The write-up of an interview Ginsburg gave to the New York Times contained the following:
[Ginsburg] mulled whether the court could revisit its 2013 decision in Shelby County v. Holder, which effectively struck down a key part of the Voting Rights Act. She said she did not see how that could be done.
The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.
“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.
The court’s 2008 decision in District of Columbia v. Heller, establishing an individual right to own guns, may be another matter, she said.
“I thought Heller was “a very bad decision,” she said, adding that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.
Curiously, the New York Times later significantly altered the part of their story pertaining to Ginsburg’s remarks on Heller, as pointed out by Jonathan Adler of the Volokh Conspiracy. The altered version removed the portion regarding Ginsburg’s contention that “a chance to reconsider [Heller] could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.” The Times eventually restored the missing portion of the story, but did not provide a satisfactory reason for the alteration."
This appears to be accurate. See this article from the Washington Post.
"She also said Heller was a “very bad decision.” As originally posted, the story reported that Justice Ginsburg added “that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.” For whatever reason, that line was removed and no longer appears in the online version of the article. [UPDATE: The missing language on Heller has now been restored to the article.]
This appears to be accurate. See this article from the Washington Post.
"She also said Heller was a “very bad decision.” As originally posted, the story reported that Justice Ginsburg added “that a chance to reconsider it could arise whenever the court considers a challenge to a gun control law.” For whatever reason, that line was removed and no longer appears in the online version of the article. [UPDATE: The missing language on Heller has now been restored to the article.]
To look at the changes between the 1st and 2nd version see
http://newsdiffs.org/diff/1202023/1202035/www.nytimes.com/2016/07/11/us/politics/ruth-bader-ginsburg-no-fan-of-donald-trump-critiques-latest-term.html
Perhaps it was an innocent mistake. Perhaps it was an attempt to protect Ginsburg. Perhaps it was an attempt to downplay the precarious state of the Heller precedent.What is your take on this?
NYT and credibility should not be mentioned in the same dictionary, much on the same page.
ReplyDeleteGinsberg votes her liberal opinions, not the Constitution.
Art
Thanks for the comments. Ginsburg needs to retire. too much unethical behavior. Too many justices playing liberal and conservative culture was games with the Constitution. I'm beginning to think the Washington Post may be a better newspaper. Too much unethical behavior.
ReplyDelete