In a speech in Phoenix on Tuesday, Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. said we have "a negligent press in this country," indicting everyone from "pollutors to politicians," but especially the news media for enabling the worst environmental president, and letting him off the hook. Moreover, he suggested that we have a press that acts as a vehicle for the delivery of entertainment rather than one that informs, and investigates. Amen. "We know more about Tom and Katie than about global warming," as Kennedy rightly said. (Fishbowl NY) Undoubtedly, we've been seduced by opinion, and abandoned by fact. But, he isn't the only one chastising the news media lately.
On Saturday, in a discussion about the role of the judiciary at the behest of the National Italian American Foundation, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia blasted the news media, as well as the in reading public, suggesting that they are complicit distorting representations of federal judges and courts. Scalia further observed that "The press is never going to report judicial opinions accurately. They're just going to report, who is the plaintiff? Was that a nice little old lady? And who is the defendant? Was this, you know, some scuzzy guy? And who won? Was it the good guy that won or the bad guy?" (Editor and Publisher). With words like "scuzzy" and "nice," this statement sounds more like it could be coming from the mouths of Mr. Bush, or Mr. Rumsfeld than a member of the Supreme Court. Clearly, if "scalia" is Italian for scales, these are not the scales of justice, but the ones generally worn by reptiles.
Intriguing, isn't it, how two men from opposite sides of the political spectrum come to the same conclusion about the press, if for different reasons. The first, Mr. Kennedy, arguing for more information, more knowledge whereas, in contrast, the Judge suggests that selling papers means writing for a bunch of simpletons. Think about this: we have a man sitting, for life, on the highest court in the land who thnks that we might not be capable of understanding the complexities of the Court, or its rulings. Is this altogether different from what judges in 18th Century England thought?
What's more, in his speech to the National Italian American Foundation, on Saturday, Scalia also demystified the notion of an independent judiciary: "You talk about independence as though it is unquestionably, and unqualifiedly a good thing," he tells the group. Yes, yes, the Supreme Court like Congress belongs under the king's thumb, and not just King George, mind you, but future American monarchs, as well.
Moreover, Judge Scalia contends that people understand, or misunderstand, the highest court in the land as a result of a news media that "typically oversimplifies and sensationalizes." (E & P) He also thinks that the Internet has an adverse effect on the way in which judges and their opinions are viewed, or maybe shared? Implicitly, the question isn't representation or misrepresentation, but judicial privacy. It is just possible that he's asserting judicial privilege; namely, that the Court's judgments belong to the realm of esoterica, not unlike documents this administration labels "classified?" If so, will future generations regard finding out about a ruling in a case, such as Roe v. Wade, as "leaking?"
Perhaps it's not so much that the press is pandering, after all, but that the people aren't at a level where they're capable of understanding more than whether the plaintiff was "a nice little old lady;" is this what the Judge is suggesting, really, beneath it all? If so, this is an important assertion coming from a government that regards itself as a democracy. Or, is he claiming, along with Robert F. Kennedy, that the press is delinquent in fulfilling its obligation to foster an informed electorate?
And, when a federal judge orders a New York Times investigative journalist, Nicholas Kristof, to identify 3 confidential sources,as well as turn over information without which his piece about anthrax mailings that killed nearly half a dozen people might not have been written, that is a challenge to all information-gathering needed to provide the public with anything more than an entertainment delivery vehicle. How in the hell can we expect the press not to think twice before engaging in controversy, as well as muzzle themselves, or self-censor, when the outcome is legalized humiliation?
How can we expect journalists to provide us with anything more than a dog and pony show when cynicism has spread as far as the Supreme Court, when the courts are strong arming them to compromise their ethics, and rat out those who gave them privileged information? When the notion of a free press is neutralized by the suggestion that the news media provides us with fiction, and only those who make policy can provide us with the key to the Holy Grail? Do we stifle dissent when we impugn, and neuter those who bring us our daily news?
Over the past 5 plus years, we have seen more grand jury subpoenas of members of the press than ever in our nation's history, including the McCarthy era, mostly frivolous subpoenas. We have seen journalists hand-cuffed and taken to jail, or placed on house arrest. We have seen responsible network broadcasting turned into a parody of "Good Morning America." Is this any justification for pandering to the lowest common denominator, or presenting news-lite? Hell no.... but self-censorship, my friends, is the most insidious form because it never sees the light of day.
