Surprise! The NY Times Doesn't Like Bush's Judicial Nominees

The battle is heating up again over President Bush's nominees to the federal courts. Ultimately this war will be fought over Bush's nominees to the United States Supreme Court, but these warm-up matches are a good indication how that war will be fought.

Friday, The New York Times opined on three nominees to the appellate courts which President Bush has re-nominated after they were blocked by Democrat filibusters in the recent past.

This is how The Times described the three nominees who have returned for a second go before the Senate Judiciary Committee:

"The three nominees who had hearings this month — a mining and ranching industry flunky, a much-reversed judge with an antipathy for individual rights, and a lawyer with a bad habit of not following the rules for practicing law — show why Democrats should stand firm."

The New York Times described one — now this is a federal judge, mind you — as a flunky. Why? Because he once let a mining company go ahead and dig when environmentalists were claiming an Indian burial ground was present at the mine site and could not be disturbed.

My Dad worked on the Shasta Dam in far Northern California before the war — the big one, World War II — and they moved hundreds of Indian burial sites, respectfully, without a huge uproar. But, all of a sudden, if a judge orders the same thing and The New York Times says he's a mining industry flunky?

One of the other nominees didn't renew his driver's license, or sorry it was his law license, and The Times says that disqualifies him? Didn't The Times fail to renew its "truthfulness license" for a while there?

And the other nominee is reversed too much for The Times' taste. Funny, you don't hear them complaining about the 9th Circuit in California — the "no God in the Pledge of Allegiance" bunch. But, oh, that's right — when the ninth is reversed every other day, The Times views it as a horrible miscarriage of justice. But when a Bush nominee is reversed it proves he's incompetent.

Lets face it: The Times wants liberals. Bush wants conservatives.

Now, let's see — who won the last election? Was it George Bush or The New York Times?

Let me look that up.

That's My Word.

Watch John Gibson weekdays at 5 p.m. ET on "The Big Story" and send your comments to: