Anyone still holding out hope that the New York Times has any shred of impartiality left need only go to
this link to their article on NARAL's anti-Roberts for SCOTUS TV ad. Watch them squirm to go out of their way to find obscure sources to back their outrageous titular claim that "TV Ad Attacking Court Nominee Provokes Furor", while nary a single quote, other than from NARAL itself is provided to show that this "furor" isn't universal. Hmm, maybe the White House gave Times Square a call, in which case the article should be named "TV Ad Attacking Court Nominee Provokes Fuhrer"
Ok, ok, so the exception to their obscure sources appears to be this:
http://factcheck.org/article340.html which says
The ad contends that Roberts "filed court briefs supporting violent fringe groups and a convicted clinic bomber." Indeed, Roberts' name appears on the "friend of the court" brief in Bray v. Alexandria Women's Health Clinic that the ad shows. But what Roberts was supporting wasn't violence or bombing or even the behavior that was the subject of the lawsuit - blockades of clinics. In fact, Roberts went out of his way to say that the blockaders were trespassing, which is a violation of state law. What Roberts argued was that a federal anti-discrimination law couldn't be used against abortion blockaders because they weren't discriminating against women - they were blockading men, too.
Oh, please. Anyone reading that should plainly see that Roberts was stretching to find some technicality to let the bombers and other extremists gathering at the clinics off the hook. Nevermind the fact that whether or not men are blocked from entering, it's the WOMEN that are discriminated against from getting an abortion. And that's really the elephant in the living room of this debate, continued hostility towards women. We're at the point of nonsense now, where the right has been so effective in the meme war, that even emergency contraceptives that eject unfertilized eggs can be called baby-killing drugs. OF course, by this logic, every unauthorized male ejaculation is also murder.
So what's the deal with Factcheck, this supposedly "nonpartisan" org? Well my feeling is that, at best, they've been hopelessly deluded into this idea there's really no such thing as truth in politics anymore, and that even the most horrible issues: US sanctioned torture, to name one example, no longer has any factual content once a politician mentions it. Just more of this "democrats said, republicans said, therefore we can never know the answer" obfuscation we see from state controled MSM/RWCM all the time.
This factcheck article goes on to talk about other inconsistencies like "guilt by association". GASP! Does that mean that an attack ad actually takes an opinionated piece on something? And please, Roberts and his wife's position on abortion is becoming more and more obvious as time goes on here.