1. PBS Analysts Ridicule Eminent Domain Concerns of Conservatives
During PBS's coverage Wednesday of the Senate hearing with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, analysts ridiculed the concern of some conservative Senators over the Supreme Court's recent eminent domain ruling and mocked the role of naive talk radio hosts. During a break at about 4:45pm EDT, Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant was befuddled by "the vigorous nature of this opposition to a rather mundane eminent domain case from New London, Connecticut, this Kelo thing. I mean, as you know, this issue has been around for decades, especially connected with urban renewal." New York Times columnist David Brooks pointed out that "talk radio exploded on this issue, and it was a big popular issue." That prompted NewsHour reporter Ray Suarez, host of the roundtable, to take a slap at talk radio: "Well, when eminent domain was remaking the face of cities across America, there really was no talk radio, and that may be a big change in the United States." Also, in his Tuesday column, Oliphant proposed that while Roberts may know the law, "there is almost no evidence of his understanding of justice."

2. ABC's Douglass Feels the Pain of Democrats Frustrated by Roberts
ABC's Linda Douglass felt the Democrats' pain as she conveyed their frustrations with how Supreme Court nominee John Roberts answered their questions. World News Tonight anchor Elizabeth Vargas set up the Wednesday story by stressing how "some" Senators complained that Roberts "wasn't doing much answering." Douglass related how "Senators were visibly frustrated as they tried to pin Roberts down on some of the country's most emotional issues." She noted how, "without mentioning Terri Schiavo by name, Democrats demanded to know if families have the right to remove a loved one from life support." She played a clip from Senator Dianne Feinstein and then multiple exchanges between Roberts and Senator Joe Biden, ending with Biden's lecture: "It's kind of interesting this kabuki dance we have in these hearings here, as if the public doesn't have a right to know what you think about fundamental issues facing them." Douglass then did move on to how "some Republicans pressed him on abortion, pushing him to say a fetus is a person with rights."

3. "Upside of Katrina" for Clift: No More Tax Cuts or Spending Cuts
"If there's an upside to Katrina," Newsweek's Eleanor Clift trumpeted last Friday in her weekly online "Capitol Letter" column, "it's that the Republican agenda of tax cuts, Social Security privatization and slashing government programs is over. It may be too much to predict an upsurge of progressive government, but the environment and issues of poverty, race and class are back on the nation's radar screen." Of course, the Bush administration never proposed "privatizing" Social Security and spending on domestic programs has soared during the Bush years. Clift reveled in Bush's distress and applauded media activism: "The media has turned a corner as well, with reporters on the scene in New Orleans liberated to say the emperor has no clothes."

PBS Analysts Ridicule Eminent Domain
Concerns of Conservatives

     During PBS's coverage Wednesday of the Senate hearing with Supreme Court nominee John Roberts, analysts ridiculed the concern of some conservative Senators over the Supreme Court's recent eminent domain ruling and mocked the role of naive talk radio hosts. During a break at about 4:45pm EDT, Boston Globe columnist Tom Oliphant was befuddled by "the vigorous nature of this opposition to a rather mundane eminent domain case from New London, Connecticut, this Kelo thing. I mean, as you know, this issue has been around for decades, especially connected with urban renewal." New York Times columnist David Brooks pointed out that "talk radio exploded on this issue, and it was a big popular issue." That prompted NewsHour reporter Ray Suarez, host of the roundtable, to take a slap at talk radio: "Well, when eminent domain was remaking the face of cities across America, there really was no talk radio, and that may be a big change in the United States." Also, in his Tuesday column, Oliphant proposed that while Roberts may know the law, "there is almost no evidence of his understanding of justice."

