Unethical Quote Of The Week, Cross-Filed to “The Brett Kavanaugh Nomination Ethics Train Wreck,” “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias,” AND “Bias Makes You Stupid”: ABC Correspondent Terry Moran

“Overturning Roe vs. Wade by an all-male majority, two of whom have had credible accusations of sexual misconduct lodged against them, would not be a legitimate action.”

—–ABC correspondent Terry Moran, on an ABC news broadcast, as he discussed what would happen to the nation’s highest court if the Senate confirms Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh,

It doesn’t get much worse than this. The statement is irresponsible, unfair, ignorant, partisan, incompetent, inflammatory and untrue. It involves multiple distortions of law and fact. It is an opinion presented as fact by an individual lacking the credentials or authority to issue such an opinion. It also encourages defiance of lawful authority.

Moran is a journalist, trained as a journalist and as nothing but a journalist. His current role at ABC is as a foreign correspondent. He is no lawyer, and apparently has no idea what a conflict of interest is. For him to use his air time to make such a pronouncement, sure to be sucked up by the eager, empty brain cells of social media junkies everywhere, is an abuse of his position and influence. That is, however, what he and his colleagues increasingly call “journalism” in 2018. It isn’t journalism, not the ethical kind. It is propaganda, and worse.

For the sake of brevity, since these are major misrepresentations that could each be the subject of scholarly essays, allow me to just bullet point them:

  • More fake news, Future and Psychic News Division. Why is Moran talking about Roe v. Wade being overturned? There is no case before the Supreme Court that would do that. There is no pending case in the system that would lead to that. None of the sitting justices or Kavanaugh have argued that Roe should be overturned, and the conservative justices have all declared their fealty to the concept of stare decisus, in which established SCOTUS decisions are regarded as settled law except in extraordinary circumstances.

For a broadcast journalist to discuss a remote hypothetical—and it is remote by definition, since none of the conditions necessary for it to occur appear to exits—is brazen fear-mongering and misleading the public.

  • More fake news, Future and Psychic News Division, Part II.  Then Moran forsees what individual Justices will decide in this imaginary case that hasn’t been argued, or briefed. In this he reduces the Supreme Court, which analyzes difficult questions of law, to a group of agenda-driven knee-jerk hacks, which they are not.

Journalists like Moran are the agenda-driven knee-jerk hacks, and at least in his case, are unable to imagine anyone else treating important controversies objectively

  • Gender stereotyping. There is no justification for assuming that a male justice would automatically vote to overturn Roe, and the assumption is historically ignorant. After all, an all-male SCOTUS majority established Roe.

Moran also assumes that no woman on the Court would vote with the male members even if the particular facts and law related to the imaginary, hypothetical future case that may never exist required an honest, objective female Justice to do so. This is  simple-minded, biased thinking that reduces both genders to their lowest common denominators.

  • The misleading word, “credible.” “Credible” means “capable of being believed” by itself. I could state here that I am five foot three inches tall and once worked as Latin tutor to make extra money in school. Those are both credible claims: there’s nothing that makes them unbelievable. They are also untrue. Being credible is not the test for whether any statement of evidence should be believed, and in any dispute, such statements must be considered in the context of other evidence. Brett Kavanaugh’s denial is also credible, except to those who have a vested interest in disbelieving it.

In this nation, and in any just society, we do not make judgments about people based on “credible accusations.” The accusations must be corroborated and substantiated to some extent. Dr. Ford named witnesses, and none of them have confirmed her story. That does not make her accusation incredible, but no conclusions can be drawn from it either.

  • There’s no conflict of interest. I don’t know what tortured definition of conflict of interest Moran thinks he knows, but whatever it is, it doesn’t exist in law or ethics. I’m assuming that a conflict is what he thinks would undermine the legitimacy of his imaginary, future hypothetical SCOTUS decision. If mere gender created a conflict, then neither women nor men could consider abortion cases. Blacks couldn’t rule on civil rights cases. Motherhood, fatherhood, whether a judge had an abortion or chose not to have one, these at most create biases, not conflicts, which occur when a judge’s current tangible, real life, current interests will be affected by a decision he or she is obligated to make. Judges are pledged to ignore their biases, not to never have them. All human beings have biases; judges are professionally trained and obligated to do a better job than the rest of us recognizing them and overcoming them.

Moran is advancing one more toxic and unethical Democratic talking point, which we will hear repeatedly if Kavabaugh is confirmed. Since Democrats so viciously abused him during the hearings, and he made it clear that he found the treatment infuriating, he will be conflicted out of any case that involves a political controversy in which Democrats have a stake. It’s a great theory, don’t you think? As long as Democrats behave as miserably toward a conservative SCOTUS nominee as they have toward Kavanaugh, they have nothing to fear when he’s on the bench: he’s conflicted! False. Strong emotional animus regarding a party is only a conflict if the professional is unable to put it aside. SCOTUS justices are the best of the breed, and they are presumably able to handle this essential job skill.

