NY Times calls a pedophile protector “moderate”?

In NRO Ed Whelan points out the obvious on the bias of the New York Times

This house editorial in yesterday’s New York Times, titled “Courts Without Judges,” reflects the NYT editorial board’s usual one-sidedness and selective amnesia: Obama’s judicial nominees, we’re told, are “decidedly moderate.” That “was not always true of the Bush judicial choices that the Democrats felt compelled to filibuster.” (The poor Dems—forced to act against their nobler instincts.) “Neither party should be in the business of obstructing judicial nominees” (gee, why didn’t you say so during the Bush 43 presidency?) “unless they are unqualified or unacceptably extreme” (labels that NYT will fling against any conservative judicial nominees). And so on.

Moderate?  Most recent example of a judicial nominee from President Obama is Michael J. McShane to the U.S. District Court for Oregon.  Judicial Action Group put together a bio on him, of which this article stands out among a pretty dismal record:

McShane Represented One of the Worst Child Rapists in U.S. History, Secured a Light Sentence for the Pedophile, and Then Described the Pedophile’s Light Sentences as Good “Luck”;  The Pedophile Went on to Rape Additional Children After McShane Secured His Light Sentence.  Recalling his previous role defending Dean Schwartzmiller, one of the worst and most prolific serial child rapists in U.S. history who is said to have molested hundreds or even thousands of children over the course of thirty (30) or more years in several countries, McShane attributed Schwartzmiller’s continued ability to evade conviction and long sentences of his crimes as having “…had better luck than anybody I know in the criminal justice system…”[i]  McShane defended Schwartzmiller for his admitted rape and sodomizing of one particular boy – after Schwartzmiller’s known history of child rape, and previous convictions.  After McShane’s procurement of the light sentence for Schwartzmiller, Schwartzmiller continued to rape children.  McShane represented a number of criminal defendants during this legal career but his comments about this most horrific defendant’s ability to evade punishment and continue raping children does not show good judgment.

CQ reports that the Democrats will go to all extremes to get judges like Mr. McShane confirmed:

Senate Democrats appear to be setting the stage for a major battle over President Barack Obama’s judicial nominations, a fight that threatens to reignite raw partisan emotions over filibuster rules and the “nuclear option.”

 

Facing what he said were unwarranted delays of Obama’s court picks, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., alluded last week to the possibility that he would move to prevent Republicans from blocking judicial nominations. By Monday, both sides sought to highlight recent cooperation, and the fight has yet to bubble to the surface with a public standoff on the Senate floor. But that, too, may be coming.

 

New York Sen. Charles E. Schumer, the No. 3 Democrat in the chamber, hinted last month at an emerging strategy focused on daring Republicans to filibuster more judges this year. The conservative news websiteCNSNews picked up on Schumer’s comments, which were delivered at a dinner shortly after Republicans successfully prevented Democrats from getting a filibuster-proof, 60-vote majority on Caitlin J. Halligan’s nomination to a seat on the powerful D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals.

 

“Our strategy will be to nominate four more people, for each of those vacancies, and if they filibuster all of them, it will give those of us who want to change the rules and not allow 60 votes to dominate the Senate — but require a talking filibuster — to prevail. So, we will fill up the D.C. Circuit, one way or the other,” Schumer reportedly said at the time.