Bari weiss Court packing Daily Beast Embarrasses Intelwars Sunny Hostin The View

Daily Beast embarrasses itself with entirely false story on court packing

The Daily Beast published a completely false story on Tuesday in an attempt to slam a former New York Times columnist, apparently taking the word of a co-host from “The View” in pushing Democrats’ newly manufactured definition of court packing.

What are the details?

Daily Beast senior writer Matt Wilstein wrote an article titled, “‘The View’s’ Sunny Hostin Schools Bari Weiss on ‘Court Packing.'” But it wasn’t Hostin who did the schooling. In fact, Weiss is the one who gave “The View’s” entire panel a lesson.

Wilstein did not explain what court packing is for The Daily Beast’s readership, so TheBlaze reminds everyone that the term “court packing” goes back to when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt (D) attempted to add justices to the high court in order to push through his agenda after the Supreme Court had determined parts of his New Deal were unconstitutional.

The concept of adding justices is considered highly controversial. In fact, Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden in the past called Roosevelt’s attempt to pack the Supreme Court “a bonehead idea” that “put in question” the Supreme Court “for an entire decade.” Biden now refuses to say whether he will make the same move if he wins the White House.

During “The View” episode, Hostin, a legal analyst, argued, “We all know the Republican Party has been packing the Supreme Court for decades. They’ve been packing the judiciary for decades. [President Donald] Trump has put now three justices on the Supreme Court and just dozens and dozens of judges on the federal judiciary. So I think what we’re going to see is perhaps the Democrats unpacking the Supreme Court so that there’s more of a balance.”

Weiss explained, “Packing the Court is about adding more justices to the bench, which is something that people like [Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.)] and [Rep.] Ilhan Omar [D-Minn.] are advocating for. Packing the court doesn’t mean appointing justices that some people don’t like.”

“I think where the conversation is right now, is about whether or not the Democrats — if they win the Senate and if Joe Biden wins — if they’re going to fundamentally change the nature of the court as Roosevelt once tried to do,” Weiss continued, noting that the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg also voiced opposition to packing the court last year when she told NPR that “nine is a good number.”

Weiss went on to call out Biden for refusing to “stand up to the left-wing flank of his party.”

“The fact that he has refused on the record to say whether or not he will pack the court I think is very suspicious to some people, and the fact that journalists aren’t forcing him to ask that essential question … is pretty ridiculous as far as I’m concerned,” Weiss said.

Hostin insists new definition of court packing means ‘balancing’

Co-host Whoopi Goldberg tried to provide cover for Hostin by stepping in and saying the legal analyst was referring to lower courts being packed. But Hostin stood firm, correcting Goldberg and saying, “I was talking about the Supreme Court.”

Hostin insisted this new definition of court packing actually meant “balancing” out the court for Democrats, pointing to a Newsweek article from another legal expert who also completely ignored where the term came from and what it means.

She explained to Goldberg:

“I was in particular talking about the Supreme Court being packed and I used those words very specifically. In order to unpack the Supreme Court, meaning unpack the culture, unpack the values that are on the Supreme Court—in order to do that you would have to add either term limits, age limits, or you would have to add justices, which would then balance the Supreme Court, which would lead to an unpacking.”

But Weiss was right. She and Hostin sparred over whether or not Biden should provide an answer on whether or not he would add justices, but Weiss was certainly not schooled, and she maintained the same opinion of others in the media, such as CNN’s Jake Tapper, who have said Biden should tell voters his plans on the issue before Election Day.

The Daily Beast failed to show Weiss was wrong

Not only did The Daily Beast article fail to explain court packing, it failed to show any evidence of how Weiss was wrong or “schooled,” and folks on social media took notice.

In response to the outlet’s Twitter post of the story, one person wrote, “When I first heard of the new rhetorical strategy to make up a new definition for court-packing I thought ‘there is absolutely no way anyone is stupid enough to buy this.’ I was wrong. Daily beast writers and readers are stupid enough to buy it. Fair enough.”

