Lately, he's been exposing the questionable status of several Gitmo al Qaeda defense attorneys now employed by the Department of Justice. (Lawyers whom the DoJ refuses to name.) Here, he shreds an appallingly biased LA Times 'news story' on Justice Clarence Thomas's wife - who had the shameless audacity to start a Tea Party-affiliated organization.
So let me make sure I have this straight. If you're a "progressive" lawyer who volunteers to represent America's enemies for free in offensive lawsuits brought against the American people during wartime, and then you are placed in a policy-making position in the Justice Department, we're not allowed even to suggest that you be identified, much less to infer that the sympathies that impelled you to donate your talents to al Qaeda might affect your decision-making at DOJ.When will those silly white women married to black Supreme Court justices learn to stay barefoot and pregnant in the kitchen where they belong!
But if you are the wife of a Supreme Court justice — not the Supreme Court justice himself, mind you, but the justice's wife — and you dare to have your own career and further dare to be a public conservative who defends core American principles of individual liberty against the Leftist onslaught, we are supposed to assume that the impartiality of the Supreme Court (on which the wife of the justice does not sit) has been compromised.
That's the upshot of the Los Angeles Times hit job this morning by Kathleen Hennessey on Ginni Thomas, wife of Justice Clarence Thomas. It's an unmitigated disgrace.
McCarthy's entire post will more than repay the short time it takes to read it. Intellectual ammunition of the first order.
[Update: Ed Morrisey of HotAir notes:
When Bill Clinton ran for President, the media scolded people who began questioning whether Hillary Clinton would use her influence to shape policy in the White House. Counter-critics called it a form of gender discrimination, and Hillary famously responded to it by defiantly noting that “I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas,” but decided to have her own career in law and politics.But then, the hypocrisy of Progressive journalists was always the least of their sins.]
[Update 2: P.S. This particular Progressive journalist is so incompetent, she can't even get the basis of her smear correct:
The issue in the Citizens United case was concerned with a documentary about Hillary Clinton. It was not a flattering documentary. Citizens United wanted to show the documentary on cable television but it would be shown within 60 days of a primary.
The FEC said “no” and they used the grounds that Citizens United had been funded in a minuscule way by a corporation. SCOTUS was concerned about freedom of speech. The judgment actually went against Citizens United on a number of issues. However, it was the freedom of speech aspect, and the penalty that was provided by the FEC if Citizens United went against their ruling.
Please keep in mind that it was the penalty mandate that perturbed the SCOTUS. This was the reason that s144(b) was struck down.
The decision does not give permission for corporations to spend lots of money. What it does is give equality to types of corporations – the media are corporations but they were exempted from McCain-Feingold.
It gave the media an unfettered ability to misrepresent the facts, as well as the ability to damage candidates in any election, as well as damaging corporations such as Merck (example only folks). By striking down the section the corporations have the right to place an advertisement putting their side of the story without threat of fines by the FEC.]