America
was founded on the principle of representative democracy: the
government would make policy based on the consent of the governed.
Liberal elitists have grown increasingly impatient with this
unenlightened system, and more and more, they are relying on judicial
activists to remake society in their desired image. Far from being
tribunes of the people, these judges are honored by the media elite for
going around public opinion - and the Constitution - whenever the
liberal impulse beckons.
CBS's "60 Minutes" earned the title "Syrupy Minutes" on November 28
with a thoroughly one-sided tribute to the "great" liberal Supreme
Court Justice John Paul Stevens, with a focus on how this "great" man
publicly suggested George W. Bush was a tyrant.
Pelley hailed how Stevens had "shaped more American history than
any Supreme Court justice alive." He especially underlined how liberals
see Stevens' opinions on the rights of terrorist suspects as "among the
most important of his career." The detention center at Guantanamo Bay
is a legal and political mess. One could easily blame the "historic"
Justice Stevens; CBS lauds him.
Pelley made no bones of his biases, tossing the softball to
Stevens: "There is one inscription and one inscription only above the
door to this building." Stevens replied: "Equal Justice Under Law."
Pelley continued: "And that applies to foreign nationals who may wish
to do this country harm?" Stevens argued: "If they're to be prosecuted
for crimes, they're entitled to a fair trial or fair procedures." How
comforting.
Pelley highlighted the case of "dirty bomb" suspect Jose Padilla,
lamenting how the court's majority "dismissed Padilla's appeal on a
technicality," but the heroic "Stevens and three other justices had
wanted to rule on Padilla's detention. Stevens aimed his dissent at the
Bush administration, writing, 'If this nation is to remain true to the
ideals symbolized by its flag, it must not wield the tools of tyrants.'"
Stevens clearly warmed the hearts at CBS News. But they also
chopped off the end of his quote. Justice Stevens wrote, "it must not
wield the tools of tyrants even to resist an assault by the forces of
tyranny." The rights of "forces of tyranny" outweigh the "tools of
tyrants," even democratically elected ones? It's outbursts like this
that made Stevens a perpetual minority in the public conversation.
Instead of turning to conservative justices for a little balance,
CBS turned to fellow liberal Justice David Souter for continuous
hosannas. Pelley asked about the Stevens "tools of tyrants" dissent:
"How important was that?" Souter declared: "It's as fundamental as any
decision that's been made that I can think of on a citizen's liberty in
my lifetime."
That's not enough. Pelley lofted another softball: "And it was
Justice Stevens who stood up and said, 'Wait a minute, this has gone
too far.'...He rendered a service to the country in those opinions?"
Souter replied: "That made him one of the great judges." Gotcha.
The tiny detail left out of this narrative is that the Stevens
dissent didn't really change history. In 2007, after being sent to
civilian courts, Padilla was convicted of conspiracy to murder, kidnap
and maim people and sentenced to 17 years in prison. Pelley
acknowledged to Stevens that most Americans wouldn't agree that
granting the broadest menu of civil liberties (and rights to lawsuits)
for terrorist suspects like Jose Padilla is desirable, let alone a
hallowed moment in American history.
But Pelley also painted Stevens as a hero in trying to remake
election returns, dissenting from the Supreme Court decision that
allowed Evil Bush to win in 2000. Stevens explained he saw the case as
open-and-shut for more Gore recounts. Pelley insisted "There were many
people in this country who felt that the Supreme Court stole that
election for President Bush. That was the accusation that was
made...Was the decision of the court a partisan decision?" Stevens
would not question the motives of his colleagues, but called them
"profoundly wrong."
Why can't Pelley freely admit there isn't a soul at CBS who doesn't believe Bush stole the election?
CBS was not alone in touting wonderful liberal Supreme Court heroes
on the long Thanksgiving weekend. On Black Friday, NPR legal
correspondent Nina Totenberg offered her tribute to the ultraliberal
William Brennan, insisting "For those not familiar with Brennan's
incredible record, let us recapitulate." She quoted National Review as
saying no individual "on or off the court" had a more profound impact
on America than Brennan - utterly excluding from her report the
itty-bitty point that NR found it revolting that a judge would reign
supreme over our public policy.
The Totenbergs and Pelleys of journalism really ought to recuse
themselves from covering the high court. They are so biased they'd get
kicked out of anyone's jury pool.
