-Caveat Lector-
http://www.mrc.org/news/cyberalert/2000/cyb20001213.asp
Media Research Center CyberAlert
Wednesday December 13, 2000 (Vol. Five; No. 266)
Rather Saw No Victory for Bush; Not a "Just and Fair Verdict";
Burden on Bush "To Change His Tone"; Thomas and Scalia Conflicts
1) Dan Rather: "What it does not do is in effect deliver the
presidency to George Bush. It does not do that....This may mean
that George Bush is going to be the next President, but that's by
no means clear." It was clear to the other networks.
2) "Tonight's absolutely stunning, if not stupefying, Supreme
Court decision," was how Dan Rather described it. Rather quoted
approvingly from the Stevens dissent: "The identity of the loser
is perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as
an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
3) Sam Donaldson warned Wednesday night on ABC's prime time
special: "It will not be accepted with any sort of feeling that
the court has rendered a just and fair verdict."
4) CNN's Bernard Show assumed the court did something wrong. He
asked Lawrence Tribe: "What does this ruling do to this court's
integrity?"
5) The burden is not on Al Gore but is now on George Bush "to
change his tone," admit we don't know who really won and pledge
himself to reforming the election counting system, NBC's
omnipresent historian Doris Kearns Goodwin insisted.
6) "So where could judicial independence collide with personal
experience? First, political debts, most famously, say critics,
Clarence Thomas, plucked from relative obscurity by George W.
Bush's father." Plus, there's his wife, NBC's Andrea Mitchell
pointed. "And if Bush is President, Chief Justice Rehnquist could
retire, creating the chance for Justice Scalia to move up."
Editor's Note: I meant to get this CyberAlert out by 5am ET, but
after leaving the MRC at 3am and arriving home to write it up on
my laptop computer, I sat down on my sofa and promptly fell
asleep. Next thing I knew the morning shows were over and I'd
missed an entire news cycle.
> 1) CBS: Clueless Broadcasting System. The Supreme Court
ruling released at 10pm ET prompted all the broadcast networks to
go live with special reports and while reporters tried to figure
out and then convey its meaning, CBS's Dan Rather and Bob
Schieffer resisted concluding, as did everyone else in short
order, that it meant Gore had lost and so Bush would become
President.
Right at 10pm ET Tuesday night Dan Rather insisted of the
just-announced Supreme Court ruling: "What it does not do is in
effect deliver the presidency to George Bush. It does not do
that. That's one of the things it doesn't do" as it keeps "alive"
Gore's hopes to "contest of the certification of Bush as the
winner in Florida."
At about the same time ABC viewers heard Peter Jennings
declare: "This effectively ends the election." And on NBC, at
about 10:25pm ET, Tim Russert doused the contest hope promoted by
Rather: "At the stroke of midnight, it is now conclusive that the
25 electors of Florida move into George Bush's column and cannot
be contested in Florida or in Congress."
Rather opened the hour-long CBS News special report at 10pm
ET: "They sent it back to the Florida courts. Now this is a
complicated situation. What it does not do is in effect deliver
the presidency to George Bush. It does not do that. That's one of
the things it doesn't do. What it does do is it keeps alive,
keeps alive at least the possibility of Al Gore trying to
continue his contest of the certification of Bush as the winner
in Florida."
More than a half hour later CBS still had not caught up with
the other networks which had figured out the meaning of the
decision. At about 10:35pm ET, Bob Schieffer asserted from the
steps of the Supreme Court: "A somewhat confusing decision
tonight and I'm not sure it really brings all that much finality
to this. It may mean that George Bush has won the election, but
we're going to keep hearing a lot about what happened tonight and
what happened in this election."
Rather echoed his spin: "We want to underscore the word may,
this may mean that George Bush is going to be the next President,
but that's by no means clear..."
Only not clear to Dan Rather and CBS News.
