Weekly Media Matters report on Judge Roberts and Rove/Plame matter

"Media Matters," week ending July 22, 2005 by Jamison Foser

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507220006

Week ending July 22, 2005
www.mediamatters.org
action@mediamatters.org
This week:

"John Roberts and Supreme Court misinformation

Plame/Rove coverage suffers in wake of Roberts announcement

More hostile comments from angry conservatives

John Roberts and Supreme Court misinformation

President Bush's selection of John G. Roberts Jr. for the Supreme Court seat vacated by Sandra Day O'Connor set off a predictable flood of distortions of Roberts's background and positions on key legal issues.

News outlets, including NBC, CBS, Fox News, CNN, USA Today, and The New York Times, repeatedly noted Roberts's pledge at his 2003 appellate court confirmation hearing to "fully and faithfully apply" Roe v. Wade as the "settled law of the land," portraying that pledge as evidence that he would vote to uphold Roe if confirmed to the Supreme Court. But, as an appellate court nominee, Roberts had little choice but to call Roe the "settled law of the land," and that pledge says little about how he would vote on the Supreme Court, as Media Matters explained:

As an appellate court judge, the position to which he was "applying" in 2003 when he pledged to follow the law, Roberts is bound to adhere to Supreme Court precedent or face possible reversal on appeal. But as a Supreme Court justice, he would be in a position to vote to overturn Roe, or any other Supreme Court decision with which he disagreed, no matter how "settled." In the words of The Wall Street Journal (subscription required), the upholding of binding precedent "is required of lower-court judges," and therefore Roberts's comment "seems to leave open the possibility that he could vote to overturn Roe as a high-court justice."

Also this week, Media Matters detailed and corrected the top Supreme Court myths, falsehoods and distortions:

1) Robert Bork was "smeared" when he was nominated for the Supreme Court.

2) Democrats will oppose any nominee President Bush picks.

3) In questioning nominees, Democrats will treat them with disrespect and hostility.

4) Roe v. Wade is not threatened by O'Connor's retirement.

5) Democrats should follow "Ginsburg precedent" by accepting a Bush nominee despite significant ideological differences.

6) Democrats are divided on whether ideology constitutes an "extraordinary circumstance" under Senate agreement on filibusters.

7) Bush favors conservatives who will strictly interpret the law over judicial activists who legislate from the bench."

See whole Media Matters Report at this link:

http://mediamatters.org/items/200507220006

_______________________________




http://www.iwtnews.com/