Sunday, September 18, 2005

Lost: Credibility. If Found, Please Return it to the New York Times

The WaPo has two articles on the Roberts nomination, both endorsing his confirmation, one an editorial and another by David Broder, not exactly a fire-breathing conservative, who writes:

The question of whether Judge John Roberts is qualified to be chief justice of the United States has been rendered moot by his performance in the Senate Judiciary Committee hearings. He is so obviously -- ridiculously -- well-equipped to lead government's third branch that it is hard to imagine how any Democrats can justify a vote against his confirmation.

(Well David, you apparently aren't as imaginative as Sens. Schumer, Kennedy, Durbin, etc., and that is meant as a compliment.)

But the New York Times, in what has to be the biggest surprise since the sun rose in the East this morning, opposes his confirmation.

This got me to thinking that the Old Gray Lady may have a more nefarious purpose for its new Times Select subscription service, which I predict will make NBC's Olympic TripleCast look like a brilliant business decision: By charging for their op-ed writers and archive access, it is going to make it much more difficult for bloggers to find and expose the embarrassing hypocrisy of this once venerable newspaper plunging head-long into irrelevancy.

It would have been nice to have been able to access the Times editorial on the confirmation of Ruth Bader Ginsburg and compare it to the logic employed in opposing Roberts for Chief Justice. Why do I have a sneaking suspicion that not only did the NYT support her elevation to the Supreme Court, but also found that her disinclination to answer specific questions on cases that might come before the Court entirely reasonable?

As I get to think about it, is $49.99 a year too much to ask for the opportunity to make invidious comparisons and note the far-left bias of America's "paper of record"? Maybe not.


Post a Comment

<< Home