By: Daniel John Sobieski
Once upon a time, Fox News was the “fair and balanced” network, the video equivalent of talk radio where one could go to get news and commentary one could hear nowhere else, truth otherwise blocked by the legacy media gatekeepers. It thrived precisely for that reason and harvested hundreds if not millions of viewers hungry for the truth and the facts about the country and world they lived in and what was happening in both of them.
Somewhere along the way, Fox News began to lose its way and went from a voice crying in the political wilderness to another media outlet seeing how many “likes” it could get on its Facebook page. Fox News forgot, as the old adage goes, to dance with them that brung ‘ya, dropping in 2017 the founding slogan, “Fair and Balanced,” a Freudian acknowledgment those terms no longer applied and were no longer a corporate goal. As the website Wired reported at the time:
What Happened: Fox News dropped its iconic “Fair and Balanced” slogan.
What Really Happened: Fox News has had an exceptionally rocky past few months. It lost its biggest star when Bill O’Reilly was forced out in April and lost its former boss when Roger Ailes died in May. Now, it turns out, it’s losing even more: The network is dropping its “Fair and Balanced” motto, apparently in a move to distance itself from the “old” Fox News.
And it has succeeded beyond its wildest dreams, morphing from the network on which a Glenn Beck could thunder the truth about the Marxist roots and goals of modern progressives, to one where former NPR and WAPO denizen Juan Williams, the human bobble-head doll, could whine about those crazy conservatives with more facial expressions than a mime having a seizure
What Fox has become was seen most recently in the antics of Sandra Smith, a host of “America’s Newsroom” and Neil Cavuto of Fox Business who routinely gives the business to conservatives. Smith, of the network that prematurely and perhaps unjustifiably called Arizona for Biden on election night, took umbrage at a guest who dared to note the fat lady still hadn’t sung and that it was presidential electors chosen through fair and honest elections who determine the next president, not the Decision Desk at Fox News. As the Washington Examiner reported, Ms. Smith rolled her eyes, looked shocked, and muttered her contempt for her guest on a hot mic:
Fox News’s Sandra Smith appeared incredulous and rolled her eyes as a guest questioned the results of the presidential election, according to leaked footage.
“Remember, just because CNN or even Fox News says that somebody’s president doesn’t make them president,” guest Cleta Mitchell said in the segment. “So I think everybody wants to know this was done properly and legally and that we can trust the results. And I think we have to look at every one of these concerns.”
“What?” Smith said in the leaked raw feed of Saturday’s America’s Newsroom. Her reaction was not broadcast on live television.
“What is happening? Like, Trace, we’ve called it,” Smith said, referring to Fox News host Trace Gallagher, who joined her in the segment.
You no longer need to turn to MSNBC or CNN to get this agenda-driven liberal arrogance. Fox News, which for many years has continued to veer to the left, gets to decide who the president is, and not legal voters casting legal ballots that are honestly counted according to the election laws passed by elected state legislatures, not determined by unelected judges at the behest of liberal Democratic governors in the great ‘deep state’ of Pennsylvania.
And then there’s Neal Cavuto, whose on-the-air hostility to all things Trump over the last four years has been very thinly disguised, if at all. He recently cut away from a press conference by White House Press Secretary Kayleigh McEnany, muttering that he wasn’t going to tolerate or cover what he considered unfounded and unproven charges of corruption and fraud in the 2020 election. As the good folks at Pacific Pundit reported it in an article entitled “FOX NEWS OFFICIALLY BECOMES CNN 2.0 – CAVUTO CUTS AWAY FROM KAYLEIGH MCENANY PRESS CONFERENCE”:
It’s official folks. In the year 2020, Fox News officially becomes CNN 2.0. Fat boy Neil Cavuto cut away from the Kayleigh McEnany press conference earlier today and whined about “explosives charges” then went on a Don Lemon like rant. Cavuto said unless she can provide some data to back it up, he can’t in good conscience continue showing it. Please people, ditch Fox News, watch Newsmax, OAN or stream your favorite show if you have a smart TV. If you really must watch your favorite personalities still on Faux like Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity, Judge Jeanine, or Mark Levin, watch them on Youtube.
Good advice. That is the mantra on Fox these days, the claim that nobody has shown Fox any “proof” of charges of election fraud. Nobody has to. Such information will be presented to the courts as evidence in lawsuits currently being filed. The courts will judge the evidence and the cases presented. Fox News does not get a vote.
