Fox's Kelly falsely claimed that Justice Stevens hasn't "made any bones about" being a liberal
Please upgrade your flash player. The video for this item requires a newer version of Flash Player. If you are unable to install flash you can download a QuickTime version of the video.
SUMMARY: Megyn Kelly asserted, "Between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice [John Paul] Stevens ... they haven't made any bones about their political leanings." In fact, according to a 2007 New York Times Magazine profile, Stevens has said, "I don't think of myself as a liberal at all."
On the April 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor, America's Newsroom anchor and attorney Megyn Kelly asserted, "Between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice [John Paul] Stevens -- those are the two most liberal justices on the Supreme Court -- they haven't made any bones about their political leanings. That's why they were appointed by the presidents they were appointed." In fact, according to a September 23, 2007, New York Times Magazine profile, Stevens has said, "I don't think of myself as a liberal at all. ... I think as part of my general politics, I'm pretty darn conservative" [emphasis in original]. In the profile, author Jeffrey Rosen wrote that Stevens "considers himself a 'judicial conservative' ... and only appears liberal today because he has been surrounded by increasingly conservative colleagues." Rosen described Stevens "as a moderate Republican [in 1975 when] he was appointed by President Gerald Ford to the Supreme Court."
From the New York Times Magazine profile:
Stevens, however, is an improbable liberal icon. "I don't think of myself as a liberal at all," he told me during a recent interview in his chambers, laughing and shaking his head. "I think as part of my general politics, I'm pretty darn conservative." Stevens said that his views haven't changed since 1975, when as a moderate Republican he was appointed by President Gerald Ford to the Supreme Court. Stevens's judicial hero is Potter Stewart, the Republican centrist, whom Stevens has said he admires more than all of the other justices with whom he has served. He considers himself a "judicial conservative," he said, and only appears liberal today because he has been surrounded by increasingly conservative colleagues. "Including myself," he said, "every judge who's been appointed to the court since Lewis Powell" -- nominated by Richard Nixon in 1971 -- "has been more conservative than his or her predecessor. Except maybe Justice Ginsburg. That's bound to have an effect on the court."
Stevens has been described as a "moderate Republican" in other media reports as well. In an August 4, 1987, article (accessed via Nexis), the Los Angeles Times reported that "[Judge Robert] Bork has differed with some conservatives in the past and recently was praised by Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, a moderate Republican." Stevens was also identified as a "moderate" Republican in a September 11, 1988, Washington Post article (retrieved from the Nexis database), which reported that "[i]f [Democratic presidential nominee Michael] Dukakis were to replace both the liberal wing and [Justice Byron] White, moderate Republican Justice John Paul Stevens likely would find himself in the exact center of the court, with four Dukakis appointees to his left on most issues and four Reagan appointees generally to his right."
From the April 14 edition of Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor:
O'REILLY: All right, now. Ginsburg -- this is Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is the most liberal Supreme Court justice, gives a speech in Ohio, Wiehl, where she says that foreign law should be taken into account when American law is being adjudicated, and you say?
LIS WIEHL (Fox News legal analyst): I think that's absolutely right.
O'REILLY: You do?
WIEHL: No. The media has blown this up, saying, "Oh, she's saying, you know, foreign law is binding. We have to follow foreign law in the United States." That's not what she's saying. She's saying, "You've got to look at foreign law, or you should look at foreign law, just like you'd look at a law review by a law professor." You look at the Bible --
O'REILLY: So you should just --
WIEHL: -- you look at references materials.
O'REILLY: You should just read it for fun is what she's saying? I didn't get that. I got that she wanted the foreign law to be considered.
WIEHL: To read it and it can be considered. And the Supreme Court, wholly apart from Ginsburg, has considered foreign law in the past. You think about --
O'REILLY: All right. Kelly used to cover the court. What do you say?
KELLY: The Supreme Court has done it.
WIEHL: Yes.
KELLY: The liberal justices on the Supreme Court --
O'REILLY: Have done it.
WIEHL: Have done it.
KELLY -- as the conservative justices were kicking and screaming, saying, "This is ridiculous. Why are we looking to France for an interpretation of the U.S. Constitution?"