> 2) Dan Rather wrapped up CBS's special report Tuesday night
by referring to the "complexity of tonight's absolutely stunning,
if not stupefying, Supreme Court decision." Minutes earlier
Rather had given air time to the dissent by Justice Stevens about
how "we may never know with complete certainty the identity of
the winner of this year's presidential election, the identity of
the loser is perfectly clear, it is the nation's confidence in
the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law." Rather
asked: "The prospect of a vision of raw politics dictating what
the court did is inevitable. Why would the court do it this way?"
At about 10:45pm ET Rather approvingly read to legal analyst
Jonathan Turley an excerpt from the Stevens dissent, as
transcribed by MRC analyst Brad Wilmouth:
"Now the, in a blistering dissent, I wanna quote this because
some people may be joining us late and also we've talked about
the majority opinion. In what can only be described as a really
blistering dissent, Justice John Paul Stevens called the Bush
legal appeal quote, �a federal assault on the laws of the state
of Florida,' then he went on to say and I quote, �Time will one
day heal the wound to that confidence that will be inflicted by
today's decision.' He's talking about confidence in the court. To
continue to quote, �One thing however is certain. Although we may
never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of
this year's presidential election, the identity of the loser is
perfectly clear. It is the nation's confidence in the judge as an
impartial guardian of the rule of law.' That's quote unquote �the
Stevens dissent,' which was joined by Justices Ruth Bader
Ginsburg and Steven Breyer. Also dissenting was Justice David
Souter, but he didn't sign this part of it.
"Pause. We got a situation in which the lower Florida state
court judge was appointed by a Republican. He was a Democrat, but
he had a lot of trouble with the state Supreme Court. A lot of
people, after his decision which virtually closed down Al Gore
said this is raw politics. Then it went to the state supreme
court in Florida -- all Democrat-appointed. They came out with a
five- four decision in favor of Al Gore, and the other side said
this is raw politics. Now we have the Supreme Court decision, and
no matter how many times we say the nation needs to pull behind
that decision, whatever it is, the prospect of a vision of raw
politics dictating what the court did is inevitable. Why would
the court do it this way?"
Turley regretted the less than united outcome: "I can't
imagine they wanted to do it this way. They succeeded in avoiding
a five-four split in terms of the remand. That must of been some
accomplishment. But in the end, they could not get, in terms of
the critical component, that type of strong majority. They
divided as people expected. They seemed to rush to fulfill the
stereotypes that pundits had left over the weekend. And what's
tragic is that it's often in our history the courts that have
brought us together when we have been most divided. We fall into
natural divisions because of politics or economics or race or
religion, but it's the courts often that have brought us together
because we share a common touch tone of the law, and when courts
have called us to that touch tone, they sometimes have healed our
wounds. It didn't mean that we agreed with them or agreed with
each other, but we accepted the result. This has to be a failure
for the court as an institution because to many people this is a
picture of justices behaving badly, not doing better than we were
doing. And we sort of expect somehow, maybe this was naive, that
at the end of the day we would hear a unified voice that spoke to
us not from partisan divisions but spoke to us from some central
concept of the law. And so unfortunately we are left tomorrow
morning, I expect, with a choice that's made defacto. Al Gore may
not be able to shoulder this burden. And as Justice Stevens said,
many people in the country will look at this as not selecting a
winner but burdening a candidate so much that he is most
certainly a loser."
A few minutes later, Rather wrapped up the hour-long special
by acknowledging a potential Bush victory: "If not the Governor
himself, Bush aides are beginning to celebrate. A Bush aide is
quoted as saying that the initial reading of the Supreme Court
ruling seems to be a victory for Bush. It may or may not be
completely over for Vice President Al Gore. His hopes of coming
from behind, getting votes he said were never counted counted in
Florida. It does not look at the moment that there's very much
hope. What the Supreme Court has done is delivered a severe blow,
perhaps an absolutely crushing blow and kicked it back to the
Florida State Supreme Court. That's where things stand at the
moment...
"A programming note, we had planned to return viewers in the
eastern and central time zones to Judging Amy. That turned out
not to be possible because of the importance and complexity of
tonight's absolutely stunning, if not stupefying, Supreme Court
decision...With a reminder that we are a nation of laws, a
reminder of where the Supreme Court stands in our country and our
society, Dan Rather, CBS News in New York."