     As they sat in the Arlington, Virginia studio of WETA-TV, Suarez cued up Oliphant at 4:43 EDT on September 14: "Tom, what are people who have been portraying themselves as opponents of Judge Roberts' nomination and confirmation see at stake right now?"
     Tom Oliphant, Boston Globe: "Well, what's interesting -- to me, anyway -- has been the much greater concentration on the social issues on the left side of that committee table than on the right. I mean, okay, defending the right to choose is a big deal and will be so for the next decade. I suspect it'll probably exist after another decade, though we're uncertain about what the form is. What surprised me today, given that Senators and Congressmen often will just simply reflect the heat they get from their constituents, is the vigorous nature of this opposition to a rather mundane eminent domain case from New London, Connecticut, this Kelo thing. I mean, as you know, this issue has been around for decades, especially connected with urban renewal. It's the primary reason our sainted Brooklyn Dodgers became the Los Angeles Dodgers. But all the way down that side, the younger ones especially, who maybe aren't quite as used to the heat and the bright lights, were reflecting this. And Roberts was really pushing back, I thought. Much as he wouldn't give, he wouldn't talk to them about when life begins or when it ends, but he also was trying to explain to them, you know, almost like 'read the Kelo decision.' There was a very explicit connection there with the eminent domain involved with an urban redevelopment plan for the area as a whole. And there wasn't anything all that special about it, really, and I think he expressed some mystification, that I felt here, and I think what Brownback, Coburn, I heard Lindsey Graham, too, I think were reflecting were younger Senators who got a lot of heat on an issue that they weren't expecting and reflected it."
     David Brooks: "Well, this could be the difference in 'big C' and 'small C' conservatives because certainly when that case came down, talk radio exploded [Oliphant in background: "It did."] on this issue, and it was a big popular issue. And this could be another case where Roberts is not exactly in the movement. He has some of the same ideas, but he's not in the movement the way really Thomas is and Scalia is and certainly Bork is."
     Suarez: "Well, when eminent domain was remaking the face of cities across America, there really was no talk radio, and that may be a big change in the United States.
     Oliphant: "Well, they had meetings and demonstrations and people threw eggs and things like that. But it was a huge deal. And taking land -- with compensation, of course -- for the benefit of another private party is hardly unique. This has been going on for decades. The UDAG grants and their parking garages and all the rest of it."
     Suarez, referring to the man who bought Manhattan for $24: "Peter Minuit."
     Oliphant resurrected a term, "New Right," not heard in decades: "Exactly right. So the discovery of this on the New Right is an interesting perhaps sociological phenomenon, but I'm not quite sure it's all that significant a constitutional phenomenon."

     For a picture and bio of Ray Suarez: www.pbs.org

     For a picture and bio of David Brooks: www.pbs.org

     For the columns by Oliphant, a former Boston Globe reporter: www.boston.com

     His September 13 column, "The stealth appointee," began:

John Roberts is poised to win confirmation as the next chief justice of the United States because, among other things, he knows the law cold. But after one of the most near-perfect, resume-punching voyages ever to the Supreme Court, there is almost no evidence of his understanding of justice.

This has nothing to do with the overwhelming odds of his confirmation by the Senate. It does, however, have something to do with how his possibly routine elevation should be received.

To illustrate, I have no doubt that his encyclopedic knowledge of constitutional history includes a detailed understanding of Plessy v. Ferguson, the landmark abomination that enshrined segregation in 1896 for another 58 years under the delusional mantra of ''separate but equal." It wouldn't surprise me if Judge Roberts could quote sentences from Justice Henry Brown's majority opinion on behalf of eight brethren and even from John Harlan's passionate dissent.

But I doubt very much that Roberts knows beans about Homer Plessy, and I can imagine him being tripped up even if asked Plessy's first name. It is that human face of justice, or injustice, that concerns me, and, from the available record anyway, has never interested Roberts....

     END of Excerpt

     For the column in full: www.boston.com

ABC's Douglass Feels the Pain of Democrats
Frustrated by Roberts

     ABC's Linda Douglass felt the Democrats' pain as she conveyed their frustrations with how Supreme Court nominee John Roberts answered their questions. World News Tonight anchor Elizabeth Vargas set up the Wednesday story by stressing how "some" Senators complained that Roberts "wasn't doing much answering." Douglass related how "Senators were visibly frustrated as they tried to pin Roberts down on some of the country's most emotional issues." She noted how, "without mentioning Terri Schiavo by name, Democrats demanded to know if families have the right to remove a loved one from life support." She played a clip from Senator Dianne Feinstein and then multiple exchanges between Roberts and Senator Joe Biden, ending with Biden's lecture: "It's kind of interesting this kabuki dance we have in these hearings here, as if the public doesn't have a right to know what you think about fundamental issues facing them." Douglass then did move on to how "some Republicans pressed him on abortion, pushing him to say a fetus is a person with rights."