Whatever happened to the ability of a news organization like Fox News to do their own investigation? Fox covered every unfounded charge by the likes of Rep. Adam Schiff, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Rep. Jerry (”Jabba The Hut”) Nadler about the unfounded and unproven Russia collusion hoax. Commentary occurred afterward but no Fox News host ever cut them off with a snarky editorial comment. Cavuto is the poster child for the leftist creep happening at Fox News.
We saw the descent of Fox News into the liberal abyss when Fox News Sunday, or should we say Fake News Sunday, host Chris Wallace hosted the first debate. Perhaps the people at Fox News need to have their cognitive abilities tested, not Joe Biden, judging by Wallace’s performance. The conventional wisdom is that Wallace lost control of the debate but a closer look shows he knew exactly what he was doing, that he was on a mission to be 2020’s Candy Crowley.
During the 2012 presidential debate between Willard Mitt Romney and Barack Hussein Obama, CNN’s Candy Crowley corrected GOP\presidential nominee Mitt Romney at a key moment, falsely claiming President Obama called the Benghazi incident a terrorist attack the very next day. CBS knew President Obama was lying and had a tape to prove it. Yet Crowley acted as if she wanted to be Obama’s press secretary, so did Chris Wallace.
Chris Wallace, playing the role of Crowley to aid another Democratic presidential candidate, Obama’s VP Joe Biden, went full bore with interruptions of Trump while letting Biden call Trump a “racist” and a “clown” and then telling Trump to “shut up, man” with impunity.
As the Black Lives Matter organization and Antifa roam free in Democrat-run cities to pillage and burn inner-city communities, Wallace had the chutzpah to let Biden go unchallenged when he claimed Antifa was “just an idea.” Tell the business owners that the Molotov cocktails going through their windows are just a figment of their imagination.
Wallace, who acted like a Biden sock puppet, instead was determined to resurrect the false and discredited left-wing media claim that Trump has never condemned white nationalism, particularly after the confrontation between Antifa and right-wing groups at Charlottesville. In fact, Trump specifically condemned white nationalists after Charlottesville in no uncertain terms but doofuses like Chris Wallace leave that part out and perpetuate their Big Lie. Play the full tape gents. Print the full quote. Does a racist enact criminal justice reform, Opportunity Zones, and the lowest black unemployment rate in history? If Trump is a racist, he is the dumbest one ever.
Wallace pressed Trump forcefully to condemn white supremacists a total of six times Tuesday night but did not once ask former Vice President Joe Biden to condemn violence from Antifa or Black Lives Matter. BLM was mentioned only once when Wallace asked Biden if he supports the group, which Biden acknowledged that he does.
“You have repeatedly criticized the vice president for not specifically calling out Antifa and other left-wing extremist groups,” Wallace said to Trump. “But are you willing tonight to condemn white supremacists and militia groups and to say that they need to stand down and not add to the violence in a number of these cities as we saw in Kenosha and as we’ve seen in Portland?”
If Chris Wallace had any evidence of white supremacists rioting in Portland, Kenosha, he should have presented it. Otherwise, he should have just shut up. Again, Trump has repeatedly denounced white nationalists and white supremacists and Wallace knew it.
Chris Wallace is typical of the rot occurring at Fox News but he has an increasing amount of company as Fox populates its stable with the likes of Richard Hahn, Jessica Tarlov, Richard Fowler, Donna Brazile, and Marie “Jobs for ISIS” Harf.
Witness what Harris Faulkner, Melissa Francis, and Marie Harf, yes, that Marie Harf, who once defended Obama’s aid to Hezbollah, did to former House Speaker Newt Gingrich who tried to explain that the riots were made worse by the campaign of George Soros to elect left-wing anarchist District Attorneys. Fox and Friends allowed former SNC chair Donna Brazile to tell RNC chair, Ron McDaniel, to “go to hell.”
President Trump has commented on the decline of Fox News as an objective source of information, particularly their weekend lineup. As the Washington Examiner reported:
President Trump criticized Fox News’ weekend lineup, saying they were loading up with Democrats, making them worse than CNN.
“Watching @FoxNews weekend anchors is worse than watching low ratings Fake News @CNN, or Lyin’ Brian Williams,” Trump said Sunday on Twitter. “Like CNN, NBC is also way down in the ratings. But @FoxNews, who failed in getting the very BORING Dem debates, is now loading up with Democrats & even using Fake unsourced @nytimes as a ‘source’ of information.”
