NYT: "Discomfort with the quality of the [NSA] decision is almost universal"

Via Instapundit, so it's safe to click on for NYT boycotters.

You know why the woman's race was mentioned?

Let's put aside any suspicion she was promoted beyond her merit. Let's assume she was eminently qualified for her position, and affirmative action in her case was limited to simply seeking out qualified minority candidates.

'Sides, I can give a fig about her qualifications; judges just make crap up all the time; it's political bias that matters. And we had strong reason to suspect political bias before; now we have a well-nigh irrefutable case.

Ms. Taylor (and I have little doubt it's "Ms.") comes from five, count 'em five, of the most liberal leaning groups in America:

-- lawyers/judges (I realize this one is sort of unavoidable here, but it's here anyway)

-- women

-- blacks

-- "Spirit of 68'ers," i.e., those whose intellectualy formative years were the Woodstock/Watts/SLA/Weather Underground/Kent State years

-- Jimmy Carter appointees. Hey, check out Ramsey Clarke.

Does that prove political bias? No, of course not; there of course, about 10% of blacks, and 40% of women, and 40% of 68'ers, and 30% of judges, and, um, 1% of Jimmy Carter appointees who are conservative. But, you know, cranking out the odds -- taken together, if one had to guess, one would say this was most likely a very left-leaning woman.

The woman was elevated to federal district judge by a liberal president at the height of black radical chic, the days when the Black Panthers were considered by many to be both a legitimate political movement and a nascent revolutionary force. Pardon me for suspecting that her politics were formed during the era of Abbie Hoffman and Huey Newton.

So, you know, lefties should cut us some slack when we suspect the decision was already pretty much baked in the cake from the moment her name popped up in the assignment lottery.

And now the case is pretty conclusive. The fact that the NYT -- the NYT! -- is forced to admit that even legal experts who agree with her conclusion are "distancing themselves" from her "rhetoric" seems to indicate the suspicion that we are dealing with a very left-leaning "movement" liberal was, in fact, well-grounded.

Even those who support the outcome are baffled, and embarrassed, by her sloppy reasoning, misreading of precedent, sketchy treatment of key legal issues, and resort to left-radical rhetoric when, as more reasonable liberals claim, more legally sound rationales existed to justify the same conclusion.

It's pretty obvious this was a conclusion-first, law-and-precendent-and-logic-and-reason second decision. All too common in many judicial decisions, and the rule, not the exception, in politically-charged cases.

Was there any doubt the liberal Florida Supreme Court would overrule, distinguish, disregard, undermine, and flat out ignore dozens of their previous precedents in order to get Al Gore every recount he needed, and every favorable chad-counting rule he required, to win the Presidency? No, there wasn't, although, as with Ms. Taylor, there was a certain amount of blushing at how eager, clumsy, and obvious they were in going about it.

For those outraged that a suspicion of Liberalism In The First Degree could be cast upon a fine jurist like Ms. Taylor, let me quote Matthew McConnaughey's final line of his final summation in A Time To Kill:

"Now imagine's she's white."

Or imagine he's white, and appointed by Reagan. And imagine of course that the decision came down the other way.

Do liberals make no guesses about his politic leanings based upon his race, gender, and patron?

It is. To laugh.

Look, there are Republican blacks out there, and damnit, we're happy to have every one of them on the team. Well, not really the team, you understand, but we pretend. And there are conservative women judges out there, and we're grateful to them; we just wish they maybe wouldn't wear a bra next time. It makes the office so much more pleasant.

But there aren't a lot. Liberals are forever using the very low percentage of blacks in the GOP as proof of the GOP's racism; it seems daffy that they can simultaneously assert "You can't just go around accusing her of being a liberal becausev just she's black!"

That's, uh, knd of contradictory, is it not? Kind of illogical.

Sort of like Ms. Taylor's "judicial" opinion.

(PS, just as I was referencing A Time To Kill, thinking about that scary Sam Jackson (again!) killing those poor misunderstood white child rapist/murderers, I pooped my pants again. Please excuse the delay in finishing this post.)

posted by Ace at 02:11 PM

| Access Comments