American Thinker- Print Article

Clay Waters of Timeswatch catches the New York Times being itself.

When liberals aren't taunting conservatives with death wishes, they will often, under a guise of concern, talk of how hopefully this brush with fate will give the conservative a more compassionate, less restrictive outlook on life (i.e., become a Democrat).

There's an undercurrent of that in Supreme Court reporter Linda Greenhouse's "Supreme Court Memo," "Uncertainty Now in a Golden Youth's Trajectory," on Chief Justice John Roberts' seizure. The liberal, pro-abortion Greenhouse evidently hoped Roberts' brush with fallibility will soften the whiz-kid conservative's heart.

The "undercurrent" runs pretty swiftly, if that's all it is. Greenhouse writes not like a reporter, but more like, say, a romance novelist describing a business titan waiting to have his heart transformed by his love for the heroine:

Could adversity temper a jurisprudence that critics of the chief justice have discerned as bloodless and unduly distant from the messy reality of the lives of ordinary people who fail to file their appeals on time?"

I love that use of the word "bloodless." Liberals really have convinced themselves they are the only people who care about others. It is a glance into their souls. They excuse themselves from the risky task of actually weighing conservative arguments by categorizing conservatives as inhuman, which is to say, subhuman.

Clay sums up the import of the Greenhouse piece perfectly:

Apparently liberals have given up on making constitutional arguments that would appeal to five members of the current Supreme Court, and instead are literally hoping for change from within.

Hat tip: Ed Lasky

Greenhouse gas