> 3) Sam Donaldson raised rumors of how Justices O'Connor and
Rehnquist want to retire and be replaced by a Republican
President as he warned that the "narrow 5 to 4 split" led by "the
conservatives" means the decision "will not be accepted with any
sort of feeling that the court has rendered a just and fair
verdict."
At about 10:45pm ET Wednesday night Donaldson argued: "If
we're right and this in fact makes George W. Bush the President
there's going to be a great deal of bitterness in this country by
Democrats, perhaps by some others [fellow reporters?]. It's not
so much that the high court has made the decision, it's that it's
made it by this narrow 5 to 4 split with the conservatives, who
stopped the counting on Saturday and now say well there isn't
enough time even if you devised a method of counting it
constitutionally. There's talk in this town, Peter, that Justice
O'Connor and Chief Justice Rehnquist, want to retire, but the
talk is they wanted to wait to make certain there was a
Republican President. That may not be fair to them, but this kind
of talk adds poison to the atmosphere. I think this decision will
not be, it will be accepted, it has to be accepted, it's the high
court, it will not be accepted with any sort of feeling that the
court has rendered a just and fair verdict."
As Tim Russert explained on NBC at about 10:24pm ET, on the
key point the line-up was 7 to 2, not 5 to 4: "If we can cut
through all the legalese, what happened tonight, there were seven
justices who said they had a constitutional problem with the
Florida Supreme Court decision. Two of them believed it could
have been fixed by having another recount with a uniform
standard, which could have been completed by December 18th, the
day the electoral college meets. Five of them, however, believed
it had to be completed by midnight tonight and that's why Chief
Justice Rehnquist wanted this decision out before midnight...."
Roe v Wade was also a 7 to 2 ruling, but you don't hear many
in the media worrying about whether that was a "just and fair
verdict."
4) CNN's Bernard Shaw assumed the Supreme Court ruling called
into question the court's "integrity." At midnight he posed this
statement in the form of a question via phone to law professor
Lawrence Tribe of Harvard University who had argued the previous
Gore case before the Supreme Court:
"Professor, you just told our audience that you believe the
highest court in this nation is punting, in your words it's not
really accepting responsibility. My question is this: What does
this ruling do to this court's integrity?"
Even Tribe demurred from Shaw's prompting as he maintained
he's "not arrogant enough to render a verdict."
> 5) The burden should not be on Al Gore but is now on George
Bush "to change his tone," admit we don't know who really won and
pledge himself to reforming the election counting system, NBC's
omnipresent historian Doris Kearns Goodwin insisted.
Near the end of the 10pm ET hour Goodwin told Tom Brokaw:
"I think the most important thing for Mr. Bush to do, I think
his acceptance speech is even more important than Vice President
Gore's concession speech. He has to change his tone, he has to
realize we may never know who won there, and he has to talk about
the flaws in the system and I think pledge himself right up front
that we get better machines, better recounting, uniform
standards, and say that's the first order of business because
otherwise he goes in with everybody wondering if the time hadn't
run out, if these machines hadn't broken down, if we had better
more uniform recounting, maybe this election would have been
different."
> 6) Before the Supreme Court ruling NBC's Andrea Mitchell
devoted a story to personal and political conflicts amongst the
justices, but other than a throwaway line about Justices Ginsburg
and Breyer, Mitchell's entire story focused on the court's more
conservative justices, mainly Scalia and Thomas. Plus Thomas's
wife, who is guilty of "doing a talent search at a Washington
think tank for a possible Bush administration."
Mitchell began her December 12 story, which ran on both the
NBC Nightly News and 9pm ET edition of MSNBC's The News with
Brian Williams, by pointing out how it's not realistic to assume
the justices can be totally politically independent. She then
wondered: "So where could judicial independence collide with
personal experience? First, political debts, most famously, say
critics, Clarence Thomas, plucked from relative obscurity by
George W. Bush's father."
