LA Times Sour & Misleading on Brown Confirmation

Here is the piece from the LA Times covering the elevation of Janice Rogers Brown to the US Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.

It's disappointing, but not surprising, that the LA Times drops some inexcusably loaded language into the piece without providing the proper context.

From the Times:

California's two senators — Dianne Feinstein and Barbara Boxer, both Democrats — opposed Brown's elevation to the federal bench. Before Bush came to office, the Senate traditionally considered opposition by home-state senators sufficient to block a nominee.

The Times conveniently forgets to note that before Bush came to office, the Senate traditionally considered filibustering nominees with majority support in the Senate to be unacceptable, too. So, to put it mildly, the biggest lapses in precent are assuredly not coming from the Bush White House.

From the Times:

Initially nominated to the federal bench in July 2003, Brown was one of 10 appellate court candidates whom Democrats blocked during Bush's first term, describing them as "extremists." Unlike previous presidents, who often let controversial nominations lapse, Bush took the unusual step of renominating seven of the 10, including Brown, earlier this year.

Exactly what Presidents do they mean? Like Reagan, or Bush I, or Clinton? Could this have anything to do with the fact that, unlike Bush II here, they were dealing with a Senate dominated by senators from the opposing party? That would, of course, mean almost by definition that a "controversial" nominee would lack majority support.

And let's not forget that President Bush was gracious enough to nominate a Clinton recess appointment -- Roger Gregory -- to the Fourth Circuit, even though he could have rescinded it. Bet you couldn't read a lot about that in the Times.

What poor reporting.