 |
| Silverfiddle Rant! |
We touch on press bias quite a bit here, and awhile back our friend from across the pond Jez asked for examples. Chuck Schumer's red-faced, bellicose threat to two Supreme court justices provides us a simple case study.
What Senator Schumer, second most powerful Democrat in government, said:
"I want to tell you, Gorsuch; I want to tell you, Kavanaugh: You have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price," Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer roared Wednesday to a crowd of protesters angry over a Louisiana case before the court that threatens abortion rights. "You won't know what hit if you go forward with these awful decisions."Chief Justice Roberts rebuked him in an official statement, and the press could not ignore it, so they dissembled and made excuses for him in a manner reminiscent of an abused housewife covering for her alcoholic husband to keep him out of trouble. A press that casts every presidential utterance in the worst light possible, did double backbend whataboutisms for Schmucky.
They claimed Justice Kavanaugh issued the same threat at the end of his hearings. Here is what Kavanaugh said, after being publicly savaged, smeared and slandered:
“Since my nomination in July, there’s been a frenzy on the left to come up with something, anything, to block my confirmation,” he told Democrats on the Senate Judiciary Committee. “You sowed the wind for decades to come. I fear that the whole country will reap the whirlwind.”Does that sound like a threat to you? Kavanaugh's lament for our nation is not even in the same category as Schumer's splenetic outburst.
Even those august news outlets that rightly condemn Schumer's comments cannot leave it at that.
They must balance it off with a "Trump does it too:"
Our nation is ill-served by a Democrat Party-biased press that shovels us editorials and propaganda disguised as news.
They must balance it off with a "Trump does it too:"
► He earned his own rebuke from Roberts in 2018 after labeling a federal jurist an "Obama judge" for ruling against the administration.None of those examples come close to a threat. His remarks against Judge Curiel were stupid, petty and un-American, but not menacing, especially coming from a candidate. Asking judges to recuse themselves due to their blatant, open bias is also not a threat.
► As a candidate, Trump made bigoted remarks about a federal judge of Mexican heritage handling a fraud case over Trump University.
► Last month, the president criticized a judge overseeing the trial of Roger Stone, a longtime Trump friend.
► And last week, Trump called on two liberal Supreme Court justices to recuse themselves from "Trump-related" cases.
Our nation is ill-served by a Democrat Party-biased press that shovels us editorials and propaganda disguised as news.
FWIW, the first page of google news hits when I searched simply for "schumer" included a lot of very critical articles attacking "democrat thuggishness", others focussed on reminding us of the democratic norms Schumer just broke, some decrying leftist hypocrisy and others still pleading with Democrats to stop shooting themselves in the foot.
ReplyDeleteI don't doubt that the supportive articles exist, but they are not unopposed.
This isn't a scoreboard.
DeleteI linked to two articles that are typical of the coverage.
You still can't see or understand the editorial shading?
I could only see one of them from my region (usatoday). I don't think it's a bad article, I don't think it was equivocal in its condemnation of Schumer.
DeleteI think the Trump situation is different, because his attacks are part of a pattern. I don't know how in-keeping this story is with Schumer's usual demeanour, but if this is a one-off I think it is approriate to report him differently from Trump.
Schumer's they guy who warned newly-elected President Trump to not mess with the intelligence community because "they have six ways to Sunday to get back at you."
DeleteJez,
DeleteWhich of President Trump's statements do you see as an "attack" on the level of Schumer's intemperate outburst?
This Schumer fellow sounds like a terrific guy! \s
DeleteSF: Ignoring Trump's office, I can't think of any single one.
But it's *not* just single statement, and he *is* president, and I think it's reasonable and appropriate for the level of media interest to reflect both of those considerations. As representative of the Executive, it's part of his job to pay appropriate respect to the other branches.
Not that Trump isn't deliberately courting media controversy.
Democrats have used the "but he did it too" excuse for decades. Whenever an Obama act was criticized you would immediately hear a refrain of, "But Bush did it too." It disgusted me then and it disgusts me now.
ReplyDeleteYou defend the act of your guy by citing the (supposedly) same act performed by someone whom you purport to despise and hate beyond all measure. If this evil slug does it, you claim, then it's okay for your guy to do it as well.
By that standard, since Hitler murdered millions of Jews, we can expect that if elected Biden will murder millions of Jews.