Yes, Mr. Kennedy is right to suggest that we, in this country, have been seduced by opinion and abandoned by fact, a trend that can only widen, and worsen, if other judges, like Scalia, take the bench, and impugn not only the integrity of the news media, but the ability of the American people to understand both judges, and judicial findings. The Bush administration's policy of classifying, and making privileged information can only expand when Supreme Court judges roll over to executive control. Would it be audacious to suggest that Scalia, a strong proponent of looking to the "original Constitution" as a guide revisit that great document which provides for checks and balances, as well as an independent Court? More to the point, the Judge himself oversimplifies when he suggests that the news media doesn't report accurately, as well that independence of the Court is not always a good thing.
Notably, while both Scalia, on the right, and Kennedy, on the left, agree about major defects in the press, the former reflects the kind of elitism that takes us back to the monarchy while the latter suggests that an informed electorate is our best defense. And, while nobody is talking about the Supreme Court anymore, it's time to start again because whoever becomes president, in 2008, will have the opportunity to appoint more Scalias, and Scalia-clones,after which the Constitution will be found next to Gideon's Bible in your local Motel 6.
It is inconceivable that anyone seated on the highest court of a country founded by progressives would suggest that the news media can never report anything accurately; this kind of thinking poses a clear and present danger to a free press. At best, such a worldview leads to mediocrity; at worst, dictatorship. We have already witnessed what a class, and classified view has to offer us; one that promotes privacy, and exclusivity while, at the same time, depriving us of our right to confidentiality. If nothing else, the past decade has shown us that mediocrity has many takers. Excellence, on the other hand, is yet to be spoken for.
http://ladyjaynestahl.blogspot.com
Widely published, poet, playwright, essayist, and screenwriter; member of PEN American Center, and PEN USA. Jayne Lyn Stahl is a Huffington Post blogger.
by the same Laws that can also impeach a President, a Vice President..etc. High Crimes and Misdemeanors..such as lying to start a war for profit, using our troops illegally in an illegal war, compromising the Constitution, Habeas Corpus, the Geneva Convention, illegally spying on citizens and although it hasn't been mentioned..spying (tapping their phones) on Democratic Congressman and Senators..as for SCOTUS they have allowed Bush to spit on the Constitution..which they swore under oath to uphold...and shall we not forget that SCOTUS illegally swore Bush in as President..even though Gore actually won...(after all the counting was finally done) and Scalia KNEW it...I don't think for one moment that even if the Democrats do win in November...that either Congress or SCOTUS will reverse the Democratic win....and then what will "the people" do..?
by
Susan Nelsen (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 255 comments)
on Thursday, October 26, 2006 at 6:29:18 PM
Speaking of "elitist," don't forget Scalia's 1987 speech, which was the beginning of the end for civil rights cases - his so-called "trivial" cases.
(By STUART TAYLOR JR., SPECIAL TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (NYT) 1397 words Published: February 16, 1987)
Excerpts (comments interlineated in all caps):
"Associate Justice Antonin Scalia of the Supreme Court said today that the Federal judiciary was being transformed from an 'elite' into a vast bureaucracy by a flood of routine cases, and called for a major overhaul.
"He urged relegating large categories of cases like routine Social Security disability claims and Freedom of Information Act suits to specialized tribunals, to reverse what he termed the ''continuing deterioration'' in the prestige of the Federal district and appellate courts and the quality of the lawyers interested in serving on them. 'A Natural Aristocracy'
"'The time is well past due' for action if 'a system of elite Federal courts' is to be retained, Justice Scalia told a luncheon audience at the American Bar Association convention here. He said the framers of the Constitution saw the Federal judiciary as a 'natural aristocracy, in their words, of ability rather than wealth.'
"In his first major speech since he joined the Supreme Court in September, the 50-year-old Justice asserted it was inevitable that Federal district and appellate courts will stop attracting 'the cream of the profession' unless action is taken to limit their caseloads and their need to decide routine personal injury and employment disputes and other cases they consider 'trivial.'
