PROMETHEAN ANTAGONIST

It was front page news when Bush nominated John Roberts to fill the coming vacancy on the Supreme Court. In one newspaper here in Japan the headline read; “Bush picks conservative for top court.” The headline may have been something the AP wire service (and not the local paper) had decided upon for the particular article. It seemed strait forward and to the point. Aside from noting the statement of the obvious (Bush probably wasn’t going to appoint a leftist – duh), I had to wonder if the headlines during the Clinton presidency read, “Clinton picks liberal for top court” (such wording certainly doesn’t ring a bell). I’ll admit, I’m not going to do the homework to see if that indeed is what was written back then, somewhere, but I’m going to guess it wasn’t. In both cases (the actual headline for Bush and the possible one written for Clinton) such statements sound ridiculous. To me, it would be like saying, “Bush picks Republican for Vice President.”

…The point being; in most “mainstream” news outlets it’s become quite common to label conservatives specifically and refer to “liberals” (often outright leftists) as some amorphous “designee,” “commentator,” or “critic.” This concept is really pushed to its limits when some conservatives are referred to as “far right wing” or “extreme right wing” while those equally extreme on the left are merely referred to as, "progressives," "populists,” or – my favorite – "advocates." I noted similar phony semantic acrobatics once before in regard to dictionary descriptions of dictators vs. “leaders.”

This bizarre lack of even-handedness can be seen often when think tanks or lobbying groups are mentioned in news articles. The American Enterprise Institute, Heritage Foundation, or CATO institute are often referred to (accurately) as right wing or “conservative,” but the Brookings Institute, NAACP, National Organization for Women, Greenpeace, and National Education Association et.al. are typically referred to with banal non-committal labels like, “spokesmen for the black community,” “a women’s rights organization,” “an environmental advocacy group” or “professional teachers’ organization.” All of the aforementioned groups are distinctly “liberal” if not notably leftist on most issues. Furthermore, each one of these organizations has conservative counterparts dealing with issues of government policy, race issues, women’s issues, the environment, and education etc. The difference is, such groups are typically noted in many media sources as “right wing conservatives” while the media-pampered groups are –- in the eyes of news editors -- not left wing liberals, but run-of-the-mill average folks dedicated to bettering their communities.

The comedy show of media labeling bias reached a high point when, during anti Iraq-war protests, the group "international A.N.S.W.E.R." organized what was often described and depicted as "a broad cross section of American society." The implication being that a mere "protest group" had organized average moms, pops, and kids from middle America when in fact, the group and most of its active followers, where part of a Stalinist organization that has proclaimed its support for the North Korean dictatorship and the Tiananmen Square "anti-counter-revolutionary" actions of the Chinese communist party in 1989.

When the media depicts different views, of course there’s nothing wrong with noting a person or group’s alignment on the political spectrum, but it would go miles in eliminating accusations of bias if some consistency was applied to such labels (or lack of labels). Many in the media have been able to pull their labeling charade off with all sincerity because they actually believe that anyone who holds the same views as they do is simply moderate, reasonable, and without particular bias or agenda. What they see as mainstream – and good – floats about in some non-political realm while this sanitized concoction is seen to be opposed by the perceived evil, or at least wrong-headed, philosophies of "ultra-extreme right wing" conservatives.

Now, during the Bush administration, the Supreme Court nomination process itself has become a forum for the left's quirky methods of interpreting circumstances and processes. Many Democrats and media pundits have implied that it is now the President's proper role to pick someone that reflects the Democrat's worldview (what they call a "uniter"). But, a Democrat isn’t president, so like all prior presidents, Bush gets to pick who he wants – too bad for those who don’t like the ideological nature of his choice, in this case the "ideology" of seeing that laws are to be constitutional and not merely reflective of opinions and trendy "values." A strict constructionist interpretation of the constitution is likely to default to what could be called "conservative" on many issues, but the act of determining the constitutionality of a given law is what the Supreme Court is supposed to do. It's clearly not supposed to "make new laws," we already have two branches of government for that -- the Supreme court is supposed to balance the other two branches, not join them in an assault on the constitution. Strict adherence to the stated intent in the constitution is a standard one finds more commonly on the right, while the left's factions -- as usual -- trust more in the "rule of men" to accelerate the growth of the states authority over the individual. (Pay particular note to amendments nine and ten which have already been breached a thousand times over by leftist judges with social planning agendas). If federal court judges were considering new laws according to what is clearly written in the constitution it wouldn't even matter if such judges were personally "left-wing" or "right-wing." Their personal value system would be irrelevant to the overriding authority of the constitution itself. In most cases, very little "interpretation" is even required at all as the limited role of the federal government is very well defined.

The latest spin in deceptive escapade, is to brand the new Bush nominee as an "activist" judge, a definition previously understood as descriptive of one who seeks to impose their personal views above the clear legal standards written in the constitution (typically, an action taken by leftist oriented judges). Again, it can't be stressed enough what the clear and obvious intention of amendments nine and ten are regarding the role (and lack of a role) of the federal government in the day to day affairs of America's citizens.

To add insult to injury, we now have a media that can't even be consistent between administrations when labeling Supreme Court nominees -- or anyone else for that matter.

…By the way, Clinton picked a woman to be a Supreme Court justice,
…Bush "picked a conservative." (as reported by the media clones of our time)
…One president picked a gender; the other apparently picked a political stance – go figure.