     The MRC's Brad Wilmouth corrected the closed-captioning against the video.

     Anchor Elizabeth Vargas set up the September 14 story: "On Capitol Hill today, the confirmation hearings for John Roberts continued. It was the Senators who did a lot of the talking again today. Some of them say that's because the nominee for Chief Justice wasn't doing much answering. Here's ABC's Linda Douglass."

     Douglass began: "Senators were visibly frustrated as they tried to pin Roberts down on some of the country's most emotional issues."
     Senator Joseph Biden (D-Senate Judiciary Committee): "We are rolling the dice with you, Judge."
     Douglass: "Without mentioning Terri Schiavo by name, Democrats demanded to know if families have the right to remove a loved one from life support."
     Senator Dianne Feinstein (D-Senate Judiciary Committee): "If you were in that situation, who would you want to listen to? Your doctor or the government telling you what to do?"
     Judge John Roberts, Chief Justice nominee: "I do think it's one of those things that it's hard to conceptualize until you're there."
     Biden: "Do you think the Constitution encompasses a fundamental right for my father to conclude that he does not want to continue, 'he' does not want to continue on a life support system?"
     Roberts: "Well, Senator, I can't answer that question in the abstract because-"
     Biden: "It's not abstract. That's real."
     Roberts: "That's asking me for an opinion in the abstract on a question that will come before the court."
     Biden: "It's kind of interesting this kabuki dance we have in these hearings here, as if the public doesn't have a right to know what you think about fundamental issues facing them."
     Douglass: "But some Republicans pressed him on abortion, pushing him to say a fetus is a person with rights."
     Senator Sam Brownback (R-Senate Judiciary Committee): "Could you state your view as to whether the unborn child is a person or is a piece of property?"
     Roberts: "I don't think it would be appropriate for me to comment on that one way or another."
     Douglass: "Senator Coburn tried to lure him into defining life with this question:"
     Senator Tom Coburn (R-Senate Judiciary Committee): "Would you agree that the opposite of being dead is being alive?"
     Roberts: "Yes, again, it-" [laughter]
     Unidentified voice, likely Brownback: "Pulled it out of him."
     Roberts: "I don't mean to be overly cautious in answering."
     Douglass: "Democrats tried to shake Roberts by suggesting he's been deceptive. He told them firmly he's answered more questions than any other nominee. Linda Douglass, ABC News, Capitol Hill."

"Upside of Katrina" for Clift: No More
Tax Cuts or Spending Cuts

     "If there's an upside to Katrina," Newsweek's Eleanor Clift trumpeted last Friday in her weekly online "Capitol Letter" column, "it's that the Republican agenda of tax cuts, Social Security privatization and slashing government programs is over. It may be too much to predict an upsurge of progressive government, but the environment and issues of poverty, race and class are back on the nation's radar screen." Of course, the Bush administration never proposed "privatizing" Social Security and spending on domestic programs has soared during the Bush years.

     Clift reveled in Bush's distress and applauded media activism: "With gas prices spiraling and an unnecessary war draining billions from the Treasury, Bush's inadequacies are glaringly obvious, from incompetence to insensitivity. The credibility gap that emerged on Iraq has widened to a chasm with the hurricane aftermath. The media has turned a corner as well, with reporters on the scene in New Orleans liberated to say the emperor has no clothes."

     Noel Sheppard, a blogger on the MRC's NewsBusters site, alerted me to Clift's rant. To read his posting and/or to offer your comment, go to: newsbusters.org

     To read Clift's September 9 posting on Newsweek's site buried within MSNBC.com: www.msnbc.msn.com

-- Brent Baker

---

Sign up for CyberAlerts:      Keep track of the latest instances of media bias and alerts to stories the major media are ignoring. Sign up to receive CyberAlerts via e-mail. Subscribe! Enter your email to join MRC CyberAlert today!   questions and comments about CyberAlert subscription      You can also learn what has been posted each day on the MRC’s Web site by subscribing to the “MRC Web Site News” distributed every weekday afternoon. To subscribe, go to: http://www.mrc.org/cybersub.asp#webnews

 

---

Home | News Division | Bozell Columns | CyberAlerts 
Media Reality Check | Notable Quotables | Contact the MRC | Subscribe