The Senator from New York isn’t an atypical American politician. Everything he does, everything he says, every legislative issue he supports or opposes, is about maintaining or furthering his own political position. This is true in terms of national politics and is true in the politics of “back home” in the state he serves. The political system we refer to in history as Tammany Hall exists today but under another name. Same kinds of people, same old shenanigans, it’s just that everyone has an iPhone and uses twitter to their own advantages.
ReplyDeleteJez wouldn’t know this, of course, because he’s on the outside looking in. He probably also doesn’t care because he’s one of those irrational Trump Haters. In his mind, everything comes back to Trump, who by the way, was not elected by the American people because he’s a sweet old man, but because he’s NOT a politician and also because he’s a street fighter.
With that said, I should note that there is an important distinction between the definition of the word threat, and its legal definition. In the former, “a declaration of an intention or determination to inflict punishment, injury, etc., in retaliation for, or conditionally upon, some action or course.” Legally, the issuer of a threat must be in a position to carry out that threat. Schumer is in no position to carry out a threat of retribution because justices are appointed for life and are only subject to impeachment proceedings. I wish Schumer luck in recalling a justice for having the temerity to express a judicial opinion; his career would come to a sudden end.
The President is entitled to his opinions; he simply ought to issue them sparingly because they can have serious consequences, to him personally and to others. Clearly it is one thing to opine that a judge is an ideologue (Obama Judge) (which speaks to a peculiar lack of objectivity on the court), and another thing to use threats in an attempt to intimidate a judge who is the process of deliberating on the merits of a case.
As to Trump’s criticism of Sotomayor, she did in fact reveal herself as an ideologue and this is a concern to many Americans because in offering her partisan opinions, she demonstrates political biases that make her incapable of impartiality. Trump’s statement would therefore appear to have been justified on the basis that Sotomayor is arguably the most partisan judge on the bench since Moby Dick was a minnow. More to the point, most Americans would not have known of Sotomayor’s “dissent” (which was not joined by the other three progressive judges) without Trump bringing it to their attention —which I suppose is why he offered his opinion in the first place. Finally, it was the Trump-hating press that promulgated the President’s rather astute opinion to a worldwide audience.
Mustang,
Deletesince Moby Dick was a minnow
I've got to remember that phrase and spring it on my Literature class!
I don't think they come too close to being "un American," either, frankly.
ReplyDeleteDoesn't mean Kavanaugh, Alito et. al. can;t be ideologues.
DeleteNO, Canardo! YOU are an IDEOLOGUE as much or more than any person I've ever known.
DeleteYOU are the FANATIC.
YOU and all your demented kind are the most ILLIBERAL individuals we see (n the true sense of the word) LIBERAL).
The handiest –– and truest –– example of the kind f gvernment you yearn for, –– whether you know it or not ––, would be NAZI GERMANY.
National S_O_C_I_A_L_I_S_M –– one of the greatest evils ever to arise from the muck and mire of life on tis benighted planet.
I honestly don't believe you to be WICKED, Ducky, nor do I think you insaane, but that means I have no other choice but to think woefully IGNORANT of REAITY, and tragically MISEDUCATED.
Aside from all that HOW ARE YOU DOING? I hope you are making steady gains after your very serous recent surgery. Believe it or not, we wuldn't want to LOSE you.
You may be a pain-in-the-ass, but you are OUR pain-in-the-ass, and that makes you oddly lovable -- even if you don't return the compliment.
Take care!
:P
DeleteWhat you think, in your blind rage is as amusing as it is irrelevant.
DeleteI was wrorng in my complimentary assessmnt of your character, Canardo. You really ARE incredibly STUPID.
DeleteBut even so I do wish you well in your struggle to remove from open heart surgery.
I guess you can' help being BLIND to everything but what-you-believe-to-be FAULTS in others. What a pity!
I can't be sure, but I strongy suspect such a negative attitude could only contribute towards making you –– and keeping you –– ILL.
Good Luck anyway.
Kavanaugh's lament for our nation is not even in the same category as Schumer's splenetic outburst.
ReplyDeleteMy view on Schumer's threat as well.
My guess is that the fringe right doesn't understand that the 'admitting privilege' scam is just a ploy to suppress choice while strutting their concern for women's health.
ReplyDeleteAnyone who doesn't see it as an undue burden is blind.
Duck,
Deletethe 'admitting privilege' scam is just a ploy
Not necessarily.