President Bush naming him on July 1, 1991: "The fact that he
is black and a minority has nothing to do with this in the sense
that he is the best qualified at this time."
Mitchell: "Later, praised by the son."
George W. Bush on Meet the Press in November 1999: "I do and
I think he's proven my Dad correct."
Mitchell: "On the other side, liberals Ginsburg and Breyer,
indebted to Bill Clinton for their appointments. The second
potential conflict, personal political attacks. Can conservative
justices forget they were targets of this campaign ad from the
liberal People for the American Way?"
Ad: "The next President could appoint three of the nine
Supreme Court justices."
Gore: "The main issue is whether or not the Roe v Wade
decision's going to be overturned."
Mitchell: "The third issue, personal relationships. Clarence
Thomas's wife, Virginia, a former top Republican aide to Majority
Leader Dick Armey, now doing a talent search at a Washington
think tank for a possible Bush administration."
Having put Virginia Thomas, now at the Heritage Foundation,
into play, Mitchell then ran two soundbites dismissing the
supposed reasons for concern.
Professor Heather Gerkin, Harvard Law School and former
Souter clerk: "I don't think it's a conflict of interest. I mean
I have a little bit of sympathy for the spouses and children of
the justices. They have to find jobs somewhere. She has to find a
job in Washington and I'm not sure if there is a job in
Washington that doesn't have some political aspect to it."
Professor John Yoo, University of California at Berkeley and
a former Thomas clerk: "I think the thing that would influence
them least actually is their personal affairs."
Mitchell was unpersuaded, and moved on to another
conservative: "What about the children of justices? Scalia's son
Eugene, a partner to Bush lawyer Ted Olson, follows court
guidelines, deducting from his income any fees his partners earn
arguing before the court."
Professor Michael Dorf of Columbia Law School got a soundbite
to discount any worry: "We know where Justice Scalia is, we know
where he would be regardless of his son's affiliation with that
law firm."
Mitchell continued: "Finally, the question of retirements and
promotions. Friends say Sandra Day O'Connor wants to retire but
would like a Republican President to fill her shoes."
Clifford Sloan, former Stevens clerk: "I think the winner of
the presidential election is going to appoint the colleagues of
these justices, the people that they're going to sit with. So
it's going to effect them very personally."
Mitchell concluded by calling into question Scalia's
motivation: "And if Bush is President Chief Justice Rehnquist
could retire, creating the chance for Justice Scalia to move up.
In fact, court watchers say justices are only human, subject to
all of life's pressures, but can still reach independent
judgments even in the most politically charged case they'll
likely ever decide."
Too bad reporters can't. -- Brent Baker
=================================================================
Kadosh, Kadosh, Kadosh, YHVH, TZEVAOT
FROM THE DESK OF:
*Michael Spitzer* <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The Best Way To Destroy Enemies Is To Change Them To Friends
=================================================================
<A HREF="http://www.ctrl.org/">www.ctrl.org</A>
DECLARATION & DISCLAIMER
==========
CTRL is a discussion & informational exchange list. Proselytizing propagandic
screeds are unwelcomed. Substance�not soap-boxing�please! These are
sordid matters and 'conspiracy theory'�with its many half-truths, mis-
directions and outright frauds�is used politically by different groups with
major and minor effects spread throughout the spectrum of time and thought.
That being said, CTRLgives no endorsement to the validity of posts, and
always suggests to readers; be wary of what you read. CTRL gives no
credence to Holocaust denial and nazi's need not apply.
Let us please be civil and as always, Caveat Lector.
========================================================================
Archives Available at:
http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html
<A HREF="http://peach.ease.lsoft.com/archives/ctrl.html">Archives of
[EMAIL PROTECTED]</A>
http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/
<A HREF="http:[EMAIL PROTECTED]/">ctrl</A>
========================================================================
To subscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SUBSCRIBE CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To UNsubscribe to Conspiracy Theory Research List[CTRL] send email:
SIGNOFF CTRL [to:] [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Om
