PrintAugust 1, 2007
The NYT goes after the Chief Justice
The New York Times lavishes attention on the Chief Justice's health condition. Fair enough, since his fall and cautionary hospitalization has been in the news. But the paper includes rather speculative information on potential side effects of possible drugs he might take if it is determined that a regimen for epilepsy (for which diagnosis he newly qualifies) is appropriate.
the drugs can have troubling side effects, including drowsiness or insomnia, weight loss or weight gain, rashes, irritability, mental slowing and forgetfulness. Many patients can be treated with minimal side effects, doctors say, but it may take trial and error to find the right drug. [emphasis added]
Is this a push by the Times to bring up the issue of Justice Roberts' fitness for his role at the SCOTUS? It certainly seems to be an insensitive overreaching by the paper, to say the least. Two seizures in 14 years and the paper seemingly is ready to drum him off the Court.
The paper has been much more circumspect in discussing the health of liberal justices. Ruth Bader Ginsburg, 74, after all, had a cancerous growth removed from her colon in 1999 and fell asleep during a public court session. If the Times has published information on the possible side effects of medication she might be taking, it has escaped our notice.
Two SCOTUS Justices have had cancer, another has a stent to keep his artery open. The Washington Post, a liberal paper which demonstrates a level of fairness the Times has rejected, discusses covers the issue far more completely than the Times hit piece.
The Times, it appears, is on a crusade to change the composition of the court. Last week saw the publication of an extraordinary op-ed calling for the Democrats to consider packing the court - expanding the size of the Court in order to place more liberal leaning justices onto the bench.
Liberals want control of the Court because so many of their ideas are unpopular with the public, and can only be realized if imposed by judicial diktat. But attempting to define a new epilepsy diagnosis as reason to reject the services of an otherwise robust and brilliant comparatively young member of the Court is likely to be counterproductive. At least I hope so.
