Is This The Most Unethical Book Review Ever?

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 teenagerwhen he was a teenagerwhen 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.

Cohen writes,

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 thatthe 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.

 

 

 

10 thoughts on “Is This The Most Unethical Book Review Ever?

  1. That Blasey-Ford bitch waited thirty years to come forward.

    Real victims do not wait that long. Elizabeth Smart came forward the day she was rescued, let alone by her twenty-fifth birthday.

    The Blasey-Ford bitch could not provide a date or a place.

    There is a preponderance of evidence that the Blasey-Ford bitch committed perjury.

    • I do agree that Blasey-Ford’s timing and motives are suspect. I do not agree that Elizabeth Smart – a kidnapping victim whose disappearance was national news – is an apt comparison. It’s not hard to believe the word of a teenager kidnapped from her home that she was sexually assaulted by her kidnapper.

  2. Unfortunately, as you point out, and as I pointed out at length, evidence, due process, and all that good stuff didn’t matter here. The fact that Kavanaugh defended himself persuasively doesn’t matter here. Just like in 2016, this was not what was supposed to happen. In 2016, Hillary was supposed to be elected handily, and the left can’t accept that didn’t happen legitimately. Somewhere there has to have been a hack or collusion or voter suppression or something not right.

    Here Kavanaugh was supposed to step down or the president was supposed to withdraw his nomination or something…he wasn’t supposed to get confirmed. Someone has to have gotten to Susan Collins or one of the other moderate Republicans. Someone has to have gotten to some of these other women and convinced them to forget the convincing details.

    Something somewhere somehow went really, really wrong, and now we’re stuck with this disgusting, privileged, sexist pervert on SCOTUS, who’s just waiting for the moment to some when he and the other disgusting privileged sexist male perverts, mostly white, can outnumber the three wise women and the one sage from Clinton’s time and declare a second war on women.

    This isn’t supposed to be – this is supposed to be a different America, where Hillary was elected, and kept Loretta Lynch as AG, and Sally Yates was still her number one assistant, and James Comey was replaced with a woman on day one, and Justice Scalia and Justice Kennedy were both replaced by women, and there’s now this all-noble, all-female team guarding wombs everywhere. This writer’s loyalty is to that other America, not the one that really exists.

    • Progressives have good reason to be frightened for the future of Roe-v-Wade. Not from SCOTUS, directly, but from the growing awareness across America of what the abortion industry really represents: human body parts being sold for profit, post birth abortions, and the cheapening of human life one finds ‘inconvenient.’

      China harvests body parts from political prisoners. Socialists find such deplorables ‘inconvenient,’ you know.

Leave a Reply to A.M. Golden Cancel 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.