The New York Times editorial board believes there are no liberals on the Supreme Court. That's right: The Obama appointees Elena Kagan and Sonia Sotomayor as well as Clinton appointee and former ACLU lawyer Ruth Bader Ginsburg, are all merely 'moderates.'
An excerpt from Tuesday's angry lead editorial on a decision on a class-action employmenty discrimination lawsuit not to the paper's liberal liking, 'Wal-Mart Wins. Workers Lose.'
Wal-Mart Stores asked the Supreme Court to make a million or more of the company's current and former female employees fend for themselves in individual lawsuits instead of seeking billions of dollars for discrimination in a class-action lawsuit. Wal-Mart got what it wanted from the court - unanimous dismissal of the suit as the plaintiffs presented it - and more from the five conservative justices, who went further in restricting class actions in general....Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, writing for the four moderates on the court, dissented from Justice Scalia's broader analysis and sought a much narrower holding.
Times reporters have gone to great lengths to deny the liberalism of Ginsburg (and Sotomayor, and Kagan), as documented in Times Watch's 'Supremely Slanted' study, reaching its zenith with this June 27, 1993 headline before her confirmation: 'Balanced Jurist at Home in the Middle.'