Video ››› ››› MEDIA MATTERS STAFF
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...
Foreign policy experts and media fact-checkers highlighted the numerous false claims and contradictions in GOP presidential front-runner Donald Trump’s April 27 foreign policy speech, noting that his speech was “fact free” and “incoherent.”
Right-wing media personalities repeated sexists attacks lobbed by GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump following his win in five primaries. During his victory speech Trump declared, "I think the only card she has is the woman's card," adding that "frankly, if Hillary Clinton were a man, I don't think she'd get 5 percent of the vote," prompting right-wing media pundits to laud his sexist attack on Clinton.
Loading the player reg...
Next time you watch the news, do me a favor. Take a look at the reporters’ arms. Do they seem tired to you? Overworked? They have to be a little sore at least. Such is the vigor with which the media have been patting themselves on the back lately.
After a full year of the Trump steamroller -- in which a honey-baked ham with authoritarian inclinations has managed to blow past any serious questioning of his policies or candidacy -- the media apparently feel that they’re now doing their jobs.
You could see it a few weeks back in the breathless praise for MSNBC's Chris Matthews when he interrogated Trump on abortion; or in the hype around the New York Times interview that nailed down Trump’s Strangelovian approach to nuclear weapons; or even in Trump’s recent pivot toward a more “presidential” tone. Among reporters and critics that I know, there’s a growing sentiment that Trump is changing his ways because they, the press, are taking him seriously now. They’re handling Trump not based on the job he has (obnoxious reality star) but on the job he wants (president or, perhaps, generalissimo).
Call me crazy, but I’m not totally buying this notion. I think it’s a crock. The media haven’t “done their job” with regard to Trump, and the reason why is very simple: The press have largely ignored the issue that made him a political phenomenon in the first place.
The media have overlooked Trump’s birtherism.
I’m a Catholic. I’ve seen enough baptismal water spilled to fill William Taft’s bathtub ten times over. But it doesn’t take a Catholic like me to understand the original sin of the Trump candidacy. His first act on the political stage was to declare himself the head of the birther movement. For Trump, the year 2011 began with the BIG NEWS that he had rejected Lindsay Lohan for Celebrity Apprentice, but by April, his one-man show to paint Barack Obama as a secret Kenyan had become the talk of the country. Five years later, Trump is nearing the Republican nomination for president.
In many ways, birtherism is the thing that launched Trump's campaign. But as he nears the big prize in Cleveland, Trump has refused disavow his conspiracy theory. In July, when Anderson Cooper pressed Trump on whether President Obama was, in fact, born in the United States, Trump’s response was, “I really don’t know.”
I’m taxing my mind to find a historical comparison here, to put this in context. I suppose Trump’s birtherism is the intellectual equivalent of the flat-earth theory; both are fully contradicted by the evidence. But then again, there is a difference between the two, and the difference is this: If a presidential candidate insisted that the USS Theodore Roosevelt would fall off the edge of the map after sailing past Catalina, Wolf Blitzer would probably ask him about it.
It’s been nine months since Cooper pressed Trump on the issue of whether he thinks the president is an American -- almost enough time, as Trump might put it, to carry a baby to term in Kenya and secretly transport him to Hawaii -- and still, no one has gotten an answer. In fact, most have stopped asking. It’s now known among reporters that Obama’s birthplace is a strictly verboten topic for Trump. If you bring up the subject, as Chris Matthews did in December, Trump looks at you with a glare I assume he otherwise reserves for undocumented immigrants and say, “I don’t talk about that anymore.”
Since July, there have been 12 debates, six televised forums, and enough cable interviews to combust a DVR, but the only “birther” issue extensively covered in the press has involved whether Sen. Ted Cruz was born in Calgary Flames territory. Most reporters don't seem to want to piss off the The Donald and risk losing their access.
Look, I understand that there’s plenty of craziness to investigate in our politics. Cruz believes that global warming is a hoax. Ben Carson claimed that the Biblical Joseph built the Great Pyramid of Khufu. Heck, once upon a time, George W. Bush famously thought the jury was out on evolution.
But Trump’s birtherism is far, far more important -- for two reasons:
First, in my experience, when a politician says he doesn’t talk about an issue, that’s precisely the issue you should ask him about.
Second, there’s another difference between being birther and flat-earther. It’s possible to believe the Earth is flat and not be a bigot, but it’s impossible to be a birther and not be one.
