New York Gov. Kathy Hochul is going forward with her nomination of Hector LaSalle, a conservative mid-level appellate judge, to the state’s Court of Appeals (the top court), despite doubts that LaSalle has the votes in New York’s state Senate (amNY, 1/6/23; New York Post, 1/8/23).

New York’s corporate media have provided the embattled nominee with a great deal of support, arguing that a rejection of LaSalle would move the top court too far to the left, and be an unjustifiable politicization of the state courts. Many of LaSalle’s defenders, both in the press and in government, stress that he would be the first Latino judge on the top court.

LaSalle’s nomination has rallied intense Senate opposition, whose confirmation is required to ratify judicial appointments (NY1, 1/12/23). His critics, which also include labor unions and reproductive rights groups, among others, say his decisions disregard  workers, due process, immigrants and abortion rights, the latter of which has become a lightning-rod issue for state governments since the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade.

A group of 46 law professors urged a “no” vote against LaSalle, citing his “activist conservative jurisprudence,” and warning that he would “take our state’s law in the wrong direction” (New York Focus, 12/19/22).

More than 30 immigrant rights groups (Immigrant Defense Project, 1/10/23) declared, “LaSalle’s record demonstrates a disturbing pattern with irreversible consequences for immigrant New Yorkers—in particular Black and Latino immigrant communities—who risk being funneled into the hands of ICE.” And “about half a dozen labor unions have announced their opposition to LaSalle, citing an opinion he joined as an appellate judge they considered anti-labor” (City and State New York, 1/9/23).

A group of Jewish lawyers opposed LaSalle in a statement (Forward, 1/9/23):

We are called by our Jewish and American values to defend the rule of law, including the right to privacy and reproductive freedom, the right to associate freely and to demand better working conditions, and the right to justice in the criminal legal system.

‘Dutifully parroted’

In a piece in New York (1/9/23), Errol Louis describes the opposition to LaSalle as “railroading,” as if the application of Senate oversight were some sort of foul play. Louis  coming to LaSalle’s defense is significant, as both a Daily News commentator and a host for the local news cable channel NY 1.

Louis said that the idea that LaSalle is “anti-abortion” and “anti-labor” is a “made-up mischaracterization of LaSalle’s record” that is “dutifully parroted by a group of state senators who announced opposition to LaSalle before any public hearing, discussion or debate has been held or even scheduled.”

One decision cited in the law professors’ letter opposing LaSalle’s nomination bypassed the state’s protections for the speech of labor unions by allowing Cablevision to sue individual labor leaders who had criticized the corporation. Another concerned an investigation into whether an anti-choice operation designed to look like an abortion clinic was defrauding patients; the ruling barred the state attorney general from accessing promotional materials for the operation on the grounds that this would violate the faux clinic’s First Amendment rights.

Though defenders say LaSalle’s critics are focusing too narrowly on a few decisions, Cornell law professor Gautam Hans (Syracuse Post-Standard, 1/12/23) countered this narrative: “LaSalle’s defenders insist his critics need to take a broader look at his record. But that broad review just confirms his opponents’ worst fears.” The piece cited several other cases where LaSalle sided against workers, immigrants, consumers and civil rights.

Louis, like other supporters of LaSalle, invoked the idea his opposition was anti-Latino. It’s a claim that glosses over the fact that LaSalle’s “no” votes come from senators of all backgrounds, including several of Latin American descent–and that he is opposed by labor unions with many Latin American members, as well as immigrant advocates.

To make the case that defense of LaSalle is an ethnic cause, Louis quotes failed mayoral candidate Fernando Ferrer’s support for the nominee, which he offers as evidence that proof that “anger among some Latino leaders is palpable.” Ferrer, who has been out of elected office for more than 20 years and last campaigned in 2005, is an odd choice to represent the diverse Latin American community of New York in 2023.

Latinos vs. ‘left-leaning lawmakers’

The New York Times (1/11/23) also used this questionable framing, saying the “dispute has pitted a crop of Latino and other minority lawmakers—who embrace him as the state’s prospective first Latino chief judge—against left-leaning lawmakers.”