"Justice Scalia said...he aspired to become a Federal judge because Federal courts were 'forums for the big case. An elite group of practitioners' argued before judges viewed as 'great minds' who enjoyed prestige unequaled by judges in other nations, he said. 'A Judge, Not a Processor'
"Since 1960, he said, the Federal courts have been transformed by an explosion of Federal rights on which lawsuits could be brought,'some created by Congress, some by the courts.'
"He said that since 1960 the number of Federal civil suits filed each year has more than quadrupled, from 58,000 to more than 250,000, and the number of appeals has multiplied ninefold, from 3,900 to 35,000."
DOESN'T ANYONE EVERY ASK WHY?
BECAUSE SIMPLE JUSTICE IS NO LONGER AVAILABLE - ANYWHERE! WHEN JUDGES FEEL FREE TO VIOLATE CONSTITUTION, STATUTE, PROCEDURAL RULES AND CONTROLLING AUTHORITY, THAT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH "JUDICIAL INDEPENDENCE"; IT IS NOT "ELITIST"; IT IS JUDICIAL CORRUPTION, PURE AND SIMPLE! THAT IS THE ONLY REASON WHY THE APPELLATE COURT CALENDARS ARE GROWING OUT OF CONTROL, AND WHY THE PUBLIC'S REGARD FOR THE JUDICIARY IS AT ITS LOWEST EBB IN HISTORY!
"He also said the problems would not be solved by other changes debated in recent years, such as eliminating the jurisdiction of Federal courts over state-law suits between citizens of different states or creating a new court to hear some appeals from the 12 regional Federal appellate courts.
"While such a court would lighten the Supreme Court's caseload, he said, it would only exacerbate the loss of prestige of the Federal district and appeals courts, pushing them one step down the ladder.
"'The question is not whether the Federal courts should be changed,' he said, 'but rather whether that change, through inaction, will take the form of continuing deterioration, or of some structural alteration that will preserve the essence of a valuable institution.'"
IS THAT INSTITUTION STILL SO "VALUABLE" WHEN CLERKS -
NOT JUDGES - DECIDE YOUR FATE IN THE "JUSTICE" SYSTEM"?
"Praise for Checks and Balances:
He also praised the Constitution's provisions for Presidential appointment and Senate confirmation of new Federal judges, as a way of tempering in the long run 'judicial interpretations which were believed to be erroneous by a majority of the people.'
"'The Supreme Court has also unhesitatingly stood up to the Executive Branch when the President sought to act contrary to law,' he said."
I HOPE HE STILL FEELS THAT WAY!
Re Bush-Gore: What Hath the Supreme Court Wrought?
Let them hear a thunderous roar from the people in November 2006 and 2008, because we won't tolerate vote fraud and presidential (S)election again!
by
LoriView (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 1 comments)
on Friday, October 27, 2006 at 4:54:12 AM
Whoa!!!! Heartfelt thanks for the incisive, and timely quote. I, for one, would like to read an article by you, and hopefully very soon. You're terrific!
by
Jayne Lyn Stahl (168 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 64 comments)
on Friday, October 27, 2006 at 12:43:02 PM
Thank you so much for presenting the "balanced" view of what these two judges on the Supreme Court are really like. We must hold our breath as the two new judges Bush appointed are defined by what they decide. I fear the worst. I sincerely hope I am wrong. Kennedy is no flaming liberal, but Scalia takes us so far back into darkness that Kennedy appears as liberal. I guess most would appear liberal if you compare them to Attila the Hun, Genghis Kahn, George W Bush and Adolph Hitler. It is sad to think that we will have Scalia and the judges appointed by Bush on the court for the next twenty to thirty years. I really do not see why Bush is fighting Bin Laden. He and the judges like Scalia end up in almost the same place as Bin Laden when it comes to democracy. The judges Bush has appointed could serve well on a Sharia Court under the Taliban.
Thanks again for an excellent article,
Phil
by
pratliff94 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 948 comments)
on Friday, October 27, 2006 at 10:29:45 AM
...starting with Bush & Cheney. Next up, Scalia and the other Justices who appointed the villiage idiot our king, and have let him get away with completely destroying the US.
Oh well, I can at least dream, can't I?
by
Amanda Butler (3 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 21 comments)
on Friday, October 27, 2006 at 12:53:37 PM