  • If the Supreme Court is legitimate, then its decisions are legitimate. “Would not be a legitimate action” is the language of “the resistance,” and it incited defiance of the law and the Constitution, as well as civil disorder. Why is ABC News doing this? (Moran was not suspended or disciplined for his irresponsible, bigoted and partisan statement.) The theory of the “resistance” is that Donald Trump’s election wasn’t “legitimate,” and thus his Presidency isn’t “legitimate,” so they are justified in defying his authority. They have no valid claim for this, of course: its a bootstrap argument, resulting in a two-year quest (so far) to find something substantial that would render Trump’s election null and void. Meanwhile, “the resistance,” now essentially including the entire Democratic Party, possessed by The Dark Side, behaves as if its case is already proven.

At his website The American Thinker, former Harvard and Columbia professor Thomas Lifson flags Moran’s rhetoric as approaching sedition.

“Merriam-Webster, for example, defines sedition as “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority,” he writes. Here’s the video of Moran:

Lifson continues: “If Judge Kavanaugh is confirmed, and if Roe v. Wade were found unconstitutional by a future Supreme Court including him and Justice Thomas, that would be “lawful authority,” no matter what Moran thinks.  If he continued to advocate resistance to a Supreme Court decision, then he could face legal jeopardy.   The point here is that it is irresponsible to proclaim any kind court decision illegitimate, particularly as so many people use the word “resistance” in the current environment.”

Lifson also asks if ABC is going to let this pass. Obviously so.  It is one more step toward advocacy of direct defiance to the elected government and the Constitution by the mainstream media.

 

35 Comments

Filed under "bias makes you stupid", Ethics Alarms Award Nominee, Ethics Dunces, Ethics Quotes, Ethics Train Wrecks, Government & Politics, Journalism & Media, Law & Law Enforcement, Professions

35 responses to “Unethical Quote Of The Week, Cross-Filed to “The Brett Kavanaugh Nomination Ethics Train Wreck,” “Nah, There’s No Mainstream Media Bias,” AND “Bias Makes You Stupid”: ABC Correspondent Terry Moran

  1. To be fair, there were so MANY unethical quotes this week…

  2. Emily

    While I have nothing against Kavanaugh, and think he’d make a fine Justice, this is almost enough to make me wish he’d step down so Trump could nominate Amy Coney Barrett. The stammering and whiplash would be hilarious at this point.

    • Other Bill

      Emily, they wouldn’t even blink, never mind stammer. They’d go after her for being a Papist, a tool of the Vatican intent on imposing Canon Law as the law of the land. Besides which, there would be credible allegations of … you name it.

    • Chris Marschner

      Emily, If Kavanaugh steps down now for any reason the left will treat this as an admission of guilt.

      The left has forced him to endure the bullying and emotional torture and dropping out will be evidence of guilt.

      • Emily

        Oh, I know. I don’t want Kavanaugh to step down, and if I was him I sure wouldn’t step down. But when I read things like the above quote, I very much like the idea of giving them a squeaky clean female nominee to choke on.

        Maybe when RBGs spot comes open.

        • They will do the same to a female, just use different attacks. Look at how they treat ANY conservative woman for a guide. Many of these are also minorities, which does not matter when progs attack)

          Condoleezza Rice
          Michelle Malkin
          Michele Bachmann
          Sarah Huckabee Sanders
          Kellyanne Conway
          Sarah Palin (who shot herself in the foot, but still)

  3. JP

    Jack, it’s been a while since I looked at your rationalizations but if you don’t have this one in there, it needs to be. You could call it the old white man rationalization.

  4. Glenn Logan

    Why is Moran talking about Roe v. Wade being overturned? There is no case before the Supreme Court that would do that.

    I don’t know, but my guess is he wants to galvanize pubic opinion against Kavanaugh and the GOP by suggesting that the Republican nominee intends to overturn Roe. He clearly also wants to justify suspicion of any of Justice Thomas’ opinions by tying him to Kavanaugh. The two cases couldn’t be further removed in time and particulars, but Moran wants to make them both identical, I suspect for partisan reasons.

    In this he reduces the Supreme Court, which analyzes difficult questions of law, to a group of agenda-driven knee-jerk hacks, which they are not.

    Straight out the Leftist bible, Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals.

