Today’s New York Times engages in blatant “Robe-Washing,” when reporting on recent comments by Justice Clarence Thomas.* (I may have coined “Robe-Washing.” The closest a Google search came was a Singapore Lawyer and Judge Robe Laundry and Dry Cleaning Service.)
My definition is:
Writing about a Judge in way that cleanses negative facts about the Judge and his associates directly or by omission.
The Robe Washer is the NY Times’** Adam Liptak in his article: Justice Thomas Says Leaked Opinion Destroyed Trust at the Supreme Court. The piece summarizes and quotes Thomas’s comments at a conference sponsored by the strictly non-partisan groups, the American Enterprise Institute, the Manhattan Institute and the Hoover Institution.*** Here are three glaring omissions in service of Robe-Washing Thomas.
I. Torture Disappeared
The comments took place in an after-dinner interview with the Justice’s former clerk, John Yoo. According to the article,
Professor Yoo was one of the architects of the Bush administration’s response to 9/11 attacks. Justice Thomas joked that his former clerk would face a confirmation battle were he nominated to the federal bench.
Who knew the Justice had such wit?
Omitted is any mention of John Yoo’s most notorious work as “architect” of the 9/11 response — his memos justifiying the use of torture as an interrogation technique — Memos that:
But I do agree with Justice Thomas that any Supreme Court confirmation hearings for John Yoo would be “tortuous.”
II. KBJ Amnesia
Justice Thomas was very upset by the peaceful demonstrations outside of Justices’s homes, stating:
conservatives had “never trashed a Supreme Court nominee.” He acknowledged that Merrick B. Garland, President Barack Obama’s third Supreme Court nominee, “did not get a hearing, but he was not trashed.”
Once again, hilarious. Killing a nomination is far better than camping outside his or her house. But more outrageously, the Justice either forgot about the Ketanji Brown Jackson hearings or does not consider it “trashing” to ask whether she supports pedophiles, believes in racist babies or would be defending Nazi war criminals at Nuremberg. The KBJ hearings were far beyond “trashing.” They were racist, misogynist and defamatory. Yet for some reason, the New York Times failed to point out Thomas’s blatant lie that “conservatives never trashed a Supreme Court nominee.”
III, The Hallowed No Confirmation in Last Year of Term Rule
Justice Thomas also said the Senate Republicans who blockaded Mr. Garland’s nomination were simply following a rule that President Biden, then a senator in 1992, had proposed, “which is you get no hearing in the last year of an administration,” a “rule” Biden mentioned only in a hypothetical, and in connection with a late-term nomination.
But neither Clarence Thomas, John Yoo or the New York Times saw fit to expose this “rule” as total crap because of the Amy Coney Barrett nomination, rammed through on October 26, 2020, just eight days before the Presidential election.
You would think the “Paper of Record” would point out these obvious whoppers by Thomas. Ideally, the story would say, e.g., “Thomas lied when he said “no conservatives have trashed a nominee.” But though they should say the “L” word, they don’t even have to go that far. They have a journalistic responsibility simply to include facts showing the lies.
They failed.
*This is the third in a series by me and I hope, others, honoring and continuing the legacy of Eric Boehlert, the invaluable media critic who tragically died in April . The first story was Honoring Eric Boehlert's Spirit, starting with the NYT's Bizarre Story on the Jackson Hearings. The second was Eric's Legacy 2: Rick Perlstein's Perfect, Angry Response to Destructive Media Framing The series carries the hashtag #EricsLegacy.
**I’ve frequently criticized the Times in stories here, like my Book Proposal: "No Clear Link: How the NY Times Helped Elect Trump in 2016." And many commenters write about cancelling their subscriptions. But with all its many flaws, the NY Times is essential. Except for the WaPo, there is no comparable coverage of global and national news, no comparable resources. So I come here neither to bury the NYT, but to try to change it.
***Snark, for the few who may not be familiar with these groups.