O'REILLY: Right. And remember, France has the Napoleonic Code -- I should have been a lawyer, here, because I wouldn't even have to go to school; just take the bar -- which is, "You're guilty, and you've got to prove yourself innocent." Not the same way.
Look, I believe Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a one-worlder. That's what I've always believed. She's a far-left judge. But she also said, Kelly, that military action in the war on terror should be run by police rules. Did she not?
KELLY: Listen --
O'REILLY: Did she not?
KELLY: Yeah. She did.
O'REILLY: Thank you.
KELLY: But Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- does this come as a shock to you? She -- I don't think she's --
O'REILLY: No, but I want everybody to know who's sitting on the court, and a lot of people don't.
KELLY: Does that come as a shock to our viewers? Between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stevens -- those are the two most liberal justices on the Supreme Court -- they haven't made any bones about their political leanings. That's why they were appointed by the presidents they were appointed. And that's fine. They're allowed to be liberal.
You can have liberal Supreme Court justices, just as you can have conservative Supreme Court justices. The problem in this country is now we've gotten into some litmus test where your political views are a deal-breaker for the U.S. Senate.
O'REILLY: I don't think they should have political views, though. [unintelligible]
KELLY: Yes, they should have.
WIEHL: How could they not?
O'REILLY: I don't believe we should be --
KELLY: Don't be ridiculous.
O'REILLY: Ideologues go, "Oh" --
KELLY: So, Justice [Antonin] Scalia, who is a die-hard Catholic and has come out and said, "Yes, I'm a social conservative." He should be booted off?
O'REILLY: I don't think we should --
KELLY: He shouldn't be allowed to be on the court because he has those views?
O'REILLY: I'm not booting anybody anywhere. I think -- if I were president, I would appoint non-ideological judges. That's what I --
KELLY: Ideological is one thing. But if they have views, you say they shouldn't [unintelligible]
O'REILLY: Views are OK.
KELLY: They shouldn't have views on what's --
O'REILLY: But if you look at Ginsburg's record -- at least Scalia and [Clarence] Thomas vote against sometimes. She never does.
WIEHL: But at least she's coming out --
O'REILLY: It's straight down the line.
WIEHL: She's coming out and saying what she believes in.
O'REILLY: She shouldn't have to show up. They just check it. If it's liberal, she's voting that way.
KELLY: I'm not going to argue with that -- you on that. Because I do think Scalia and Thomas -- well, not Thomas, but Scalia goes to the middle more than Ginsburg goes to the middle.
O'REILLY: Thomas does sometimes. Sometimes.
"I should have been a lawyer, here, because I wouldn't even have to go to school; just take the bar -- which is, 'You're guilty, and you've got to prove yourself innocent.'"
Yeah. That's all there is to passing the bar Bill. You freakin' moron.
And he'd fix the NCAA football ranking system. And he'd insure that hot dogs came packaged in the same number as buns.
Oh, and he'd also invent a waterproof vibrating falafel. That's what he'd --
And OReilly would be the culture warrior for Republicans. Do the Republicans want a culture warrior that is sexually harrasing someone half his age? And settles the lawsuit out of court instead of proving how great an American he is?
The hypocrisy and the Republicans' numbness, indifference to it is mind boggling.
Family values indeed.
PS: Kelly is very attractive.
Rush Limbaugh thought so.
That is remarkable. You could take Thomas, Scalia, Alito and Roberts off of the Court today and have in the remaining justices what used to pass for balance.
Ginsburg's liberalism is overstated as well.
Anythig to stop social progress in the name of creating a theocracy where none had exsisted before.
In fact, according to the September 23, 2007, New York Times Magazine profile, that mmfa cited, it also reported the following:
-- Justice Stevens, the oldest and arguably most liberal justice --
-- Stevens is now in the unexpected position of shaping the court’s liberal jurisprudence --
-- a passionate leader of the court’s liberal wing --
-- Can Stevens provide a model for a new vision of legal liberalism in the 21st century? --
-- Speaking of Chief Justice Roberts, "I’m not sure I’m going to agree with him any more than I agreed with Bill Rehnquist."
-- Stevens has failed to persuade Kennedy to vote consistently with the liberals --
-- He devoted more attention to using his new assignment power to build majorities and to persuade the swing voters, Sandra Day O’Connor and Kennedy, to join the liberal block --
-- “Stevens became the leader of the left on the court,” says Robert Post, a professor at Yale Law School --
-- If a Democratic president wants to replace Stevens with a justice even more liberal than he is --
-- his opinions have made him a model for liberals around the country --
But, as a case in point...my best effort at lawyerese...the story on Stevens in the NYT magazine is a great read about Stevens and the SC...be you liberal or conservative.
To call Stevens a liberal just proves how watered down the term has become. It's like calling Obama a socialist. It's crazy-- that's how right wing the country has become (at least the elite.)
Wow, do you mean that MMFA did not tell the whole story?, What a huge surprise. Great reply BTW
So, where in the article did Stevens claim he was a liberal? According to Kelly, he "makes no bones about it."
Bingo! As usual the cons miss the point while accusing MMFA of bring dishonest. GET A BRAIN, MORANS! MMFA wasn't complaining about the article in questions, or making a general statement about Stevens. They were calling out the very narrow, and demonstrably false, statament that KELLY had made: That he makes no bones about it.
The shock is that you didnt get the point. Which was exceedingly simple. Kelly said Stevens made no bones about being a liberal. He did. She was wrong and thus it was misinformation that IS the whole story
Stevens<----------------Attila the Hun-------------------->Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito..........Ha! Just kiddin'.
"Between Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Justice Stevens -- those are the two most liberal justices on the Supreme Court -- they haven't made any bones about their political leanings."
The opinions of other people don't affect what Kelly said. Only something that Stevens said himself could make what she said true.
The media do a great disservice by referring to the court as having a liberal wing and a conservative wing. Following decades of more and more conservative appointments, the court has
Center left (Stevens, Ginsberg)
Center (Breyer, Souter)
Very Conservative (Kennedy)
Ultra Conservative (Roberts, Alito (could easily slide into extreme ultra conservative))
Extreme Ultra Conservative (Thomas, Scalia)
There is not one liberal on this court.
Worse yet, Roberts likes to hide his opinions in the margins and deny access to the court for anyone he disagrees with.
So, let's count 'em...three classifications of Conservative, but "not one liberal"...not even one?
What is the difference between an Ultra Conservative and an Extreme Conservative?
I hear you, but I disagree a bit as well. I dDO think that there is both a conservative wing and a liberal wing. My biggest compalint is that you have the Con's (Tomas, Scalia, Alito, Thomas) pretty much always voting in one block and the "Libs" (Ginsburg, Souter, Breyer, Stevens) always voting in another Block and that make Justice Kennedy the most poweful man in the world. All you have to do is convince HIM and your case is won. And THAT doesn't serve ANYONE'S interests.
Personally I would like to see no more that 2-3 Justices on both the Conservative and Liberal sides that tend to vote in blocks and 3-5 honest-to-god "swing votes" in the middle - kind of in the vein of Fmr Justice O'Connor, and (to a lesser extent) Justice Kennedy, but also some honestly liberal swing votes. (IOW - liberals that sometimes embrace the conservatiove side of issues - on say the 2nd ammendment, for example.)
ANd I get your point about the "liberal" justices, I just don't think I can call Justice Kennedy "Very Conservative." He's a conservative swing vote. What's more, the "liberal wing" has been a reliable vote for liberal issues. So give credit where it's due.
So your point is that the NYT parrots your talking points? Sorry, but Republicans put him there. Regardless of your buyers remorse.
So what is your point? The criticism here is that Kelley said that Stevens made no bones about being a liberal he said he didnt consider himself a liberal so she was wrong and disseminating misinformation. Its that simple. The question isnt do YOU or the New Yorker or anyone ELSE think he is a liberal.
Stevens has said, "I don't think of myself as a liberal at all."
Does not that say it all. He is not a liberal or progressive as you prefer because he chooses not to be. To be pro-anything you have to move/make a choice to be con-something you just have to sit there. He by his own admission moves himself at least out of the most progressive side of political thought.
It doesn't necessarily mean he's not a liberal just because he doesn't self identify as one but it does make Kelly's assertion that he hasn't made any bones about being a liberal wrong. Or as I like to call it a lie.