So on the one-year anniversary of Brett Kavanaugh’s confirmation as an Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court, the American left is resurrecting their role in one of the most sickening episodes in modern history.
Allow me to hold my nose and recap. Kavanaugh was nominated last summer by President Trump to replace retiring justice Anthony Kennedy. Replacing a moderate with a reliable conservative was more than the Left could stomach. After the confirmation hearings which turned up nothing apart from a sterling record of jurisprudence, we learned of an alleged “smoking gun.” Christine Blasey Ford claimed Kavanaugh and a friend drunkenly groped her in high school. Ford offered compelling testimony to the Senate Judiciary Committee, but it was missing a key element. Contemporary corroborating evidence. Everyone else whom she said was there denied anything happened.
After that came other allegations against Kavanaugh—each more unbelievable than the previous one. They got so outlandish as to be comical. Yet, the media solemnly treated each as though they were the gospel. The New York Times and Washington Post’s pages were teeming with stories that had little do with the truth and everything about the alleged “culture” of DC-area Boy’s Prep schools in the early 1980’s. It was the Duke Lacrosse Case all over again. Everything rich, white and male was assumed to be evil.
The allegations were crafted as they were for a reason. Proving a negative is impossible, especially 35 years after the fact. As such, Kavanaugh was in a no-win situation. People were demanding he prove that he did NOT try to rape someone. 35 years ago. As a drunken teenager.
Fortunately enough Republicans in the Senate saw the shitshow for what it was and confirmed Kavanaugh. Voters evidently remembered as well. Two vulnerable Senate Democrats who were calling for Kavanaugh’s head on a pike were ousted a couple of months later in their re-election bids. Elections have consequences.
In the year since, Kavanaugh has proven to NOT be a rubber-stamp for Conservative positions. He has even earned praised from liberal judicial icon Ruth Bader Ginsberg. But to the Left, he has remained the epitome of evil white privilege.
This weekend, the New York Times published an article based on a review of an upcoming book by two Times reporters. You know, reporters. The unbiased/unimpeachable/totally non-partisan arbiters of the truth. “The Education of Brett Kavanaugh: An Investigation” was written by Robin Pogrebin and Kate Kelly.
The article regurgitated Deborah Ramirez’s story that a drunken Kavanaugh flashed her at a party at Yale and put his private parts in her face. Ramirez’s original testimony admitted she was very drunk at the time. The Times article quotes another man who claimed he saw it. But further scrutiny reveals he only heard someone talk about it. That is quite different. Someone who is a reporter should know that.
Molly Hemingway with the Federalist actually got a copy of the book. She reports that the Times article left one a pretty crucial detail:
“The book notes, quietly, that the woman Max Stier named as having been supposedly victimized by Kavanaugh and friends denies any memory of the alleged event. Seems, I don’t know, significant.”
After about 36 hours of this horseshit marinating in the public consciousness, the Times FINALLY noted that what they printed was actually debunked by other reporting in the book that the piece was excerpted from.
In days of media accountability and honesty (yes, such days existed) an editor would get fired for allowing a columnist to omit such a crucial fact from their story. The columnist would be fired and blacklisted. And no, I don’t want to hear “well at least they ADMITTED their mistake and tried to fix it!” That ship left port some time ago. It is not a “mistake” when you continue to do it. And when the “mistakes” all flow in one direction, they are not mistakes.
This weekend, the top two trends on Twitter were #ImpeachKavanaugh and #KavanaughLied. Kamala Harris and other Democratic Presidential candidates called for impeachment hearings. Perpetual Pandering ain’t easy.
So…why all of this? Well clearly the Times is interested in helping their reporters sell books. That they have to revisit one of their sorriest chapters and further defame a man whose only provable sin is disagreeing with them seems like a minor concern to the Times. Or maybe even something MORE sinister is involved.
Ginsberg is not healthy. Having Trump able to nominate her replacement will give the court a strong conservative majority. This same court is poised to take up cases soon on gun rights and other seminal issues that *should* be handled legislatively—but have far too often been remanded to the judicial system for resolution.
Could the continual slamming of Kavanaugh as “illegitimate” be paving the way to provide moral cover for states who don’t want to abide by certain SCOTUS rulings? A 21st century form of “massive resistance?” If the High Court rules that Trump can rescind DACA, will some states claim the ruling null and void because it came from three justices (Kavanaugh, Gorsuch and Thomas) that they despise as see as less-than-legitimate? If the high court rules that a citizenship question CAN be added to the Census, will certain states revolt?
Jeez I hate this. I look terrible in tinfoil.
As for this craptacular article, The New York Times will get away with this because the standard of proof to claim libel or slander against the media is high. And I still think that is a good thing. A free press should have reasonable protections in order to be “free.” But in the court of public opinion, the verdict has long since been rendered.