The Post Cranks Up Its Partisanship

By September 2, 2005Judicial Nominations

Judicial NominationsWe just had to get this in here before the day officially came to a close. All the Post headline writers — and editors, for that matter — must be busy with hurricane coverage. On page 3 of the front section of the Post today is the following headline: “Lawyers Join Chorus Opposed to Roberts”. Wow. Not sure where to start with this one.

“Lawyers”, as in all lawyers? Well, not really. The lawyers in question (as Perry Mason would say) are 160 law professors. This is not exactly a random sample. Law professors aren’t really known for being middle-of-the-road politically. And, the letter they signed was distributed by the Alliance for Justice (a misnomer if ever there was one), who the Post (rightly) describes as “an umbrella organization for liberal advocacy groups that formally declared their opposition to Roberts’ nomination….” Right.

It just goes to show that you must read beyond the headlines and apply some independent judgment along the way. In truth, all lawyers don’t oppose Roberts, in fact very few do. As for the “chorus”, most of the press accounts thus far have noted the fact that there’s really been no chorus at all in opposition to Roberts, that it’s been pretty quiet and that he might sail through the Senate. Still, made for a good headline, didn’t it?

We support Judge Roberts, think he’ll make a great Justice. He will faithfully apply the law and understands business, and understands the courts’ impact on business, more importantly. We evaluated him according to actual published criteria, which is more than you can say for any of these groups.

By the way, anybody know any good lawyer jokes…?