White House smears Ruth Bader Ginsberg

November 14, 2005

Steve Schmidt is not just a conservative pundit. He’s the chief spokesman for Vice President Dick Cheney and serves as a “Special Advisor to the President.” And today, he smeared a sitting justice on the Supreme Court.

ABC News’ The Note contacted Schmidt about a report on a memo, written by Samuel Alito, that said “the Constitution does not protect a right to an abortion.” In an on-the-record response, Schmidt defended Alito — and hoped to change the subject by launching an attack against Justice Ginsberg.

“Justice Ruth Bader Ginsberg had served as general counsel of the ACLU and had advocated liberal political positions including the ideas that the age of consent should be 12, there was a right to prostitution and polygamy in the Constitution and Mother’s Day should be abolished. Republicans voted overwhelmingly to confirm her because she was evaluated on her qualifications and more than 12 years of jurisprudence as a federal judge.”

First, the attacks are not only offensive, they’re false. The right has been using these myths as talking points, but they’ve been debunked over and over again. As a result, what we have here is a White House official telling a major national news outlet blatant and obvious falsehoods about a sitting high court justice.

Second, I’ve seen the White House launch a broadside or two against the federal judiciary, and on more than one occasion, the Supreme Court as an institution. But I can’t recall any White House ever attacking an individual justice like this.

I realize that the new White House strategy is to go on the “offensive,” but this is ridiculous.

CB, I think you may have misunderstood the new strategy. I wasn’t to “go on the offensive”; it was “to be offensive”.

  • Democrats should call for Steve Schmidt’s resignation because of his uncivil, false, and deplorable remarks.

  • Those comments are part of larger smear campaign against the ACLU on from the radical right. I assume those smears apply to all ACLU members, including myself, not just the Ruth Bader Ginsburg. It’s hateful, deceitful and divise, but can we expect anything else from an administration that now plays to only 36% of the population?

    Check out some of the right-wing foaming at the mouth here.

    http://stoptheaclu.com/

    http://captneo.blogspot.com/

  • It’s time to fight back. We need to stay on point with Alito and not be pulled into a defense of Ginsburg — even though their points are wrong and cruel and vile and ignorant and . . .

  • Sandi is 100% correct. Yes, their behaviour is offensive (you got that right Rege), but its also a distraction. Alito is the nominee not Ginsburg.

  • Alito is the nominee not Ginsburg.

    That’s certainly true, but here’s why I’m inclined to make a fuss about these kinds of incidents anyway: because if we don’t call them on their smears, they’ll keep making them.

    A guy like Steve Schmidt — who, again, is a high-ranking White House aide — wants to be able to smear Supreme Court judges and others with impugnity impunity. If White House critics respond, “Go ahead, we’re only worried about Alito,” there’s no disincentive for them. If there’s an uproar and reporters start asking Schmidt, “Why did you attack a sitting Justice? And why did you do so with bogus claims?” then he might think twice before doing it again.

    In a “war room” mentality, every lie gets exposed and corrected. I agree that the left, Dems, lib blogs, etc. need to keep their eye on the prize, but that can’t mean letting vicious smears go unnoted.

  • I know you are talking about “smearing,” which is “impugning.”

    But the word for “without harm” is spelled “impunity,” not “impugnity.”

    Isn’t English a wonderful language?

  • Alito will be confirmed. Who’s going to stop him? Nobody. All pussy democrats out in 1 year and replace them with men and women who have the guts to make America great again. I’m disgusted with the majority of congress. Flush em all and replant. Aside from that you might as well vote republican.

  • Much is made of the American soldier’s willingness to run back into danger to rescue or retrieve a disabled or deceased comrade. It’s the honorable thing to do. Coming to Justice Ginsburg’s defense certainly isn’t that dramatic but the point is the same. She’s an ethical and upstanding judge and woman who is being maligned for purely political purposes. The reasons for attacking her are contrived and bogus. Standing up for what’s right reinforces that pursuit of the truth that Howard Dean was emphasizing and give’s confidence to truthseeker’s and truthsayer’s that someone’s got their back.

  • Whoa whoa whoa here.

    Why. The. Fuck. Did. A. “Major news outlet”. REPORT. THIS. BULLSHIT??!

    I am furious.

    Think about this. How the hell did a reporter from a “major news outlet” get away with printing blatant falsehoods?!! Without refuting each and every one of them! To teh guy’s face! Before filing the story!?? And then not bothering to print the response, except for maybe a paraphrase: “Schmidt refused to answer the question and instead spouted lies”. That’s all that should have appeared in the article.

    That they printed this drivel, verbatim, without refuting it, is UTTERLY WRONG!

    We CANNOT have a democracy under these conditions!!

    Nevermind the Cheney staffer, call for the firing of the “note-taker” who printed this shit, and the bankrupting, prosecution, and breakup of the “news outlet” who printed it!

  • I have yet to find the text of Schmidt’s attack on the link from this blog or Froomkin’s. Was it deleted or am I being hampered by the fact that ABC’s “The Note” is truly one half-assed attempt at a news blog.

  • i came to this site thru a link. i was very sad to note that this had happened and i appreciate the diligence/ethical standards of this report’s author on this news. this is a very serious problem and needs addressing in a systemic way.

    2 things should happen:

    1. steve(n) schmidt should send a personal note of profuse apology to justice ginsburg. president’s chief of staff should offer a public statement of apology on behalf of whitehouse aides.

    2. all aides who are “officially” part of presenting whitehouse views on chief justice nomination, should go through at least a month of legal ethics training apriori and abide by an established code of conduct document related to this process. this training should require passing of a small case based quiz to assure that participants really understand the basics and did not go thru it as a formality. training could occur at any of the fine law schools around dc.

    our democracy & freedoms are guaranteed by law and everyone should respect those chief justices who toil every day in providing those services to us.

    • Comments are closed.