Another responded, “Makes the case for Civics Education in schools. And apparently, a badly needed requirement for snarky Daily Beast boys.”

Someone else added, “Here’s the thing– the lingo that Hostin is using is WRONG. Bari Weiss is describing it correctly. “Packing” means adding more judges to the court. “Un-Packing” doesn’t mean anything. It’s sad that he uses it as an opportunity to smear @bariweiss for getting it right.”

Someone else concluded, “Yeah…. Saw the segment. @bariweiss was correct. Perhaps you guys should change the title to your article. Sunny Hostin perhaps should go back and get ‘schooled’ on using terms with correct definitions. She looked foolish for it.”

Here is the exchange from “The View”:

‘The View’s’ Sunny Hostin Schools Bari Weiss on ‘Court Packing’

‘The View’s’ Sunny Hostin Schools Bari Weiss on ‘Court Packing’

Bari weiss Bill Maher Cancel cancel culture Cancel culture Intelwars Real Time real time with bill maher Thomas chatterton williams

Former New York Times opinion editor blasts cancel culture as ‘social murder’ on Bill Maher’s show

Former New York Times opinion editor Bari Weiss ripped cancel culture and had some parting shots at her former employer during her appearance on “Real Time with Bill Maher” on Friday.

“We’re used to criticism. Criticism is kosher in the work that we do,” Weiss told Bill Maher. “Criticism is great. What cancel culture is about is not criticism. It is about punishment. It is about making a person radioactive. It is about taking away their job.”

“The writer Jonathan Rauch [of The Atlantic] called it social murder. And I think that’s right,” she said.

“It’s not just about punishing the sinner. It’s not just about punishing the person for being insufficiently pure,” Weiss explained. “It’s about this sort of secondary boycott of people who would deign to speak to that person or appear on a platform with that person.”

“And we see just very obviously where that kind of politics gets us,” she continued. “If conversation with people that we disagree with becomes impossible, what is the way that we solve conflict? It’s violence.”

“That’s an enormous problem because what it’s meant is the collapse of moderates,” the former Times writer said. “It’s meant the collapse of the center and the retribalization of this country and the whole deal with this country, the reason that it’s exceptional with all of its flaws is because we depart from history.”

“We say that clannishness, tribalism, that we can overcome that, that there’s something bigger than lineage or kin or the political tribe we belong to,” she said on the HBO talk show. “And I think what we’re seeing right now, and it’s a very scary moment, is a kind of returning to the mean of history. And I think it is up to us to defend the ideas that made this country unique and a departure of history.”

Weiss said that “politics has come to supplant religion,” where people on the right see President Donald Trump as a “deity,” and people on the left who believe “anything less than defunding the police or abolish the police to choose the issue of the day, makes you something like a heretic.”

Weiss resigned from The New York Times last month with a scathing public letter to publisher A.G. Sulzberger. Weiss wrote that her “forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views.” She alleges that coworkers called her a “Nazi and a racist,” making for a “hostile work environment.”

“Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action,” she wrote. “Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.”

Weiss also talked about her fiery departure from the New York Times, and provided some criticisms of the newspaper of record.

“The reason that Twitter is the assigning editor of The New York Times is because the printing press isn’t the printing press anymore. It’s because the printing press is in each one of our pockets,” Weiss said.

“To do our job well, writers and editors, we need to have a level of bravery and thick skin and fearlessness,” she said. “And when you’re living in fear of an online mob, you know, all it takes is a dozen people to repeat a lie about you — that you’re a racist, that you’re a transphobe, that you’re a bigot — for that lie to become true and that’s extremely dangerous.”

This week’s episode of “Real Time” also featured Harper’s Magazine columnist Thomas Chatterton Williams, who was one of 150 liberal writers, journalists, and academics who signed an open letter calling for an end to cancel culture. Others who signed the open letter include Weiss, “Harry Potter” creator J.K. Rowling, philosopher Noam Chomsky, and feminist Gloria Steinem.