It’s no surprise Trump’s campaign has been a parade of racism after his foray into birtherism -- a border wall, a ban on Muslim immigration, and the failure to denounce the Ku Klux Klan. Unlike Bush’s creationism and Carson’s historical idiocy, Trump’s birtherism can’t be written off as a minor policy quirk. It’s less of a bug than a feature. Trump, by his own admission, sees the controversy over Obama’s birthplace as foundational to his brand and instructive to how he approaches politics. When ABC asked him about his aggressive birtherism in 2013, he said, "I don't think I went overboard. Actually, I think it made me very popular... I do think I know what I'm doing.”
I think it made me very popular… I do think I know what I’m doing.
With birtherism, Trump discovered a sad truth about modern American media: Bigotry gets you attention. And long as you bring viewers, readers, and clicks, the fourth estate will let you get away with that bigotry.
* * *
Long before Donald Trump, there was another demagogue, Huey Long, who made a run for the White House. Long was fictionalized and immortalized as the character Willie Stark in Robert Penn Warren’s novel, All The King’s Men, in which Warren wrote, “Man is conceived in sin and born in corruption.”
So, too, was Trump’s political career.
The press should get their hands off their backs and ask him about it.
The Washington Post credulously called the efforts by the discredited conservative group Judicial Crisis Network (JCN) to prevent the confirmation of Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland "remarkably successful." But polls show the general public is increasingly at odds with JCN's position. Indeed, just last week the Post reported that the results of a new poll was evidence that "Democrats are winning the message war over Garland." The Post promoted the notion of JCN's success in an interview with chief counsel Carrie Severino, who was given a platform to rehash debunked smears about Garland's judicial record on guns and government regulations.
Loading the player reg...
Following the release of a misleading “scorecard” from the Koch-backed National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) -- which dishonestly represented Supreme Court nominee Judge Merrick Garland’s rulings on the D.C. Circuit as too deferential to government agencies -- the Alliance for Justice explained that Justice Antonin Scalia took “precisely the same view” as a dissent Garland joined. The dissent was related to an EPA case that the NFIB cited to criticize the nominee.
The “judicial scorecard” released by NFIB on April 12 omitted important context to smear Garland as anti-business and overly
Contacted by Media Matters about NFIB’s “scorecard” claiming that Garland's judicial record indicates he is anti-business, top legal experts derided the organization’s claims as “silly” and “nonsense.” While purporting to represent the interests of small businesses, NFIB has in fact campaigned against environmental, labor and health care policies that most small businesses support.
An April 21 blog post by the Alliance for Justice’s director of justice programs, Kyle Barry, further demonstrated that NFIB’s attacks against Garland’s rulings lack merit. Barry explained that when American Trucking Association v. EPA -- one of the cases cited in NFIB's scorecard -- reached the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia's maj
As Barry explained, Garland's position in the case “was dictated not by ideology or bias toward special interests, but by adherence to precedent that he swore a judicial oath to uphold”:
Among the cases NFIB cites is American Trucking Association v. EPA, which held that the Clean Air Act’s requirement that the Environmental Protection Agency set air quality standards violates the “nondelegation” doctrine—in other words, that Congress impermissibly delegated legislative power to the EPA. Judge Garland didn’t participate in the panel decision, but he did vote to rehear the case with the full D.C. Circuit, and he did join Judge David Tatel’s dissent when rehearing was denied.
Based on Judge Tatel’s dissent, NFIB concluded that Judge Garland “would have voted for the EPA,” and in this instance that’s totally fair. (This situation is very different from when a judge votes on a petition for review but doesn’t write or join any opinions, in which case the judge’s views are unknown.) Judge Tatel made clear that the Clean Air Act is in line with years of binding Supreme Court precedent. He wrote that the statute limits EPA discretion in ways “far more specific than the sweeping delegations consistently upheld by the Supreme Court for more than sixty years,” and complained that “[n]ot only did the panel depart from a half century of Supreme Court separation-of-powers jurisprudence,” it “stripped the [EPA] of much of its ability to implement the Clean Air Act, this nation’s primary means of protecting the safety of the air breathed by hundreds of millions of people.”
The problem for NFIB—and all those who wish to portray Judge Garland as a lawless anti-business radical—is that, on appeal in the Supreme Court, Justice Scalia wrote a unanimous opinion taking precisely the same view. Overturning the D.C. Circuit panel, Justice Scalia wrote that the Clean Air Act “is in fact well within the outer limits of our nondelegation precedents.” He explained that “a certain degree of discretion, and thus of lawmaking, inheres in most executive or judicial action,” and that the Supreme Court has “almost never felt qualified to second-guess Congress regarding the permissible degree of policy judgment that can be left to those executing or applying the law.”
