….for entertainment value.

I hope you didn\’t think I love The Times for its hard-hitting, fiercely neutral reporting.  And I certainly hope you don\’t think I love The Times for its editorials.

A case in point?  How about today\’s editorial, which excoriates the U.S. Supreme Court for its ruling that Massachusetts exceeded its constitutional authority by creating a 35 foot “buffer zone” on public sidewalks, separating women entering abortion clinics from pro-life protesters who might try to talk them out of having the procedure.

You can read the entire editorial by clicking here.  If you do, you will find that two Justices are singled out for criticism regarding this ruling:  Associate Justice Antonin Scalia and Chief Justice John Roberts.

So why do I find this entertaining? 

Because the court\’s ruling was unanimous.  Every one of the 9 members voted the same way, including every reliably leftward judge – which, of course, means that both of Barack Obama\’s appointments, Elena Kagan and Sonya Sotomayor voted identically to Scalia and Roberts.

But The Times did not say one word against Kagan or Sotomayor.  Or against the other two reliably leftward justices, Breyer and Ginsburg. 

Nope, if any justices were going to get the back of The New York Times\’ hand, they were going to be from the rightward contingent, and nowhere else.

Which is why The New YorkTimes is entertaining.  Not logical, not credible, not neutral, not any of those things.  But entertaining.

Well, at least that\’s something…….

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *