Search the Lounge


« Weidemaier: Dear NY Times: Thank You For Letting Me Sue Only 500 Miles From My Home | Main | Public Law Conference 2016: The Unity of Public Law? »

November 04, 2015


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.


Bias, bias, bias. The NYT does not write stories about liberals, unions or how the problem with Hillary Clinton is not Benghazi but that her use of a private email server and her decision to hide that fact and the Obama Administration's decision to treat her differently than Sandy Berger and John Deutsch drives a stake thru the heart of FOIA and openness as a principle of how government should be run.


Adam - That is a very long sentence. The NYT does write articles about liberals. They write articles about Benghazi. Just not every article, as some of the more biased media on the right do.


I don't agree with Adam's overstatement and overgeneralization. You are correct in easily refuting the "never writes about" part of it.

Then, however, you go on to make the same mistake. Worse reallyh. "every article"???? Really?

Whose bias is showing there?

Just like every political "Discussion" these days. Hyper ventilating zealots accusing each other of the same faults.

Enrique Guerra Pujol

I disagree ... Roberts should have recused himself to avoid even the appearance of impropriety


And Kagan with respect to the ACA?

Enrique Guerra-Pujol

Sure, why not? After all, Kagan was Solicitor General when the ACA was enacted into law, so in theory (and probably in practice too) she represented the government when the law was challenged in NFIB v Sebelius ... Again, if lawyers are held to an "appearance of impropriety" standard, then why should we expect any less of our federal judges?

The comments to this entry are closed.


  • StatCounter
Blog powered by Typepad