In other words, Judge Garland’s position was dictated not by ideology or bias toward special interests, but by adherence to precedent that he swore a judicial oath to uphold.
Loading the player reg...
Conservative claims that Supreme Court nominee Merrick Garland’s rulings prove he is anti-business are "silly" "nonsense," according to administrative law experts who spoke with Media Matters.
Earlier this month, the Koch-backed National Federation of Independent Business (NFIB) released a “scorecard” of Garland’s rulings as a judge on the D.C. Circuit. The group claimed its scorecard proved Garland “is quantifiably biased in favor of regulatory agencies and against private sector businesses” because he often ruled in favor of several government agencies.
But as Media Matters previously explained, the scorecard is misleading and not evidence that the nominee is somehow outside of the legal mainstream. In fact, many of the decisions NFIB highlighted for criticism were rulings in which Garland was joined by Republican-appointed judges, and the conservative group’s attempt to provoke outrage over Garland’s record ignores crucial legal context.
Top legal experts who spoke with Media Matters pointed out that in most federal appeals cases involving governmental agencies, the court sides with the agency under the “Chevron Deference” doctrine, which “raised the issue of how courts should treat agency interpretations of statutes that mandated” agency action, where the “Supreme Court held that courts should defer to agency interpretations of such statutes unless they are unreasonable.”
“If you look at cases involving direct regulation by government agencies, his pattern of voting in those cases is entirely standard,” said Laurence Tribe, a professor at Harvard Law School. “It’s the common approach because ever since the Chevron decision the idea has been that Congress can’t always address all of the details that arise in the regulatory state so they give a lot of leeway to expert agencies in deciding how best to carry out the underlying purpose that Congress had in enacting statutes. Therefore, the idea is when agencies resolve those ambiguities in ways that are at least rational and don’t cross any boundaries that are laid down, federal judges usually defer.”
Joseph Landau, associate professor at Fordham Law School, agreed.
“The Supreme Court has said that if the statute is unclear, courts should defer to the agency’s interpretation of the federal law as long as the agency’s interpretation of the statute is reasonable,” he said. “If the statute is unclear, and the agency is interpreting the statute, courts have generally held that the agency gets deference. There are exceptions, but deference is the presumption.”
Jon Michaels, a UCLA Law School professor and a former clerk for the Second Circuit Court of Appeals, pointed out that the man Garland is seeking to replace, Justice Antonin Scalia, was a strong supporter of the "Chevron Deference" doctrine.
He also said the D.C. Circuit Court usually rules in favor of the government agencies because it cannot turn down cases and must review even the most unlikely claims.
“The court is limited in what it can overturn,” Michaels added. “The court is not supposed to substitute its preference on questions of an agency’s interpretation of law, fact or policy.”
William H. Simon, Arthur Levitt Professor of Law at Columbia Law School, called the NFIB attack “silly.”
“It's silly to conclude that he is 'biased,'” Simon said. “The law says judges are supposed to defer to the agencies on many issues. A reluctance to overrule the other branches is a defining characteristic of a judicial 'moderate', which is what many in both parties say they are looking for.”
Osamudia James, a law professor at the University of Miami School of Law, said, “When Judge Garland or any judge comes in and says they side with the agency, they are saying that based on the statute that Congress set up, what the agency is doing is reasonable.”
She also cited that many Republican-appointed judges agreed with Garland. “That is an interesting part of this to see who sided with him,” she added. “Other Republican judges are in agreement with him. That undercuts attacks that Garland is excessively pro-regulatory.”
For Daniel Selmi, professor of law at Loyola Law School in Los Angeles, the criticism of Garland is “nonsense.”
“The court reviews what the agency has done based on the administrative record and in doing it, it exercises the standard of review,” Selmi explained. “Which is favorably inclined toward the public agency. They win a majority of the cases. That wouldn’t be abnormal and it wouldn’t tell you anything about bias, it would tell you he is following the law.”
Joseph A. Grundfest, a law professor at the Stanford Law School, added that Garland’s opinions are “entirely unremarkable and reflect no bias either for or against regulatory agencies or private sector entities.”
In an April 21 town hall event, NBC’s Today co-hosts allowed Donald Trump to mislead about his past support for invading Iraq, his position on abortion, and his tax plan.
Loading the player reg...
Loading the player reg...