Tuesday, July 19, 2005

Roberts for the Supreme Court

Shortly after the President announced his choice for the U.S. Supreme Court, both CCN and Fox had published articles. I am sure these will be modified and added to as more information becomes available. The differences in these initial articles are expectedly biased both ways. CNN emphasized a potential looming battle over the nominee. CNN’s third sentence is “The move sets the stage for a possible battle with advocacy groups who have criticized Roberts in the past.” Later CNN says “Moments after news of his nomination emerged, reaction indicated that a fight was expected.” Fox talked little of a potential fight and used this quote from Republican Senator Lindsey Graham:

Democrats expect a conservative to be named, Graham explained, and Bush campaigned on that promise in 2004.

Graham noted that simply being conservative was "no longer an extraordinary circumstance" as defined by the "Gang of 14" agreement.

"President Bush campaigned he would pick a solid conservative, I expect for him to live up to his promise. Our goal is to make sure a solid conservative sits on the Supreme Court that is not beholden to any special interest group," Graham said.

CNN gives favorable and opposing views. For those opposing, CNN notes “two prominent liberal advocacy groups -- NARAL Pro-Choice America and the Alliance for Justice.” Fox is more positive on Roberts being successful and gives no opposing views at this point. Fox has another article entitled "GOP, Some Dems Praise Pick" with this as the opening:

Senators considered Supreme Court nominee John G. Roberts so non-controversial that they approved him for a seat on a federal appeals court without a single recorded objection.

Whether Roberts will get that kind of support for the nation's highest court is unknown, but it bodes well for his bid to replace retiring Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.

In this second article Fox notes that previously when Roberts was appointed, three Democratic senators on the Judiciary Committee had voted against him: Schumer (NY), Kennedy (MA), and Durbin (IL).

Links to the articles:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/19/scotus.main/index.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163025,00.html

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163033,00.html

3 comments:

Roccondil said...

He only received three opposing votes when he was appointed, yes. But does the FOX article mention that when the elder Bush nominated Roberts for the D.C. circuit, he was rejected by the Senate? A little less than unanimous, it would appear.

Jason said...

Just a suggestion for something you may want to look into -- the descriptions of RU-486, the "morning-after" / "abortion" pill and the what the two networks refer to it as.

An idea!

Notgruntled said...

jason:

You're conflating two separate things. RU-486 induces abortion. The "morning-after" pill is a high-dose birth control pill, and like the Pill, prevents an embryo from attaching to the wall of the uterus.