DTN.ORG Home DTN.ORG User's Guide Search DTN.ORG Complete Database Contact DTN.ORG Officials Moonbat Central

Time Magazine: Scalia 'Arch-Conservative,' But Stevens Unlabeled
By Media Research Center
June 30, 2008

Time's Alex Altman wrote a story online titled "The Future of Gun Control," in which he declared the text of the Second Amendment to be quite "puzzling" and "convoluted," but his liberal tilt clearly came through in how his Thursday posting described Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion, as "arch-conservative" while leaving liberal dissenter John Paul Stevens unlabeled: "The Constitution does not permit 'the absolute prohibition of handguns held and used for self-defense in the home,' Justice Antonin Scalia, the court's arch-conservative, wrote in the majority opinion....In one of two dissenting opinions, Justice John Paul Stevens called Scalia's argument 'strained and unpersuasive.' He also blistered the majority for its expansive reading of the Amendment's 'ambiguous' text."

     [This item, by the MRC's Tim Graham, was posted Saturday on the MRC's blog, NewsBusters.org: newsbusters.org ]

     Time illustrated my maxim that to the media, the epic battles of our time are fought between the arch-conservatives and the non-partisans.

     Wouldn't your average American who wants to land in a reasonable, less ideological position lean left as they read this piece? Or maybe they're too busy laughing at the notion of a liberal scolding a conservative for an "expansive" reading of the Constitution. Altman also displayed a labeling imbalance at the end of the article:

Instead of rendering the Second Amendment a dormant law, the Court's ruling has given it life. "It is not the role of this Court to pronounce the Second Amendment extinct," Scalia wrote. That view aligns the Court's conservative wing with most current scholarly interpretations, says [Randy] Barnett, the Georgetown professor. But despite finally affixing its imprimatur on a reading of the convoluted Amendment, the Court's ruling raises nearly as many questions as it settles. As Justice Stevens wrote, it "leaves for future cases the formidable task of defining the scope" of its impact.

     For the June 26 Time magazine posting: www.time.com

     Time's writer deserves credit for balancing the experts by using Randy Barnett, who's written and blogged a bit for National Review.

Copyright 2003-2006 : DiscoverTheNetwork.org