It has to be close, because I don’t know how a book review can be more unethical.
The book in question is Ruth Marcus’s unconscionable hit piece on Justice Brett Kavanaugh, “Supreme Ambition.” The forum is the book review section of the New York Times, which has been trying to smear Kavanaugh since he was nominated for the Supreme Court, and even since the contrived attempt to defeat him by ancient and uncorroborated accusations of misconduct when he was a teenager—when he was a teenager—when he was a teenager (no three times is not enough repitition to emphasize how despicable this was) failed, as it should have. The objective, trustworthy reviewer the Times chose to assess the book was Adam Cohen. He writes speeches for and advises New York’s socialist mayor Bill de Blasio, and authored “Supreme Inequality: The Supreme Court’s Fifty-Year Battle for a More Unjust America,” coming out next month.
Yup, the perfect guy to provide an objective review of an anti-Kavanaugh book.
It is clear by now that progressives and the mainstream media have added the Brett Kavanugh confirmation hearing to the shooting of Mike Brown, the death of Trayvon Martin, and the fake Russian Collusion theory as narratives they will falsely characterize until the stars turn cold. Incredibly, Cohen writes at the end of his review,
“As important as the Kavanaugh battle was for the court, however, there was something even more profound at stake: whether, on the most important questions, our nation is capable of putting the public interest ahead of partisanship, and whether the truth matters. The forces aligned for partisanship and against truth are stronger than ever.”
Cohen’s review is a prime example of the condition he claims to be condemning. What “truth”? Not a single fact was produced during the hearing that had any relevance to Brett Kavanaugh’s fitness to be a Supreme Court Justice. His record as a judge was impeccable and beyond reproach. Ah, BUT…Marcus and Cohen point to this:
“There was, however, a dark strand running through Kavanaugh’s life of calculated achievement: heavy drinking. In his high school yearbook, he made a reference to “100 Kegs or Bust,” and in college, his interests included the annual Tang competition, an elaborate intramural beer-drinking relay race. Law school classmates have said little about his intellectual pursuits, but one recalled, “If you had asked me who was the biggest drinker in our class I would have said Brett.”
In two words: So…what? If Kavanaugh was not an alcoholic nor an alcohol abuser as a judge, his drinking excesses while a student had as much relevance to his SCOTUS qualifications as Barack Obama’s fondness for pot in his student days had to his Presidential fitness. That this was even raised during their hearings shows how desperate and ethics-free Kavanaugh’s Democratic adversaries were in their efforts to bring him down.
Christine Blasey Ford, a psychology professor, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that Kavanaugh had sexually assaulted her at a high school party decades earlier. “Brett got on top of me,” she said, and “began running his hands over my body and grinding his hips into me.” He groped her, she said, and tried to take her clothes off. When she yelled, she said, he put his hand over her mouth. “It was hard for me to breathe,” she said, “and I thought that Brett was accidentally going to kill me.”
Blasey Ford’s testimony was precise and measured — and credible.
“Credible” is the weasel word used by all of Ford’s apologists and enablers, and those anti-male #MeToo bigots who claim that a woman’s accusation of sexual misconduct should always be believed. Sure it was “credible,” as opposed to her claiming that he turned into a bat and flew into her hair. The accusation was credible but not probative of anything. It was exactly as credible as any 30 year old recovered memory of an event without witnesses that the accused party denies and the accuser is unable to place specifically in time or place can be. So, once again, So What?—and doubly so after Ford’s lawyer admitted later that the professor’s objective was to protect Roe v. Wade, which, according to progressive hysteria, Kavanaugh would reverse.
Then the Times’ objective reviewer mentions the “other witnesses,” none of whom confirmed Ford’s account, all of whose claims have been discredited, and none of whom reported any conduct that went beyond Kavanaugh’s student days.
Never mind. Cohen writes, “The most interesting part of Marcus’s narrative is her discussion of why, in the end, the evidence mattered so little.” What evidence? There was no evidence that wouldn’t have been laughed out of any court in the country. A husband of a woman whose Obama nomination to be a judge Donald Trump killed said that he saw Kavanaugh dangle his penis in front of a female student at a party—and the female student said she didn’t remember it. Evidence? Cohen cites Deborah Ramirez as an accuser and says she had significant memory lapses. What he doesn’t say is that among those memory lapses appears to be the conduct she supposedly accused Kavanaugh of engaging in. Nobody,even the alleged witnesses she cited, could confirm her account. Evidence?
Shouldn’t an editor have required these minor details to be mentioned in the review? No, that would be impossible if the objective of attacking Justice Kavanaugh was going to be accomplished.
Finally, the review concludes with the obligatory insult to President Trump:
The week before this book’s publication date, President Trump told his 67 million Twitter followers that “the Ruth Marcus book is a badly written & researched disaster. So many incorrect facts. Fake News, just like the @washington post!” It would be hard to imagine a more persuasive endorsement.
That’s some book review, all right.