BagNews Archives About Staff BagNews is a progressive site dedicated to visual politics and the analysis of news images.
Monday, May 21, 2012

Twitter

@bagnewsnotes »
Advertisement



January 18, 2006

John Roberts Finally Lands

Supreme-Graphic

One thing about jamming stealth Supreme Court nominees through the approval system is that reality becomes suspend until the moment they finally go on record.  It probably wouldn’t have been as dramatic if I had just read about it, but the visual on today’s NYT cover — although no real surprise — was almost too definitive to swallow all at once.

Like you would hear that the "straight-A" eagle scout kid next door had been arrested for armed robbery, there was "Baby Face Roberts" in the middle of his new posse.  To make matters worse, the fact he’s Chief Justice and  smack in the middle of the three mugs like that somehow conveys the sense that he’s also the new ring leader.

The rest of the graphic (illustrating the Court’s decision
to uphold Oregon’s right-to-life law) has other dynamics, as well.  As
if you were organizing scrabble pieces or figuring out a baseball
line-up, did you also find yourself mentally pulling out O’Conner,
sticking in Alito and seeing what that looked like?

At the parlor game level, of course, you could do much more with this.
For example, you could start calculating longevity based on visible
signs of age.  You could also draw inferences as to character based on
facial expression and eye contact.  Yes, yes, you could do all that.
But then, at what point does it become clear that you’re back operating
in the zone of suspended reality because the picture in front of you is
just too much to want to face?

(illustration: The New York Times.  January 18, 2005.  p. A1)

  • http://profile.typekey.com/aog/ Annoying Old Guy

    I’m not clear on how either Roberts or Alita were “stealth” candidates. Who, exactly, was unaware of how they would rule generally once on the court? Certainly BagNEWS had no hesitation in acribing very specific judicial viewpoints to either nominee.

  • http://biobrain.blogspot.com Doctor Biobrain

    Nice try, Bagman. But I know that the middle picture is none other than Major Frank Burns from the hit television show MASH (not to be confused with Robert Duvall’s superior portrayal in the movie). Do I win something for guessing correctly?
    On a side note, is there something specific that they do to these guys’ scrotums and/or ovaries to get them to make those faces, or will anything do? Whatever it was, Breyer liked it a helleva lot more than the others.

  • readytoblowagasket

    Doctor Biobrain: I’m not a doctor myself, but I don’t think scrotums and ovaries are exactly parallel in your hypothetical scenario.

  • http://biobrain.blogspot.com Doctor Biobrain

    Hey, I’ve never claimed to be in the medical profession. It’s more of a hobby for me, and I strictly stay out of the hoohaw department. I thought that might not be right, but my wife was in bed so I had no one to ask. Besides, you saw the O’Conner and Ginsburg pics. Can you honestly say I’m wrong?

  • SEAS

    Here in Oregon, the six on our side were above the fold of The Oregonian’s front page, the other three below the fold. You can guess who our heroes on the Court are. Who was fooled? Our Senator Wyden was. He thought he had an understanding with Roberts to support our Death With Dignity law. Wish I had some of what he was smoking when he talked with Roberts. I notice that the picture of Roberts is very similar to the one you analyzed ["First Impressions 7/20/2005"](and coincidentally, is in the column right next to where I’m typing now), projecting that boyish charm and non-threatening demeanor that worked so well during his confirmation and discussion with Wyden. So, recalling that great philosopher GWB, “fool me once, shame on you; fool me again, can’t fool me again,” does anyone harbor the slightest doubt that Alito (and Roberts) will set out to aggressively overturn Roe v Wade?

  • http://ruinsofempire.blogspot.com/ Rafael

    This screams to me “I TOLD YOU SO!”
    The question is, did the NYT bother to do that at all? Or is this more of the “safe” postscript analysis?

  • Mad_nVT

    (Good to see AOG back in the comment mix.)
    With Justice O’Connor heading west, the Supreme Court looks even less like a picture of the American people.
    I don’t get why 51% of the population is female, and 11% of the Supreme Court will be female. Are women inferior or what?
    Next: -how will this bunch of mostly old white men rule on women’s rights?

  • http://areyoudressed.blogspot.com momly

    Wow, the six on top made me flash back to the days when I visited parishoners in nursing homes, especially with Kennedy asleep like that.
    Looking forward to the retirement and replacement of the rest when the Democrats are back in control in ‘08.

  • gleex

    Most of them do not look healthy, or I guess better put in all that great shape to be working for much longer.
    Nice how they are tearing out the picture of O’Conner. I often wonder what she is going to do, and why she did not want to wait until the next election to see if the Executive would be filled with a reasonable person not hell bent on snatching power. Perhaps she specifically wants Bush to appoint someone even though it appears clear that that person (well, white man of course in Bush’s case) will rule based on ideology to her right on ~ 40%-50% of the close cases.
    I feel bad for some of these older people who are seeing the court going so far right (and they really know the details, particularly with pro-corporation and pro-Executive power ruling) and also seeing that Democrats are unlikely go get back in control. I hope they are a bit moderate and all they are hoping for is that the next President is a uniter not a divider (and will appoint someone who is fair and balanced…and I don’t mean like Fox News, I mean for real). Ex. Google may be fighting for the exclusive control of your identity and activity, where as the government wants to give it to them, but have the ability to be the big cheese on the top and take it when they want – what really should be happening is that it is ours and Google does not own it, but rather has to protect it on our behalf. Its like the very argument already gives the web and all of our information that we enter it to the coporation right off the bat. If I “give” them my social security #, or if I “give” them my address in a google map they should not own it, its mearly the information that drives their product.
    As for the text in the image above:
    I know its a “slippery slope”, but I am not so sure that is accurate that intentionally assisting “suicide” is not a “legitimate” medical procedure. I have a feeling that a medical historian would disagree. Its hard to know having gotten so many images from movies, but leaving a handgun with a person with sever wounds, or a high dose of morphine if the supplies are available seems compassionate to me. One the other side of things I don’t want the case where people are being murdered go so they won’t be a burden on the system, or where the end of life is not valued at all. Still, I am not so sure that it has to be a slippery slope, keep the Bush royal family and their lackeys away from patients and doctors.