Bench Memos

NRO’s home for judicial news and analysis.

Another Remarkable New York Times Editorial


Further evidence that whoever writes the New York Times’s editorials on Alito is just plain stupid as well as dishonest is provided by this rant to be published in Sunday’s paper.

The editorial states that Alito “might well” “vote to make abortion illegal”. Thirty-three years after Roe v. Wade, does the New York Times really not understand that a vote to overturn Roe (which is unambiguously what the editorial is referring to) is not a “vote to make abortion illegal” but rather a vote to restore abortion policy to the democratic processes in the states? One can of course oppose such a restoration on policy grounds. But to misunderstand or lie about what is actually at stake ought to disqualify one from being taken seriously in public discourse on the Supreme Court.

Similarly, the editorial asserts that Alito “has an imperial view of presidential power” because he has supposedly “argued that courts interpreting statutes should consider the president’s intent when he signed the law to be just as important as Congress’s intent in writing and passing the law.” This is a ludicrous misrepresentation of an exploratory and tentative DOJ memo that Alito wrote, and, even if it were accurate, it is patently idiotic to suggest that advice on how the executive branch could better advance its interests in the courts reflects “an imperial view of presidential power.” Emperors don’t submit to courts.

The rest of the editorial sounds much like Teddy Kennedy’s screed.


Subscribe to National Review