“What strikes me about it is the pushback is coming from liberals and almost everyone who signs this letter … is a liberal!” Maher said. “Bari, the fact that you — they call you a centrist or right-winger! I mean, if a hip, millennial, Jewish bisexual girl living in San Francisco is not a liberal … who is these days?”

“What we’re trying to say with the letter – and what Thomas did in forming it – was saying what’s happening now with this growing culture of illiberalism is different from criticism,” Weiss stated.

Williams said that “cancellation” isn’t about “bringing down elites back to Earth” but instead causes an “onlooker effect” that has “a chilling and stifling and narrowing influence on all of our behaviors.”

Bari weiss Intelwars Leftists New York Times Opinion editor resignation watch

Bari Weiss — NY Times Opinion editor who pushed against paper’s leftism — blasts colleagues in excoriating resignation letter

Bari Weiss — the New York Times’ Opinion editor and writer who often pushed against the paper’s advancing leftism — has resigned from the Times.

What are the details?

The Washington Post’s Jeremy Barr tweeted that he was told Weiss resigned Monday. Vice was first to report about her leaving the Times.

Weiss noted in her lengthy resignation letter to publisher A.G. Sulzberger that her hiring three years ago came “with the goal of bringing in voices that would not otherwise appear in your pages: first-time writers, centrists, conservatives and others who would not naturally think of The Times as their home. The reason for this effort was clear: The paper’s failure to anticipate the outcome of the 2016 election meant that it didn’t have a firm grasp of the country it covers.”

But Weiss said her stint at the Times was filled with opposition from colleagues hell-bent on advancing and preserving a leftist point of view at the so-called “paper of record”:

My own forays into Wrongthink have made me the subject of constant bullying by colleagues who disagree with my views. They have called me a Nazi and a racist; I have learned to brush off comments about how I’m “writing about the Jews again.” Several colleagues perceived to be friendly with me were badgered by coworkers. My work and my character are openly demeaned on company-wide Slack channels where masthead editors regularly weigh in. There, some coworkers insist I need to be rooted out if this company is to be a truly “inclusive” one, while others post ax emojis next to my name. Still other New York Times employees publicly smear me as a liar and a bigot on Twitter with no fear that harassing me will be met with appropriate action. They never are.

There are terms for all of this: unlawful discrimination, hostile work environment, and constructive discharge. I’m no legal expert. But I know that this is wrong.

I do not understand how you have allowed this kind of behavior to go on inside your company in full view of the paper’s entire staff and the public. And I certainly can’t square how you and other Times leaders have stood by while simultaneously praising me in private for my courage. Showing up for work as a centrist at an American newspaper should not require bravery.

Weiss in her letter also criticized the Times for its internal outrage over an op-ed by Arkansas GOP Sen. Tom Cotton, which advocated for President Donald Trump to use military force to stop the rioting that erupted from protests inspired by George Floyd’s death. In the wake of the op-ed, editorial page editor James Bennet resigned.

She noted that such a chilling incident “bodes ill, especially for independent-minded young writers and editors paying close attention to what they’ll have to do to advance in their careers. Rule One: Speak your mind at your own peril. Rule Two: Never risk commissioning a story that goes against the narrative. Rule Three: Never believe an editor or publisher who urges you to go against the grain. Eventually, the publisher will cave to the mob, the editor will get fired or reassigned, and you’ll be hung out to dry.”

What did the Times have to say?

A Times spokesperson sent Vice the following statement from Kathleen Kingsbury, acting editorial page editor:

We appreciate the many contributions that Bari made to Times Opinion. I’m personally committed to ensuring that The Times continues to publish voices, experiences and viewpoints from across the political spectrum in the Opinion report. We see every day how impactful and important that approach is, especially through the outsized influence The Times’s opinion journalism has on the national conversation.

Here’s a clip of Weiss speaking about Trump on “Real Time With Bill Maher”:

Bari Weiss – why Trump wins and Democrats lose