This is a part of an attempt to paint progressive and socialist electoral movements as overly white, when demographics suggest otherwise (New Republic, 12/20/18). Despite the suggestion that “left-leaning lawmakers” is an entirely distinct category from “Latino and other minority lawmakers,” opposition to LaSalle in the Senate is being led by the chamber’s three socialists: Kristen Gonzalez and Julia Salazar, two Latinas, and Jabari Brisport, a Black man.

LaSalle is also opposed by the senate’s labor committee chair, Jessica Ramos, who is Colombian-American (New York Post, 1/6/23). And two Black senators, Robert Jackson and Cordell Cleare, voiced their opposition to LaSalle in one of New York City’s most prominent Black newspapers, the Amsterdam News (12/23/22).

Times readers, however, might be unaware that many LaSalle opponents are people of color, because the Times seems reluctant to quote LaSalle critics at all. As Jewish Currents contributor Raphael Magarik (Twitter, 1/11/23) noted, the January 11 article, which had three writers, including Albany bureau chief Luis Ferré-Sadurní, “contains numerous quotations by [LaSalle’s] supporters but not one single quotation by someone opposing him explaining their opposition.” Magarik concluded: “What horrid, biased reporting.”

‘Extremist insiders’

The city’s three other major editorial boards are united behind LaSalle. The New York Post editorial board (1/9/23) characterized the “no” campaign against LaSalle as being led by “extremist insiders,” who dislike LaSalle because he “follows the law, rather than the far-left wish list.” The Daily News editorialists (12/23/22) was similarly dismissive of the uproar against LaSalle’s record, saying, “The lefties are angry.” The pro-business Wall Street Journal board (1/12/23) said the left was “assailing” (what a word for a constitutionally mandated debate) a judge with a long professional record.

And at least one business coalition has used local media to push for LaSalle. The Queens Daily Eagle (1/12/23) reported that “Citizens for Judicial Fairness, a group that formed in 2016 to advocate for reforms to one of Delaware’s highest courts, took out a number of advertisements in the New York Daily News” to pressure senators to support LaSalle.

The former Court of Appeals chief judge Jonathan Lippman took to Albany’s Times-Union (1/1/23) to insist that LaSalle was “extraordinarily qualified” and “understands the importance of the institutions of the courts,” appealing to the idea that he stands above politics. This is a sort of local version of a trend FAIR has documented (5/16/22), where liberal newspapers insist that if  judges are high achieving scholars then their dangerous ideologies shouldn’t matter.

And the Buffalo News (1/9/23) countered the letter by 46 law professors opposing LaSalle with a single Albany law professor who called LaSalle a centrist, and said LaSalle’s detractors shouldn’t “be smearing him the way they are.” The paper’s editorial board (1/12/23) spoke favorably of LaSalle; the paper played a major role in helping an incumbent mayor stay in power after a socialist defeated him in a Democratic primary (FAIR.org, 11/11/21).

These views are meant to show that opposition to LaSalle is coming from the fringes, but as we see above, the calls both inside and outside of the government calling for concern about LaSalle show that it’s LaSalle’s defenders who have backed themselves into a political corner.

It’s disingenuous to suggest that being the first Latino top judge is all that matters, especially when a chorus of Latino voices are pointing out problems with his policies and ideas. The Journal editorial snidely remarks, “ideology now trumps even identity on the left”—as if in the good old days the left rallied around Clarence Thomas because he was a Black man on the Supreme Court.

All of these pieces appear to be taken aback by the idea that the Senate could actually exercise its constitutional power to reject a judicial nominee. Such shock shows how accustomed media outlets are to the idea that hearings, oversight and votes should be considered mere formalities for executives, rather than seeing these procedures as an essential part of a system of checks and balances.

It should be the media’s job, as well, to act as a check on government power. This sort of coverage doesn’t suggest they take that role very seriously.

The post New York Press: Hey, People, Leave That Judge Alone appeared first on FAIR.

This post was originally published on FAIR.