blogspot.com/ Dave C

    That’s four times the length of a typical news story
     That means people reading the NYT will click away to something else 8 times as fast..    

  • Pingback: The Spot-On Quote Of The Day… « The Camp Of The Saints

  • http://thecampofthesaints.org Bob Belvedere

    Mentioned in and Linked to at the THE SPOT-ON QUOTE OF THE DAY at:
    The Camp Of The Saints
    [awarded it to Pete for his quip above]

  • http://twitter.com/Trochilus Trochilus

    Ann Althouse does a highly credible job of building on the specifics of the story, here, where she notes that even if the “judicial code of conduct” applied to Thomas (which it does not because the sole remedial action in the case of Supreme Court justices is impeachment)  it would not apply in this situation!

    She points out the manner in which the author of the article blithely  ignored a specific provision of the code related to evidence of “personal solicitation” by simply “sliding over” that language in order to highlight other language.  Thus, she says the author was thereby falsely suggesting that there would be a “case” to be made, even if the code applied to Supreme Court justices.  Says she of the author’s conclusion: “Pretty sleazy.”

    As for the ridiculous prospect of impeachment, under the circumstances, she wryly notes:  “Picture Congress going after Thomas for playing some background role in preserving a valuable black history site.”

  • Nospam

    Yep, I’m gonna go there:

    Would the Times be working this hard on Thomas… if he was white?

Performance Optimization WordPress Plugins by W3 EDGE