The editorial did
not identify the judges. Readers had to plow through nearly to the end of a
lengthy Times story about the ruling to learn the name of one of the judges,
David B. Sentelle.
The Times did its readers no service by
withholding information about the judges who severely clipped the power of the
president to fill vacancies. The headline’s use of the term “Republican
chicanery” all but invited readers to wonder if the ruling had a political
aroma. The Times story stoked that suspicion when it reported that the three
judges were “all appointed by Republicans.” Indeed, in 1994 Sentelle figured
prominently in the appointment of Kenneth Starr to replace the more moderate
Robert Fiske as independent counsel to investigate President Clinton. Starr
hounded Clinton through much of his second term.
When judges hide
behind their robes to make arguably political decisions, the press should so
inform readers. At the very least, the judges who participate in court rulings
should be identified. The identification should include tendencies toward
partisanship. I shouldn’t have had to dig up Sentelle’s role in harassing a
Democratic president; the Times should have done that.
No comments:
Post a Comment