The Daily Nightly began on May 31, 2005. As Brian wrote in his first post it aims to provide a narrative of the broadcast day and a window into the editorial process at NBC Nightly News. Brian weighs in every weekday and NBC News correspondents and producers post regularly.
Brian Williams became the seventh anchor and managing editor in the history of NBC Nightly News on December 2, 2004. Read his full biography.
 |
|
 |
|
 |
advertisement
About the broadcast | Biographies
RSS is an easy way to get the news you want as it is updated even if you are not on MSNBC.com. More information about MSNBC.com's RSS feeds.
Podcasting brings you audio and video from each weekday broadcast on your iPod or other portable MP3 player anytime, anywhere. More information about MSNBC.com's podcasts.
Sign-up for our daily e-mail newsletter. It offers a preview of the stories and special reports featured on each weekday broadcast.
The President paying tribute to his Justices Roberts and Alito. This is a big accomplishment. The President has moved the Court to the right and he did so without the protracted battles many expected. The bottom line is that elections matter.
Read more from David Gregory
Heading back out to the White House lawn
EMAIL THIS
TRACKBACKS
Trackbacks are links to weblogs that reference this post. Like comments, trackbacks do not appear until approved by us. The trackback URL for this post is: http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451b0aa69e200d834a9d3d369e2
Remember that Ford and Bush one appointed Stevens and Souter, justices that lean left over 60% of the time. It has yet to be seen whether the "new court" is really all that "right" or not. Besides, justices over time vote more liberal regardless of the perspective they start with. What does that tell you about the constitutionality of issues such as civil liberties and rights? To be a liberal judge simply means these values are upheld when the alternative is increased government authority. If I am correct, is this not what the Republicans are supposed to stand for anyway? Less government control and authority? Hmmm...
(Sent Apr 11, 2006 12:48:32 AM)
I can't wait until a Democrat is elected President.Then we'll see how passive the right is when the lower courts are loaded with the most extreme left wing judges the President can find.Then we'll hear Democrats saying, "get over it".
After listening to the AG defend illegal activity by the President, all I can say is thank God he wasn't nominated for the Supreme Court.We got enough of the extreme right making up the rules as they go along!
Don Iodice
Woodbridge,NJ
DONALD IODICE (Sent Feb 3, 2006 8:30:53 AM)
It's about time the court went a little right. The liberals are acting like a bunch of children not getting there way. You can say what you want but I did't see republicans act this way when Clinton appointed Ginsbury or Bueyer to the court. Liberals just need to get over it.
bernese thacker (Sent Feb 1, 2006 11:03:16 AM)
These new justices could prove us wrong and really not allow their personal feelings to get in the way of fair, balanced decisions. As far as Roe v Wade and the whole pro-life movement, why is it always men who think they know what is best for women? I worry about that for my daugher and her future.
Darcy Searle, Durham, CT (Sent Feb 1, 2006 8:07:50 AM)
I concur with Andrew C. of Maine: These two men are accomplished jurists, who rightly favor interpretations of statutes and caselaw that give deference to the legislatures. These judges are not elected. As such, they should not create policy based on what they perceive the intent of the legislature to be. If they cannot ascertain what the law is meant to say, then they should call upon the elected officials to draft clearer language--as Rehnquist and Scalia often did/do respectively. The day I elect a justice is the day they can make policy. Until then, they must serve to check the constitutionality of the laws and offer friendly advice to the legislatures. This, my friends, is called judicial restraint and is why I am so very thankful that the court is now going to be swayed to the "right."
Andrew Baker, Little Rock, Arkansas (Sent Jan 31, 2006 10:55:33 PM)
I am a women, have a daughter, and have two disabled family members. I don't believe this court will fight for my family's rights, but I will.
Deirdre Hartsell (Sent Jan 31, 2006 10:19:08 PM)
I strongly believe that history will view the entire GW presidency not on how he changed the court; rather, it will be on how we as a nation (including the Supreme Court) address the balance of civil rights vs. domestic protection in times of "war" or turmoil.
Mike, Fort Lauderdale, Florid (Sent Jan 31, 2006 10:11:46 PM)
Andrew C of Washburn, Maine
I PRAY THAT YOU ARE RIGHT. OUR LIVES, ALL OF OUR LIVES ARE IN THESE MENS HAND FOR PROBABLY OVER 40 YEARS.
Dawn, Cave Creek Arizona (Sent Jan 31, 2006 10:05:59 PM)
To the "right" or to the angle of fair interpretation by 2 commendable, capable judges???
Andrew C., Washburn, Maine (Sent Jan 31, 2006 10:02:08 PM)
SEND A COMMENT
PLEASE READ: All comments must be approved before appearing in the thread; time and space constraints prevent all comments from appearing. We will only approve comments that are directly related to this post, use appropriate language and are not attacking the comments of others.