    There is no justification for assuming that a male justice would automatically vote to overturn Roe, and the assumption is historically ignorant. After all, an all-male SCOTUS majority established Roe.

    Irrelevant, because #MeToo.

    In this nation, and in any just society, we do not make judgments about people based on “credible accusations.” The accusations must be corroborated and substantiated to some extent. Dr. Ford named witnesses, and none of them have confirmed her story. That does not make her accusation incredible, but no conclusions can be drawn from it either.

    We have reached a moral panic, as a couple of good authors including Ashe Schow have explained this weekend. That moral panic, by definition, throws due process “out the window.”

    Moran need not consider rules of evidence or traditional assumptions of innocence without sufficient proof. The nature of the charge makes the evidence mostly irrelevant as long as it’s not obviously false. There is no defense, by the way — the charge itself precludes any defense, because the victim must be believed. Full stop.

    The accused must be assumed to be incredible, absent bulletproof evidence of his innocence, such as not being present in the country at the time of the alleged offense. Even that may not be enough for many Leftists.

    All human beings have biases; judges are professionally trained and obligated to do a better job than the rest of us recognizing them and overcoming them.

    Not conservative judges. Their biases are presumed to infect their every thought, and men are genetically incapable of empathy for women if they don’t exist as creatures of Leftist ideology.

    Since Democrats so viciously abused him during the hearings, and he made it clear that he found the treatment infuriating, he will be conflicted out of any case that involves a political controversy in which Democrats have a stake.

    That’s clearly what they desire. I hope Kavanaugh is more of a man than that, but one can never be sure.

    “Merriam-Webster, for example, defines sedition as “incitement of resistance to or insurrection against lawful authority,” he writes.

    Well, if that’s so, I figure we should be able to indict half of Twitter and 40% of Facebook. I doubt that will happen, though.

    Thanks for highlighting this, Jack, although truth to tell, I can’t read or watch the national media anymore. It’s to much for my blood pressure, and I’m getting too old to play silly games with that. I appreciate people I trust, like you, who aggregate and analyze this stuff so I don’t have to subject myself to the possibility of screaming futility at the television.

  5. Is there an over-under on when the the Professional Yuck-Yuck seekers zero in Rachel Mitchell’s appearance?

    There’s a poem about her Not Wanted by some Lefty wonkette that I’d ONLY recommend reading if the paint you’ve been watching has completely dried.

    https://newversenews.blogspot.com/2018/10/on-disappearance-of-rachel-mitchell.html

  6. Other Bill

    Torture Museums are pretty popular in Europe. If they ever have any in the U.S., I’d nominate talking points as the first means of indigenous U.S. torture that should be put on display. This guy is simply reading DNC talking points. Doing so has become standard journalistic practice. There must be courses in journalism schools along the lines of “Reading Talking Points For Fun and Profit 101.”

    • That have museums that focus on or have exhibits focusing on lynchings. From a time when, among other fraudulent excuses, men were *actually* murdered by the larger community after mere accusations by women.

  7. DaveL

    I may be going senile at a young age, but weren’t both Roe v. Wade and Griswold v. Connecticut before it both decided by an all-male SCOTUS?

  8. JutGory

    Jack,
    I know your spelling challenges are chronic (and likely terminal), but I am pretty sure his name is Moron.
    -Jut

  9. Rusty Rebar

    Kind of reminds me of the Judge Curiel kerfuffle. Trump was wrong there, and the media was all over it, but now that the shoe is on the other foot, they make the same arguments that Trump made back then.

    https://abcnews.go.com/ABCNews/trump-orders-surrogates-defend-judge-issue/story?id=39653602

    Do they think we are all so stupid as to not be able to remember these things? Do they think that no one is paying any attention to this BS and constant double standards?

  10. The telling statement is right before the one flagged by Jack in this post. He states, at the 0:24 mark,

    “He had better take into that life time appointment a sense of the woundedness of so many people in the country and factor that into his decisions. . . .”

    “He had better”: That, if he wants legitimacy for this position, he better get with the program.

    “take into that life time appointment”: we tried to kill him off, but he beat us and there is nothing we can do get rid of him for the foreseeable future.

    “a sense of the woundedness”: wounds inflicted by politicizing the nomination process being used to destroy his reputation before he assumes the bench, wounds wrought by the patriarchy on women whose cries for justice have been ignored for far too long. “They are women hear them roar!”

    “of so many people in the country”: Read that as women and he better not do anything to slow their march toward full actualization and participation in the body politic.

