Jeopardy: “New York Times editorials” for $100

by Walter Olson on January 26, 2013

A. “Buried in the middle of the penultimate paragraph.”

Q. “Where, amid a long rant against the D.C. Circuit’s decision striking down most recess appointments by the President (“A Court Upholds Republican Chicanery”), would you expect the Times to concede that the practice of holding pro forma sessions to stymie such appointments was pioneered under Democratic Senate rule as a way of restraining President George W. Bush?

No prizes, as distinct from amusement value, in demonstrating what the New York Times thought of the practice back then.

More on the Canning v. NLRB decision: Trevor Burrus/Cato, massive link roundup at How Appealing, John Elwood, Point of Law roundtable, Michael Fox/Employer’s Lawyer (implications for NLRB), @markcalabria (implications for Richard Cordray CFPB appointment), Michael Greve, Mike Rappaport.

{ 1 trackback }

Jeffrey Toobin on recess appointments - Overlawyered
01.31.13 at 11:30 am

{ 1 comment }

1 Kyle 01.28.13 at 11:16 pm

Wally,

I’ll tell you basically the same thing I told Ted Frank when he objected to another New York Times story a while back — I think it’s quaint that you seem to believe that the Times still can be shamed back to editorial integrity.

Comments on this entry are closed.