Instapundit » Blog Archive » REMEMBER, FOR MANY YEARS SHE WAS SEEN AS A TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE INFORMATION: Linda Green…

November 15, 2014

REMEMBER, FOR MANY YEARS SHE WAS SEEN AS A TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE INFORMATION: Linda Greenhouse’s reaction to the cert grant in King v. Burwell.

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 12:59 am

Comments are closed.

	Top Rated Comments
	Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User Carl Pham By whom? I can't remember a time when I didn't think Greenhouse, as well as that unctuous twit Totenberg, weren't partisan shills. 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User flataffect "In decades of court-watching, I have struggled — sometimes it has seemed against all odds — to maintain the belief that the Supreme Court really is a court and not just a collection of politicians in robes." They became politicians when Roosevelt succeeded in appointing a majority to support his socialistic policies, and further when they issued Roe v. Wade. That's when the Senate turned confirmation into a political battle and the court became a nakedly political body. Don't tell me she didn't realize that. Roe wasn't decided on law, but on politics, and that broke the dam. Only now she's complaining, after all these years. What a maroon. 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User Estragon I want to meet the suckers who considered Greenhouse trustworthy. I have this bridge in Brooklyn I just know they will be interested in. 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway.
	View More Top Rated

	All Comments (21) All Comments (21) Sort: Newest Oldest Top Rated
	Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User LifeofThe Mind For years Elwood P. Dowd struggled with reality, until finally he won. The Shrews of the Times see 6' 3.5" tall white rabbits everywhere. They lack Harvey's educated taste in beverages. It wouldn't surprise me if they get together and get blotto on the cheap stuff. 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User teufelcat "FOR MANY YEARS SHE WAS SEEN AS A TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE INFORMATION" The hell you say! By whom? 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User Jon1979 If crazy cat lady wants to spew out her contradictory claims from the position of New York Times columnist, that really doesn't make her blatherings any different from Paul Krugman or MoDo. The bigger problem was the Times let Greenhouse get away with doing this for the better part of 20 years as their supposedly non-partisan Supreme Court reporter, doing virtually nothing to rein in her biases. 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User askeptic Her biases confirmed the mindset of the PTB in the Boardroom - what was there to rein in. 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User PTL If you think that anything that comes from the NYT is not coming from a far left perspective you haven't been watching since the paper's Stalinist support. This is so old that most people don't remember. It's formerly subtle, now overt, attitude is anti-America and anti-Semitic and has been present in its pages for decades. 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User jlw just more Greenhouse gas 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User Doctor P Law in the Raw? - Crimes at the Times - Liars for the buyers - Capers for the papers 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User AZCommenter Poor Linda. Disillusioned to find that the Supreme Court is made up of biased human beings, and not gods. Funny that she only notices -- and only objects -- when the bias doesn't favor her side of the political divide. I'm guessing she had no problem with the majority's decision in Roe v. Wade, when the justices ignored the clear text of the constitution and created a new "right" to abortion out of imaginary "emanations" pulsing from "penumbras" visible only to certain black-clad "progressive" jurists. But then, "progressive" bias isn't bias at all to biased progressives like Linda Greenhouse. Just the way things ought to be, right Linda? 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User askeptic It's called the "Mainstream". 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User Tired Old "a naked power grab by conservative justices" Naked power grab? Sounds like Bill Clinton with a young female subordinate in the work place. Or is that Barack Obama's delusional tyranny via unconstitutional idiocy? Hard to keep it all politically correct these days. But don't worry, the Democratic Party still thinks the best way to grow the economy is to tax, or to fix roads, etc. Yes we can. 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User Hortgt42 There is an obvious pressing issue: the longer they wait to decide the more painful ripping off the bandage of Obamacare would be for those involved in it, if, for example, they were to chose to remove the subsidies then waiting for several years and then doing it could effect more people with morn vestment into the issue. Even if they we're going to decide FOR it(through some jujitsu about what the meaning of the word 'is' is) then waiting and allowing it to be in limbo would seriously effect implementation of an ongoing program. So how does it NOT meet some 'criticality' test? 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. Restore \| Remove \| Ban User \| Email User JohnstonM If the words of our Constitution and laws mean whatever the party in power wants them to mean, the Constitution and laws will be meaningless, and raw assertios of power will rule. http://civilhorizon.com/2014/11/13/lawless-governance/ 1 year ago Report Abuse 1 year ago Edit Link To Comment • Report Abuse This comment has been reported. Click here to view it anyway. 1 2 Next View All ... (show more) [commentHTML] Update Comment Cancel

3 Trackbacks to “REMEMBER, FOR MANY YEARS SHE WAS SEEN AS A TRUSTWORTHY SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE INFORMATION: Linda Green…”

*/ ?>