Abortions, particularly those which are late-term, can have complications during the procedure. Often. No, but those complications, particularly hemorrhage or colon perforation, happen. It's good to have a hospital option should those complications occur.
BTW, a simple colonoscopy can also have complications -- as my 40-something cousin discovered to her alarm. Thankfully, her surgeon had admitting privileges at a nearby hospital.
Besides, the ploy is no excuse for what Schumer uttered.
DeleteKermit Gosnell, anyone?
DeleteSince Ducky brought up the topic of privileging ... a few observations:
DeleteHospital credentialing is a process of verifying medical qualifications to ensure current competence of physicians. By verifying medical qualifications, credentialing staff validate information beginning with medical school records, graduation, curricula vitae, state records, medical complaint boards, etc. Credentialing is the first step in vetting a physician for hospital practice.
The second step in the process for hospital practice is “privileging.” Privileging authorizes a specific scope of practice for patient care based on a physician’s credentials and his or her performance in the medical field. Related to the foregoing, admitting privileges is the right of a medical doctor, by virtue of his or her membership as hospital medical staff, to admit patients to a particular hospital or medical center for treatment of that patient.
A short history
In 2016, SCOTUS struck down a Texas law that required doctors who perform abortions in Texas to have admitting privileges. Why the SCOTUS would do that, given the regard for public health safety through such laws and procedures, confuses me.
The SCOTUS is wrestling with a similar issue, that being a 2014 Louisiana Law titled Unsafe Abortion Protection Act, which requires that doctors who perform abortions in Louisiana to have the right to admit patients to a hospital within 30 miles of the place where the abortion is to be performed. Reason: a lot can go wrong during an abortion; the doctor performing the procedure should be allowed to admit the patient for emergency medical treatment. The Louisiana Law was prudent and responsible.
In arguing against admitting privileges, Attorney for Plaintiffs, Julie Rikelman argued that the admitting privileges law has no benefits (to the doctors she represents) and is therefore more likely to be a burden to doctors in every state. Most of the hearing involved discussion on this matter. Ginsberg assumed Rikelman’s point of view. The concern is poppycock. The benefit to admitting privileges is that patients are protected from quacks or incompetent physicians. It seems to me that patients deserve a law that protects them from doctors who pose a danger to patients.
In the more current case, plaintiffs argued that Louisiana’s privileges law was so restrictive that if the SCOTUS upheld the law, it would leave the state with one (1) doctor qualified to perform abortions.
Conclusion:
I don’t know if this charge is true or not; I only know that if true, then Louisiana must have the most incompetent OB/GYNs, GPs, and FamMed physicians, since all of these are normally qualified to perform abortions. Although, with some women wanting to have abortions the day before full term may require a surgical specialist.
In any case, Chuck Schumer got what he wanted from Chief Justice Roberts, the liberalist.
Mustang,
DeleteThe benefit to admitting privileges is that patients are protected from quacks or incompetent physicians.
That is exactly correct!
IS IT REALLY, AOW?
DeleteI have little faith in "Officialdom" on ANY level. Bcause "officials' are flawed, fallen human beings just like ll the rest of us, but they re given POWER.
And as all should know, POWER CORRUPTS almost invariably.
Humanity grew and flourished n every conteninet for tens of thousands of years before "Modern Medicine" came along.
I have come to believe the virtue and value of Modern Medicine have been over-hyped and grossly exaggerated by the Medial Establishment in a cynically SELF-SERVING way.
Franco,
DeleteYes, it is really! Uterine hemorrhages can result in rapid exsanguination.
Is modern medicine perfect? No. But neither is non-traditional medicine. I've had bad experiences in both domains.
We must learn to ACCEPT our MORTALITY with good grace.
DeleteFACE IT! Every one of us is GOING to DIE someday. The less we WORRY bout it, the more pleasant and fruitful th time we DO have to live will be.
That's MY hard won philosophy bsed on very-close-to 79 years of observation and rich, often tumultuous, experience –– and a determned effort to cultivate and amplify FAITH in GOD.
i ask no one to adopt MY worldview, but it IS my understanding of what Life utumately means, and I'm STICKING WITH IT.
Doesn't mean I lack empathy.
It's as much an error to undervalue the quality-of-life / spiritual (am I using that word correctly?) concerns which FreeThinke reminds us of, as it is to undervalue the measurable medical outcomes that modern medicine focusses on. We should allow the former to inform the application of the latter.
Delete