    “and factor that into his decisions. . . .”: He must rule solely on an emotional level when it comes to matters affecting and effecting the rights of women against the imperious male patriarchy. If #MeToo tells us anything, it is that all claims of violence against women (womyn?) are not only legitimate and real, they are conclusive of an oppressive white male privilege brought on by centuries of privilege. No longer! Men should just shut up and get in line.

    jvb

  11. Terry Moran is advocating for a “Minority Report” kind of prejudgment but it’s based on nothing but accusations, assumptions, insinuations, and outright lies. In other words, he’s talking like a modern day Progressive with no filter.

    As far as I’m concerned, intentional sedition and subversion have been present since the 2016 Presidential election and it’s become so mainstream acceptable from the political left that media knows no one will do a damn thing to stop them from openly advocating for it.

    The left is so far gone that there is no way they are going to pull it back now or anytime in the foreseeable future, they can’t, they clearly have momentum. If a particular side wants serious social change in a society they must first create social chaos, blame their opposition for everything, paint their opposition as evil, build momentum towards their desired outcome, and brainwash the public into believing that their way is the only way out of the social chaos; how do they do this – propaganda. The Progressive slippery slope is no longer a slope, it’s a vertical drop, there’s no safety net, and that’s exactly how Progressives wants it.

    Anyone want to predict how long before the mainstream left starts openly calling for violence against those they oppose and their ignorant pawns will accommodate the calls? Days, weeks, months, a year?

    Are you ready?

    • I predict that you’ll likely see that other “journalists” will start to parrot what Moran said. We see this Monkey See, Monkey Do Hive Mindedness all the time.

    • adimagejim

      Yep. I am.

    • They still have the little problem with who owns guns… they missed the chance to take them up and now have to wait for the power to do so.

      • slickwilly wrote, “They still have the little problem with who owns guns…”

        I think you may be making a false assumption, I’ve known plenty of lefty hunters over the years. I’m also going to make a guess that over the last couple of years Mr. and Mrs. Joe Lefty’s terrible fear of Mr. Evil Righty have driven them to using some of their dollars to do more than just support their local social justice activists.

        The worst thing you can do in mortal conflict is to underestimate your “enemy”, it will likely be your last time to do that.

        • You really think the lefties you discuss are looking to riot and shoot up common Americans?

          Because I was talking about those that might be. Hunters tend to NOT be ones I would worry about.

          Additionally, most of the military (and thus, those who have left it) swing conservative. As yet.

          • slickwilly wrote, “You really think the lefties you discuss are looking to riot and shoot up common Americans?”

            Come on Slick, you just “slickly” shifted the goal post on me. You were discussing who has the guns not if they are looking to riot and shoot up common Americans. By the way, they are “common” Americans too they just have different opinions driving them; although, those opinions do appear to be brainwashed into their psyche and causing them to flush their morals.

            About the question you posed above: I’m not in their head so there is absolutely no way of knowing of they are looking to riot and shoot up Americans. I’ll tell you this, the direct answer to your question is absolutely yes I think so; if “you” corner an animal that’s capable of violence “you” will get violence and the brainwashed political left is looking more and more like a cornered animal. How far do you think a group of completely morally bankrupt people would be willing to go to ram their blind ideological viewpoints down the throats of the masses – I think they would go all the way – you?

            I stand by my statement: the worst thing you can do in mortal conflict is to underestimate your “enemy”, it will likely be your last time to do that.

            • My answer was in response to your statement, Z: “Anyone want to predict how long before the mainstream left starts openly calling for violence against those they oppose and their ignorant pawns will accommodate the calls?

              Are the hunters you speak of included in that statement? Are they the ‘ignorant pawns?’ If so then I misunderstood your intent on this thread. All my statement was intended to convey is that there are far more armed conservatives than progressives… that’s all.

              Nevertheless (I just like having the opportunity to use that word) I hear what you are saying, and you have a good point. Never underestimate your enemy.

              Open conflict will not be a cake walk no matter what.

              • slickwilly asked, “Are the hunters you speak of included in that statement?”

                If they choose to accommodate the calls, yes.

                slickwilly asked, “Are they the ‘ignorant pawns?’ “

                If they choose to accommodate the calls, yes.

                • Fair enough.

                  Sad that you know hunters who would act this way…

                  • slickwilly wrote, “Sad that you know hunters who would act this way…”

                    I don’t actually know these hunters would act this way, but I also don’t know that they would not; that is the real point. Based on the utter nonsense that the political left is doing how can you predict what these hunters might do and reject the possibility that they might just answer the call.

                    Remember what I said elsewhere, “if ‘you’ corner an animal that’s capable of violence ‘you’ will get violence and the brainwashed political left is looking more and more like a cornered animal.”

  12. Chris Marschner

    I believe Georgetown Prof. Christine Fair is going to give Moran a run for his money with her castrate males and feed them to swine quote.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.