Witch hunt: Wash. Times literally tells its readers to be "very afraid" of Obama judges
The Washington Times appears to be ramping up its shrill rhetoric against President Obama's judicial nominees, and at the same time deciding not to provide its readers any new content. In an editorial headlined "The Worst Judiciary Ever," the Washington Times recycled old falsehoods to attack several judicial nominees and tells its readers to "be very afraid."
The Times asserted that President Obama is trying "to remake the federal judiciary into a den of criminal-coddling left wingers completely alien to most Americans' sense of equal justice under law. Together, these nominees are dangerous to the American legal system."
We've previously dealt with almost all of their attacks -- many of which were literally cut-and-pasted from old editorials -- including the Times' attacks on Second Circuit nominee Robert N. Chatigny (who is so radical he has the support of Michael Mukasey); Ninth Circuit nominee, Goodwin Liu (who is so radical he has the support of Ken Starr and John Yoo); confirmed Seventh Circuit judge David F. Hamilton (who is so radical he had the support of Republican Sen. Richard Lugar); district court nominee Edward Chen; and Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor (who is so radical that Republican Sens. Lamar Alexander, Kit Bond, Susan Collins, Lindsey Graham, Judd Gregg, Lugar, Mel Martinez, Olympia Snowe, and George Voinovich voted for her).
One other smear -- on district court nominee Louis Butler -- was a retread of an attack that has also been pushed by the Republican National Committee and was debunked by our partner organization, PoliticalCorrections.org.
The Times ended its editorial by stating: "This is just a partial list. Be very afraid." (Who wrote this editorial, a sixth grader?) One can only hope no one is actually relying on Washington Times editorials for information about judicial nominees.