“@FoxNews is changing fast, but they forgot the people who got them there!” Trump added.
The continued listing to starboard of Fox News, which rose to prominence precisely because it cut through the politically correct swamp fog that passed as media news just as Donald Trump sliced through the swamp itself on his way to the White House, is now on full display. It’s time to drain the Fox News swamp as well.
*Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor’s Business Daily and a freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.
By: Denise Simon | Founders Code
Two of the three most recent Supreme Court justices were appointed because a member died. As the comedian Bill Maher recently put it, in practice this country has “Supreme Court nomination by fluke.”
In the past 44 years, Republicans have held the White House for 24 years versus the Democrats’ 20 — not much difference. But during that same period, Republican presidents confirmed 12 Supreme Court justices versus the Democrats’ four.
As the most recent example, Republican Donald Trump confirmed more justices in four years alone than his Democratic predecessors Barack Obama or Bill Clinton each did in eight. (And Democrat Jimmy Carter didn’t even get the opportunity to nominate a single justice.)
This discrepancy — and its disconnect from election results — has produced proposals for ways in which presidents get a consistent number of justice appointments, regardless of party.
What the bill does
The Supreme Court Term Limits and Regular Appointments Act would establish several reforms to change the existing process for selecting the top judges in the country.
The existing nine justices would be grandfathered in, and not subject to the bill’s requirements. From then on, a justice would be nominated by the president every two years, specifically during odd-numbered years. As usual, the Senate would hold a vote to confirm or deny the nomination. And once those justices were confirmed, they would serve for 18 years.
In response to Obama’s 2016 nomination of Merrick Garland, for whom Senate Republicans refused to hold a vote for almost a year, the bill adds an interesting twist. If a justice hasn’t received a Senate vote within 120 days, that justice would automatically be seated on the Court. In other words, had this bill been in effect in 2016, Garland would have joined the Court. (Or maybe not. Under that scenario, presumably the Republican-led Senate wouldn’t have let that outcome happen by delaying Garland’s vote for that long.)
What about if a justice dies, as Antonin Scalia did in 2016 and Ruth Bader Ginsburg did in 2020? In that case, the living former Supreme Court justice who most recently retired would temporarily fill the seat, until the next odd-numbered year when a president could nominate someone new again.
How would that have played out if this bill was law during the two most recent deaths? Ginsburg would have been temporarily replaced by Anthony Kennedy, who was more conservative than she was, though not as conservative as her actual replacement Amy Coney Barrett. And Scalia would have been temporarily replaced by John Paul Stevens, who leaned much more left than Scalia did, as well as much more left than Scalia’s actual replacement Neil Gorsuch.
It was introduced in the House on September 29 as bill number H.R. 8424, by Rep. Ro Khanna (D-CA17).
What supporters say
Supporters argue that the bill would add a level of regularity and predictability to the judicial branch, without the likelihood of massive potential change because of a single appointment, as Barrett seems potentially likely to usher in after Ginsburg’s death.
“We can’t face a national crisis every time a vacancy occurs on the Supreme Court,” Rep. Khanna said in a press release.
“No justice should feel the weight of an entire country on their shoulders. No president should be able to shift the ideology of our highest judicial body by mere chance,” Rep. Khanna continued. Most importantly, our country’s top constitutional questions shouldn’t be decided by a panel of jurists who are biding their time until a president of their choice is elected. It’s time to standardize and democratize the Supreme Court.”
What opponents say
Opponents counter that lifetime tenure serves a purpose by insulating the Supreme Court from political pressures.
“It is the best expedient which can be devised in any government, to secure a steady, upright and impartial administration of the laws,” Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist №78. “Nothing can contribute so much to its firmness and independence, as permanency in office, this quality may therefore be justly regarded as an indispensable ingredient in its constitution; and in a great measure as the citadel of the public justice and the public security.”
Opponents also include some top Democrats. “No. There is a question about whether or not — it’s a lifetime appointment. I’m not going to try to change that at all,” Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden said in October.
Odds of passage
The bill has attracted seven cosponsors, all Democrats. It awaits a potential vote in the House Judiciary Committee.
Odds of passage are low in the Republican-controlled Senate. But this bill, while it seems Democratic given the current political reality and recent history, is in theory nonpartisan. Although a Republican president and Senate happened to get to confirm the two most recent Supreme Court justices following deaths, perhaps the next two — or more — such vacancies will be confirmed by Democrats.